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.
:-)

[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.

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.

[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?

[callistra.livejournal.com]

I love your posts.
:-)

[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.

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.

[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?