On Pile-ons as a way of enforcing community norms

[sqbr]

Disclaimer: I am sick today. This may be utter crap. But my muse was awoken by this discussion and it Will Not Be Silenced! Anyway, I may suck at replying to comments, since I plan to spend the next day and a half napping.

Also: as per the terms of service, I would like it if you read the whole post and all the comments before making your own. I have no way to enforce this community norm except asking nicely :)

---

So.

There's been a of of discussion on metafandom recently about the use of "dog-piling" (or, less pejoratively, "piling-on"), when someone posts something other people don't like (either for shallow reasons like personal taste or due to serious issues like racism etc) and they get inundated with negative replies, and you get a huge swathe of people posting about it on their personal ljs, etc. See for example Why Is There Not More Shunning? and nice is different than good.

Now overall there are pros and cons to this behaviour, like a lot of people I think it's sometimes justifiable (or even necessary) but other times is over-the-top and a bit mob-mentality-ish. It depends on the context, and the manner in which people "pile on".

Personal posts inspired by a big blow up like this can have several purposes, two common ones being simple venting or using this single incident to illustrate a more general problem. But something which has been brought up a bunch of times is "policing of community norms", and I was struck today by how the way "piling on" often works isn't always conducive to this, as the original transgression becomes so magnified in the purple-monkey-dishwasher of people writing posts based on other peoples outraged posts (not reading the original source) that the "community norm" that gets enforced ends up being something really bland and obvious rather than the more complex issue that started it all. Yet it feels like the only people who complain about this are trying to defend the pile-on-ees feelings/honour etc, rather than caring about the social value of truth per se.

I'm going to use the "Open Source Boob Project" as an example since I got kind of involved and it illustrates my point well. A lot of the posts about the OSBP didn't bother to go into the details of what happened, but were mostly just venting the frustration caused by years of crap from the icky badness of fandom (or society in general). Which is absolutely understandable and a valid thing to do. When other people complained that they were misrepresenting what happened the response was mostly "Sure, you may have had nice rules on paper, but this is what it really meant underneath/what you did at the beginning/what would have happened eventually", and I can certainly see that argument. The fact that theferrett's original post gave entirely the wrong impression didn't help matters.

But... then a second group of people read those posts and made other posts along the lines of "If they had not have made it part of the con signup process/let women wearing green badges say no/had it be run by women/groped men's asses too/etc then it would have been fine, but as it is it's disgusting". One can imagine such people theoretically starting a similar idea at a con where it wasn't part of the con signup process, women wearing green badges could say no etc and considering themselves much more enlightened ..except that's exactly what the OSBP did. So what did that second group of people learn, exactly? That it's not ok for men to explicitly expect random women to let them touch their boobs? I'm pretty sure most people knew that already, including theferrett etc. The community norm being policed is more subtle and complex than that.

EDIT: If you don't have a problem with the OSBP then the argument above won't mean much to you, so imagine I'm talking about some other situation where someone did something you think is really bad, and then they got misrepresented as being even worse than that.

I've seen similar issues with the way history is taught: for example, I always got the impression that 19th Century british colonialists were 100% after money and power etc, and had absolutely no concern for the africans. "Well", I can think to myself "Hasn't society progressed". But learning more about history I discover that the english public was actually quite concerned about african welfare (in a paternalistic, racist sort of way) and that even the most violent, cruel colonialist regime sold themselves to shareholders etc as philanthropic gestures of education and improvement. Kind of like they do now. Which is a lot scarier, and actually makes me think.

So how to combat this? Well, I say: if you are genuinely interested in policing community norms, don't demonise the people you're criticising. Not just because it's kind of mean (although imo that should play some part in it too) but because if you tell people "Don't act like this totally evil, moustache twirling villain" they won't feel any need to critically self-examine their behavior, because they know they're *not* totally evil, moustache twirling villains.

And if you're venting, or going off on a tangent etc, then maybe consider adding a disclaimer, like "This is just a rough description, *insert link here* has a more in depth description of what actually happened" etc. Though I agree that one can't be held entirely responsible for people mistaking a rant for a reliable source of unbiased information.

And, most importantly, as much as possible don't base you opinions on second hand reports, especially if you're passing judgement on someone. I also think people should read all the comments on an offending post (or at least the whole post itself!) before ranting at the OP, in case they've recanted or clarified somewhere, but I realise this does involve a LOT of effort once the pile-on gets going(*). And don't be too quick to pigeonhole people who get dog-piled as stock, totally evil, moustache twirling villains, instead look at what really happened, and why they did what they did, and why it's bad, and really ask yourself whether or not it's something you might have done in similar circumstances, and if you'd have known it was bad without having everyone point it out to you. Sorry if this sounds a bit condescending, I get very tactless when I'm sick! And it's easy for me to judge, since my main flaw is not being critical enough.

None of this is to argue against pile-ons per se, or that they can't help people understand what is and isn't acceptable behaviour (individually or as a community) I'm just pointing out an unfortunate flaw that I hadn't seen addressed.

I'd probably have something to say about how this relates to fandom_wank if I read it :)

EDIT: Two things that struck me later.
1)Beyond defining what is and is not acceptable, it is sometimes good to create a general environment of not fear exactly, but one in which people are aware that they can't get away with doing stupid crap, and to this end the exact limits of what counts as "stupid crap" is less important. For example, most people in fanfic fandom would agree, in principle, that racism is bad, but I think it took a whole bunch of people piling-on against individual racist actions to (start to) create a general sense that racism is bad and you shouldn't expect to get away with it, and that criticising things for being racist is a normal and acceptable thing to do.
2)I've ignored the possibility that, eg, the people who misunderstood the OSBP had, in fact, read the original post, and maybe even some of the more detailed and accurate discussion, and managed to still misunderstand the situation all on their own :)

(*)I realise this is veering more into "Don't demonise people because it's mean" rather than my main point of "Don't demonise people because it muddies the message", but I still think it deserves saying.

