What kind of space am I making here?

[sqbr]

Any time I come across an imbroglio/wank etc on the internet part of my reaction is to think "Could that be me?"(*). Since I tend to run a mile from conflict (if someone criticises me I tend to either apologise or "agree to disagree") a lot of the time the answer is "Maybe to begin with, but it wouldn't spiral out of control like that".

But something I am in danger of doing is staying silent when I should confront people, and by my silence implicitly supporting their actions. I've been thinking about the latest explosion with this whole Elizabeth Bear thing and comparing what she did to what I might do in such a situation (I don't have such a large friendslist, and I don't think anyone has ever posted anything critical about me that my friends might takes offense at, so I can't say for sure) But I have a headache and I'm not really up to it.

Luckily On safe space and responsibility is a post which says a lot of what I wanted to, so I shall link to it instead :)

I do mean to have a serious ponder about the downsides and of being "nice" and how responsible I am for the consequences of my own non-confrontationality especially as the moderator of the comments on this lj, but not today, I think. And now for a change, saying what I actually think was the last time I tried pondering it.

(*)though the post ven ve voke up, ve had zese wodies makes the very good point that it's pretty insulting to people being racially attacked to see this educational effect as the primary effect of racism imbroglios without acknowledging the pain they cause

Comments

[callistra.livejournal.com]

I love your posts.
:-)

[alias_sqbr]

Thankyou, glad to hear it.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I have a big problem with this, especially in person. It's basically just cowardice hiding behind a mask of 'politeness', but it's still very difficult to overcome.

[alias_sqbr]

Part of the problem with me in person is that I literally burst into tears when people yell at me or I even get very angry. This makes it hard to continue a dispute with much dignity :/

Spaces and choices

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

On the Internet, there are these very strong conflicting impulses - creating 'free' areas where people can say what they like, 'safe' ones where they can be free from things that inhibit discussion, and many other combinations. Real places have similar problems, but it's highlighted here as there's not much to do other than talk.

I read the post you linked, and the ones linked from it - it's all very interesting, and I understand what you mean by a safe discussion space, and why that would be a good thing. However one very interesting thing stood out to me in the key anecdote emily_shore used about her own past behaviour.

Briefly, in response to emily_shore's post examining a potential Jewish stereotype, a friend of hers made some comments which were dismissive of anti-semitism, and at the very least insensitive. emily_shore didn't respond, and was called out on this, on the basis that it prevented the establishment of a safe space.

This assertion was, I think, correct, and seems to be the key thing you're questioning in your own moderation.. but there's an aspect which nobody seemed to examine. The main people questioning emily_shore were kita0610, chopchica, ladycat777 and shayheyred. kita0610 in particular was the one who 'started' the debate, and shayheyred and emily_shore friended each other as a result of it. Everyone apologised, things became nicer in tone, and it all wrapped up, with emily_shore having examined her behaviour and determined to ensure a safer space in future, confronting anti-semitism as well as just sexism...

...and then kita0610 and shayheyred made a couple of comments which were at least as offensive as the original ones, perhaps rather more so. These comments definitely created an unsafe space for Palestinians and probably all arabs/muslims - there would be no way to respond to them without starting a fight. Nobody responded to these comments, or appeared to care about them in any other way.

My assumptions are that
- kita0610 et al thought they were Correct about Important Things, and so offence was irrelevant
- the other people who'd just then been decrying this sort of thing didn't realise the offence since it wasn't, this time, toward them
- emily_shore either didn't notice or didn't want to restart an argument with people she'd just then placated

Universally safe spaces: are they possible? Aren't there, for many issues and -isms, overlapping groups of people who are subject to prejudice and insults and yet frequently perpetrating the same?

Let's make this more direct, and expand the example above: in a place that was a completely safe discussion space for Jewish people, would it necessarily be the case that they could say things which are considered attacking or hostile by Palestinians? If they can't/don't, is it really safe for them? If they do, wouldn't it be unsafe for a Palestinian?

This is an extreme example, but it's also real. If I were you, I wouldn't drive yourself mad trying to ensure a completely safe space for any kind of discussion - the same sort of thing would apply even to some things as impersonal as economic systems, and it definitely applies to the intersections of different -isms. (Anecdote: I have seen african feminists and western feminists argue, the former saying "don't challenge MY right to find female circumcision unimportant - my people need to fight on their terms" and the latter going "don't challenge MY right to object to the oppression of other women by this practice". Does racism/imperialism "trump" feminism?)

If you just do the best you can with what reasonable amount of time is available - and that best is obviously quite good, since most people don't even consider these things - then I think that has to be okay.

