Barbelith Underground > Policy & Help > How do you tell when something's unacceptable on Barbelith? Changing to become a discussion on the future of Barbelith.

I'm reading the 'What gets you banned on Barbelith' thread from the beginning, something I have only done once before a long time ago. There's some really interesting and relevant things there which I'll post here rather than link to because sometimes linking to direct posts doesn't work too well.

There is this from Tom:

We have said in the past too that language that is intentionally racist or homophobic or sexist or anti-semitic and the like could make ethnic minorities, gay people, women, Jewish people etc. feel very uncomfortable or unwelcome on the board - even on occasions scared. As such it seems to me eminently fair that we should consider sustained racist / homophobic / sexist and anti-semitic post and language to constitute a form of harrassment of those members of Barbelith who belong to those groups. People who harrass members of Barbelith get booted out.

So I think at this point we have to consider whether the language itself consitutes harrassment wherever or whenever it is used - to which I would think the answer is no - and whether the persistence, strength or perceived intent of the language should be a relevant consideration. I think it basically should be. If someone says something uncharacteristically stupid, then we should give them the benefit of the doubt and query what they're doing and give them the opportunity to either hang themselves or apologise or rephrase. If someone says something based on a clear and proselytising belief that gay people / jewish people / women / gypsies etc are bad or evil or stupid and need to be controlled or put down or whatever, then we don't. They are banned. The scale of the comment, its persistence and its intent have to be taken seriously as considerations.

I think the argument that someone was 'just trying to be funny' here is a legitimate one - but they have to learn from that if people just didn't find it funny. They're within their rights as far as I am concerned to say, "Hm. I was just trying to be funny, but I guess for some of the people here I overstepped the mark. Rest assured I've taken it on board and if I'm angling for a laugh I won't use language like that again." Again people aren't obliged to find other people funny.

I would also add that members of the board should consider HOW to respond to someone who has made a stupid comment. People should bear in mind what they want the end result to be - do they want to cause a big fight, communicate the values that most people on Barbelith are comfortable with, or do they want to change someone's mind? More importantly people should consider what might not be preferable outcomes - like alienated new members who could have value but who are inspired to rampage by the frustrations of the unspoken rules of a new community. Basically, this is an appeal to have some perspective and to try and work out how to approach someone about something they might have said without putting them on the defensive, without cornering them so they feel they have to fight, and without allowing them to take the role of the oppressed revolutionary. People can be wrong without having their noses rubbed in it, they can say stupid things without being evil people. I do think it's important that we don't always think the purpose of a discussion is to win.

I also think that I understand more clearly the point of view of posters who do confront other posters when I read Flyboy's comment:

I don't agree with the idea that a calm, reasoned, gentle approach always makes people reconsider their views more effectively than fiery polemic. I speak from personal experience - I've been on the receiving end of highly-charged screeds, and if you're of a mind to examine your own positions in the first place, they will make you think again.

And this from Ganesh:

One of the main difficulties with addressing alleged harassment/trolling, as I see it, arises when we decide intent is of paramount importance. How do we go about assessing the intent behind a piece of apparent racism (or sexism, etc., etc.)? If someone maintains - in apparent sincerity - that their intention was/is to be funny, or explore dodgy conspiracy theories, or roleplay a racist persona, have we clarified that intent is benign? If others find that poster's comments funny, or want to talk about conspiracies, or enjoy the roleplay, does that make it more benign?

And this from Qalyn:

If objectionable forms of speech are arriving at Barbelith, not through the dedicated action of some deranged individual but because random individuals wander by and, uncoordinated, speak them, then it is less a matter of "providing a venue", or defending or lauding hate speech, than of some current out there in the broader world washing up here. Do we really want to put a chain across the harbor? Do we want to be an isolationist sort of place that refuses to engage with the filthy hordes? "Ick, they're racist, we don't want that sort here, best leave them to their own devices!"

Again, I'm talking about pragmatism, not ideals. I'm not defending racism or misogyny, I'm saying that making "correct" attitudes a membership requirement is not going to accomplish the goal you're looking for. Instead, people will grow bored with its orthodoxy and move on--as, Flyboy, has also happened.

If someone is doing something you don't like, stop them yourself. Defend yourself somehow. The Policy forum is a silly place to seek redress for everyday wrongs.

Tom, I think I agree with the general outline of your post, but I don't think that's the way it's shaken out here. I have seen a sort of Puritan hysteria over some particular member's asshole behavior at some given time reach a critical mass, resulting in deletion and/or banishment by fiat of the board's administrators. It is not systematic at all. I have tested the limits of it myself and seen that it has less to do with the behavior of the subject than with the mood of Barbelith's "power elites"--some fiery someone gets aggravated, righteously provokes the offender, and there is a brief shitstorm. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't have power elites or that we should be more systematic. I'm all for the shitstorm. I think we are a very interesting sort of social meritocracy and I like it that way. But I think there's something very smug, pathetic in fact, about pretending to be egalitarian and shoring up the pretense by barring people we don't like.

Don't use administrative power to censor people unless they have demonstrated that they are willfully attempting to wreck the community. The difference between a troll and an excitable halfwit is immediately obvious to all of us.

I won't post anymore acroos, but I think that it could be useful to read these two threads together.