Comments

[daf9.livejournal.com]

Yes! I think you make two very good points. The first being that the intentions of an OP are often quite reasonable whether or not everyone sees them that way. The second being whether outrage at something likes OSBP really increases awareness of the more serious problem of sexual harassment or just trivializes the more serious problem.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. See, I think we disagree on the OSBP, and I think that changes the meaning of my post (my fault, should have written it less ambiguously) You're welcome to think it wasn't unacceptable, but my post was written on the assumption that the reader thought it was. That said, I'm sure there have been times when someone did something you thought was unacceptable, and then it got blown into something worse than it really was, and the conversation got muddied. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

The first being that the intentions of an OP are often quite reasonable whether or not everyone sees them that way

I would say that their intentions are often more reasonable than they are presented as being, but that doesn't make them good. (I mean, they are sometimes, but my post wasn't really about those times)

It's like: if I rob someone, and then get falsely accused of murder, that's unfair, but it doesn't make me any less of a thief.

The second being whether outrage at something likes OSBP really increases awareness of the more serious problem of sexual harassment or just trivializes the more serious problem.

Personally I think something like sexual harassment should be fought on all fronts, the major and the comparatively minor. If anything, my problem is the reverse of yours: I think by acting as if the OSBP was a more major and obvious case of sexual harassment than it really was, we define the limits of acceptable behavior too broadly, and a lot of people are not aware that even the OSBP as it actually was is still unacceptable (to the people making the angry posts). Yes, we should stand up against major sexual harassment at cons (and it does happen) But most of the sexual harassment that happens is minor, so if we can stop the minor stuff it will have a large cumulative effect.

See also my reply to amymccabe above.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

Sorry. I intended my comment for anymccabe, not your original post. Although there are also two points you made in your original post that I agree with. Namely this
So how to combat this? Well, I say: if you are genuinely interested in policing community norms, don't demonise the people you're criticising.

and this
And, most importantly, as much as possible don't base you opinions on second hand reports, especially if you're passing judgement on someone. I also think people should read all the comments on an offending post (or at least the whole post itself!) before ranting at the OP, in case they've recanted or clarified somewhere,

But you're right, we disagree on the OSBP. I think political correctness can be carried too far. In this particular case it troubles me for two reasons. First, I wasn't there but it was my impression that there were women who chose to participate in this experiment. It seems to me that all the outrage that followed is at least in part sending a message to those women that they participated in sexual harassment; in other words they are incapable of trusting their own judgement of what is and isn't.

The second reason it troubles me is related to this comment of yours Beyond defining what is and is not acceptable, it is sometimes good to create a general environment of not fear exactly, but one in which people are aware that they can't get away with doing stupid crap, and to this end the exact limits of what counts as "stupid crap" is less important.

I fail to see how this attitude can't generate a general environment of fear. Because if the limits of what counts as "stupid crap" are ill defined and based on point one, individuals can't rely on their own judgement to recognize "stupid crap", then the only way to avoid unacceptable behavior is for everyone to walk around on eggshells, questioning themselves all the time. So men decide not to hire female employees or teach female students because there is an ever present potential there to be misunderstood. I see that happening already and I don't think it's good for anybody.

[alias_sqbr]

Ah! In that context it makes perfect sense :) You might want to actually reply to anymccabe, I have a nasty feeling I've contributed to her feeling a bit besieged and she might enjoy the voice of support.

Anyway.

I actually agree that the "You women think you were being empowered and having a good time, but you were actually miserable and not smart enough to notice" message was pretty off, especially since women were running the damn thing. I think the OSBP is a bad idea because it's dangerous, I have no evidence to say it actually hurt anyone in practice (I do feel sure it would in the long run, but I actually think Ferett etc agree on that, now that people have pointed it out)

Because if the limits of what counts as "stupid crap" are ill defined and based on point one, individuals can't rely on their own judgement to recognize "stupid crap", then the only way to avoid unacceptable behavior is for everyone to walk around on eggshells, questioning themselves all the time.

But what's the alternative? Not calling people on their stupid crap? It's like any negative behavior: However harshly you punish it, however carefully you define the parameters, there will always be innocent people who suffer, and guilty people who don't, and those who are made too nervous due to fear of reprisal, and those who are made too bold due to a lack of reprisal. Which isn't to say it's impossible for the reprisals against sexual harassment etc to be too harsh in general, but in my opinion they manage to be both too mild in general, and too harsh in certain particular cases. Which, obviously, is a bad thing, and I think people need to confront that, but I think the solution is making the system fairer, not less harsh.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

It's the mob mentality of either engaging in or calling people on stupid crap that concerns me. If there were individuals who were not just invited to participate in the OSBP but felt they were being cajoled or intimidated by the mob - I think that's wrong. But similarly I think it's wrong to condemn the very idea because it has the potential to hurt (as well as to empower) someone.

And I think I agree with you that reprisals for sexual harassment are both too mild in general and too harsh in specific cases. I don't know what the solution is. But I like to think that people can discuss it without degenerating into name calling or accusations.

[alias_sqbr]

But similarly I think it's wrong to condemn the very idea because it has the potential to hurt (as well as to empower) someone

If it was a fairly mild potential, I would say yes, but in my opinion that potential is too high (unless the circumstances were different, like if it was a room party with the rules explained on the invite) But I guess you disagree, which is fair enough.

But I like to think that people can discuss it without degenerating into name calling or accusations.

I think people should try to discuss volatile topics without degenerating into name calling or (unfounded) accusations, but I'm not so sure they can, not in large groups on the internet anyway :/