Re: Spaces and choices

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

Oh, and the one thing that was obvious in the above anecdote, which is why it's just a minor anecdote, was that it wouldn't be meaningful for me to attempt to comment or fair to "choose"!

Re: Spaces and choices

[chopchica.livejournal.com]

Um, that would be because kita and shay didn't make comments about Palestinians, Muslims or Arabs, they made some comments about Hamas - which is a *terrorist group*. In fact, they are a terrorist group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. That is like saying that having isssues with the IRA is offensive to all Irish people and having issues with American white separatist groups is offensive to all Americans. Hell, it's like saying that Bush starting the Iraq war and staying there is horrible and indefensible is offensive to all Americans (most of whom *agree* that Bush starting the Iraq war and staying there is indefensible). They didn't make offensive and derogatory comments about Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians. In fact, they stated a basic fact - a fact that members of Hamas *agree with*; that they want to kill all of the Jews in Israel.

For you to say that kita and shay (and apparently me) having issues with a terrorist group that wants to destroy our *entire people* equals us hating and wanting to attack all Arabs/Muslims and Palestinians is disingenuous in the extreme.

ETA: Also, just to make it clear, if somebody Palestinian/Arab/Muslim had shown up and said this comment hurt them, I would have apologized for causing them pain. I would have explained that in this specific situation I was talking about a terrorist organization and that my comments were not meant to apply to an entire people as a whole - and for that and the pain I had caused (or *anybody* had caused), I was sorry.

Re: Spaces and choices

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

Well, I must say that I'm impressed with how quickly information disseminates around Livejournal. I disagree with your politics, and with your characterisation of what I said, but I'm not going to start a fight about it on sophie's lj and I don't think that you were being offensive in the first place anyway. I'm happy to accept that you don't intend to be hurtful, anyway.

Re: Spaces and choices

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Speaking as one of the people you're tacitly accusing -- had someone said something derogatory towards Palestinians/Arabs I would've been all over that, as well. The idea of safety is not a lack of criticism. It's making sure your criticism can be heard and that people will understand the whys and wherefores of what's going on, and maybe move on from that.

Also, frankly, I will never abid by the assertion that Hamas = Palestians. Ever. The latter are a people in a fucking awful situation, much like Israel is, and are as much the victim as the Israeli people are. Hamas is a terroristic organization that has insinuated itself into a governmental position.

Much like George Bush never represented my interests, I would never believe that Hamas represented all of Palestine's. That's ludicrous, and simplifies an immensely complicated situation.

Re: Spaces and choices

[alias_sqbr]

I have a headache so I'm not responding to your full comment (will get to it later possibly after a nap), but to (hopefully) prevent myself doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING as emily_shore before she wised up(*): I agree with your general point that it's important not to create a safe space for one group at the expense of another, and I have seen people do this.

But unless I'm missing something in the post that wasn't in that thread, nothing I saw "against" Palestinians was "at least as offensive as the original ones, perhaps rather more so". I'm inclined to agree with the people who've responded to you below (though I'm reading this all after minimal sleep, so it's possible I may have issues with their arguments as well)

Hmm. My family is constantly having HUGE fights about Israel/Palestine, I'm not sure I'd be able to moderate a discussion on the subject in an objective way (BOTH sides remind me of annoying family members who approach their positions irrationally), so I hope one doesn't develop. (Yes this is a hint to anyone reading this to take any argument elsewhere)

(*)And the irony of the situation repeating itself in a post about how I'd like to avoid it is not lost on me. As mum always says, if there is a god ze has a sarcastic sense of humour...

Considered reply

[alias_sqbr]

First, I think you've missed the significant thing emily_shore was apologising for: it wasn't just that she didn't call out the anti-semitism, it's that she let it slide and then when it got heated, she complained about the use of a sexist insult used in a relatively genderless way (by a woman towards another in an argument about something unrelated to gender/sex. Still bad, but not super sexist). If she'd just not moderated at all that would be different (still kind of bad, but more morally neutral), but that was a double standard which sent a very bad message.

Also, it was clear that someone was offended by the anti-semitism, and the person who said it had the chance to say "oops, I didn't mean it that way, sorry" etc and they didn't.

Now we don't KNOW that shayheyred would have apologised if a Palestinian had complained but we don't know they wouldn't either. There's still space for a Palestinian POV to be heard, and no strong sign it wouldn't be.

Jewish voices, on the other hand, were actively silenced in the act of defending themselves against anti-semitism.

So it's not symmetrical. And I definitely think you can create a space which is unsafe for both blatant anti-semitism and anti-palestinian sentiments. It might not be the most comfortable space for palestinians or jews since chances are members of both groups would occasionally have to be pulled back into line (as would everyone else), but "safe" is not the same as "comfortable".

I agree that there's always going to be ambiguity, things which one group considers a reasonable opinion and another bigotry and vice versa. But that doesn't mean there's no benefit in drawing a line against the unambiguous stuff and trying to deal with everything else consistently and as fairly as possible on a case by case basis.

[purrdence.livejournal.com]

So when do you think is the point between calling someone out for potentially stupid/offensive behavior and not feeding the troll/realising arguing with that person is not going to change their outlook?

[alias_sqbr]

Good question. Answer: I dunno, it's tricky.

I think when they're attacking/upsetting someone else (as here) you do usually have to step in to make it clear it's not acceptable but that doesn't necessarily mean arguing, you can just say "Stop this discussion right now" and freeze the thread etc.

[callistra.livejournal.com]

I love your posts.
:-)

[alias_sqbr]

Thankyou, glad to hear it.

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I have a big problem with this, especially in person. It's basically just cowardice hiding behind a mask of 'politeness', but it's still very difficult to overcome.

[alias_sqbr]

Part of the problem with me in person is that I literally burst into tears when people yell at me or I even get very angry. This makes it hard to continue a dispute with much dignity :/

Spaces and choices

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

On the Internet, there are these very strong conflicting impulses - creating 'free' areas where people can say what they like, 'safe' ones where they can be free from things that inhibit discussion, and many other combinations. Real places have similar problems, but it's highlighted here as there's not much to do other than talk.

I read the post you linked, and the ones linked from it - it's all very interesting, and I understand what you mean by a safe discussion space, and why that would be a good thing. However one very interesting thing stood out to me in the key anecdote emily_shore used about her own past behaviour.

Briefly, in response to emily_shore's post examining a potential Jewish stereotype, a friend of hers made some comments which were dismissive of anti-semitism, and at the very least insensitive. emily_shore didn't respond, and was called out on this, on the basis that it prevented the establishment of a safe space.

This assertion was, I think, correct, and seems to be the key thing you're questioning in your own moderation.. but there's an aspect which nobody seemed to examine. The main people questioning emily_shore were kita0610, chopchica, ladycat777 and shayheyred. kita0610 in particular was the one who 'started' the debate, and shayheyred and emily_shore friended each other as a result of it. Everyone apologised, things became nicer in tone, and it all wrapped up, with emily_shore having examined her behaviour and determined to ensure a safer space in future, confronting anti-semitism as well as just sexism...

...and then kita0610 and shayheyred made a couple of comments which were at least as offensive as the original ones, perhaps rather more so. These comments definitely created an unsafe space for Palestinians and probably all arabs/muslims - there would be no way to respond to them without starting a fight. Nobody responded to these comments, or appeared to care about them in any other way.

My assumptions are that
- kita0610 et al thought they were Correct about Important Things, and so offence was irrelevant
- the other people who'd just then been decrying this sort of thing didn't realise the offence since it wasn't, this time, toward them
- emily_shore either didn't notice or didn't want to restart an argument with people she'd just then placated

Universally safe spaces: are they possible? Aren't there, for many issues and -isms, overlapping groups of people who are subject to prejudice and insults and yet frequently perpetrating the same?

Let's make this more direct, and expand the example above: in a place that was a completely safe discussion space for Jewish people, would it necessarily be the case that they could say things which are considered attacking or hostile by Palestinians? If they can't/don't, is it really safe for them? If they do, wouldn't it be unsafe for a Palestinian?

This is an extreme example, but it's also real. If I were you, I wouldn't drive yourself mad trying to ensure a completely safe space for any kind of discussion - the same sort of thing would apply even to some things as impersonal as economic systems, and it definitely applies to the intersections of different -isms. (Anecdote: I have seen african feminists and western feminists argue, the former saying "don't challenge MY right to find female circumcision unimportant - my people need to fight on their terms" and the latter going "don't challenge MY right to object to the oppression of other women by this practice". Does racism/imperialism "trump" feminism?)

If you just do the best you can with what reasonable amount of time is available - and that best is obviously quite good, since most people don't even consider these things - then I think that has to be okay.

Re: Spaces and choices

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

Oh, and the one thing that was obvious in the above anecdote, which is why it's just a minor anecdote, was that it wouldn't be meaningful for me to attempt to comment or fair to "choose"!

Re: Spaces and choices

[chopchica.livejournal.com]

Um, that would be because kita and shay didn't make comments about Palestinians, Muslims or Arabs, they made some comments about Hamas - which is a *terrorist group*. In fact, they are a terrorist group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. That is like saying that having isssues with the IRA is offensive to all Irish people and having issues with American white separatist groups is offensive to all Americans. Hell, it's like saying that Bush starting the Iraq war and staying there is horrible and indefensible is offensive to all Americans (most of whom *agree* that Bush starting the Iraq war and staying there is indefensible). They didn't make offensive and derogatory comments about Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians. In fact, they stated a basic fact - a fact that members of Hamas *agree with*; that they want to kill all of the Jews in Israel.

For you to say that kita and shay (and apparently me) having issues with a terrorist group that wants to destroy our *entire people* equals us hating and wanting to attack all Arabs/Muslims and Palestinians is disingenuous in the extreme.

ETA: Also, just to make it clear, if somebody Palestinian/Arab/Muslim had shown up and said this comment hurt them, I would have apologized for causing them pain. I would have explained that in this specific situation I was talking about a terrorist organization and that my comments were not meant to apply to an entire people as a whole - and for that and the pain I had caused (or *anybody* had caused), I was sorry.

Re: Spaces and choices

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Speaking as one of the people you're tacitly accusing -- had someone said something derogatory towards Palestinians/Arabs I would've been all over that, as well. The idea of safety is not a lack of criticism. It's making sure your criticism can be heard and that people will understand the whys and wherefores of what's going on, and maybe move on from that.

Also, frankly, I will never abid by the assertion that Hamas = Palestians. Ever. The latter are a people in a fucking awful situation, much like Israel is, and are as much the victim as the Israeli people are. Hamas is a terroristic organization that has insinuated itself into a governmental position.

Much like George Bush never represented my interests, I would never believe that Hamas represented all of Palestine's. That's ludicrous, and simplifies an immensely complicated situation.

Re: Spaces and choices

[alias_sqbr]

I have a headache so I'm not responding to your full comment (will get to it later possibly after a nap), but to (hopefully) prevent myself doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING as emily_shore before she wised up(*): I agree with your general point that it's important not to create a safe space for one group at the expense of another, and I have seen people do this.

But unless I'm missing something in the post that wasn't in that thread, nothing I saw "against" Palestinians was "at least as offensive as the original ones, perhaps rather more so". I'm inclined to agree with the people who've responded to you below (though I'm reading this all after minimal sleep, so it's possible I may have issues with their arguments as well)

Hmm. My family is constantly having HUGE fights about Israel/Palestine, I'm not sure I'd be able to moderate a discussion on the subject in an objective way (BOTH sides remind me of annoying family members who approach their positions irrationally), so I hope one doesn't develop. (Yes this is a hint to anyone reading this to take any argument elsewhere)

(*)And the irony of the situation repeating itself in a post about how I'd like to avoid it is not lost on me. As mum always says, if there is a god ze has a sarcastic sense of humour...

Considered reply

[alias_sqbr]

First, I think you've missed the significant thing emily_shore was apologising for: it wasn't just that she didn't call out the anti-semitism, it's that she let it slide and then when it got heated, she complained about the use of a sexist insult used in a relatively genderless way (by a woman towards another in an argument about something unrelated to gender/sex. Still bad, but not super sexist). If she'd just not moderated at all that would be different (still kind of bad, but more morally neutral), but that was a double standard which sent a very bad message.

Also, it was clear that someone was offended by the anti-semitism, and the person who said it had the chance to say "oops, I didn't mean it that way, sorry" etc and they didn't.

Now we don't KNOW that shayheyred would have apologised if a Palestinian had complained but we don't know they wouldn't either. There's still space for a Palestinian POV to be heard, and no strong sign it wouldn't be.

Jewish voices, on the other hand, were actively silenced in the act of defending themselves against anti-semitism.

So it's not symmetrical. And I definitely think you can create a space which is unsafe for both blatant anti-semitism and anti-palestinian sentiments. It might not be the most comfortable space for palestinians or jews since chances are members of both groups would occasionally have to be pulled back into line (as would everyone else), but "safe" is not the same as "comfortable".

I agree that there's always going to be ambiguity, things which one group considers a reasonable opinion and another bigotry and vice versa. But that doesn't mean there's no benefit in drawing a line against the unambiguous stuff and trying to deal with everything else consistently and as fairly as possible on a case by case basis.

[purrdence.livejournal.com]

So when do you think is the point between calling someone out for potentially stupid/offensive behavior and not feeding the troll/realising arguing with that person is not going to change their outlook?

[alias_sqbr]

Good question. Answer: I dunno, it's tricky.

I think when they're attacking/upsetting someone else (as here) you do usually have to step in to make it clear it's not acceptable but that doesn't necessarily mean arguing, you can just say "Stop this discussion right now" and freeze the thread etc.