The existing rules aren’t working, so they’re going to get revamped. In particular, everyone pretty much ignores section V, especially this bit:
2. Justice is more important than civility. But aspire to be charitable at first.
That’s been annoying me for some time now, and it’s time to refocus and re-emphasize, so that means the whole thing is going to re-written.
It’s not easy, though, and I’ve been struggling with it a bit. I know some things are definitely going to happen: Thunderdome is going to die. It was intended to be a sinkhole for viciousness that kept it out of everywhere else, but it’s simply not doing the job — instead, the lack of targets there means people go hunting for trouble on the rest of the blog. So this is absolutely the last iteration of that thread.
I’m going to replace it with some sort of news thread, since the ongoing discussion about race and justice that began with a thread about Ferguson is still going strong. So instead of a “here’s where it’s OK to shred annoyances” thread, it’ll be a thread about “here’s where you should share information about injustice” thread.
Otherwise though, I have to smack around some bad habits and attitudes that have been growing around here. Before I lay down the new laws, though, I’m going to give you all a chance to make some proposals yourself. Keep in mind that one problem is a kind of hostile cliquishness that I want to disrupt rather than reinforce, so don’t approach it with the attitude of adding to the privilege of the regulars. We need to make the place a little more welcoming to new people, and less likely to turn into an episode of Game of Thrones.
Thunderdome gone?
*sob*
Oh, well.
Thank you PZ. I was going to shoot you an email about your comment section but figured it was something you were cool with. Looks like you were reading my mind though.
We will probably always have cliquishness, we’ve been together for a long time.
But greater insistence on holding off before firing would be good.
Thunderdome is generally pretty quiet, except when a new chewtoy appears, and then it can get nasty fast. I think I’d rather just see the chewtoy types slapped down politely, hard, and fast, and then kicked out, which would make Thunderdome unnecessary.
The regulars are generally a good group, and I have no interest in driving them away. But they have also become a rather tightly coordinated and effective army — which makes it hard for new people to fit in, and also means that when someone makes even a minor breach of the accepted standards, they don’t get admonished and corrected. Instead, the artillery is called in, the A-10s come roaring overhead, and the whole battalion wheels and fires, and the miscreant is obliterated.
It’s not a good environment for educating and learning, you know.
Well, I have seen a few instances where the whole blog seems to jump to a conclusion, and to go into full shred mode on anyone who disagrees. Of course, when I agree, it’s cool, but there have been a couple of times . . . one where PZ himself just said that anybody who didn’t agree was wrong because they were immature.
Look, I have been cleaned out a few times when I was wrong, and I learned and apologized and learned. I have also been jumped for things that I wasn’t sure about, but I apologized and tried to learn.
But on the few occasions when the whole place is head-down-and-locked, well, it feels too much like what the fundamentalists project on us. We need to be careful not to get on a high horse and gallop into a dudgeon. Righteous wrath is righteous, but let’s check to be sure that we are right.
The one difficulty I can think of is that the Thunderdome seems to also serve as a place for people to hang out who have various reasons for not doing so in the Lounge. I’d be interested in hearing from them what they’d want to have to fill that role in the future.
I’m (very) new to Pharyngula, neither a regular nor a frequent poster, not particularly likely to become either more regular or more frequent, and with no aspirations to become a member of any more cliques than those I already belong to elseblog (regular and/or frequent posting anywhere takes a lot of time and energy, as does belonging—fortuitously or deliberately—to a clique; and my time and energy are both flagging these days). Thus I have, personally, very little at stake here, which may allow me to be more objective than I might be otherwise, but which also (of course) certainly increases the chances that what I think is me being objective is just me being ignorant. With all that as disclaimer: yeah, I’ve sometimes observed “a kind of hostile cliquishness”, intermittently and somewhat randomly (though various particular manifestations of it can be grouped together in semi-predictable ways). Neither the hostility nor the cliquishness has bothered me on my own behalf very much (but I have more than enough privilege, extra-Pharyngularly, that I can afford to be not-bothered by an awful lot of in-itself-bothersome behavior directed at me: I don’t get aggressed, even micro-aggressed, all day every day). Both (the hostility more than the cliquishness) have bothered me, sometimes, though still not very much, on some other posters’ behalves. Neither hostility nor cliquishness bothers me AT ALL when they’re being turned against obvious trolls (though my own preferences in troll-fighting techniques tend less towards overt hostility, and more towards gentle but persistent and sometimes surreal mockery—which has its own drawbacks, of course). How you (P.Z.) can successfully institutionalize any change in your commentariat’s behavior, without (and possibly even with) spending an enormous amount of effort actively moderating, is hard for me to say; I’m sure I couldn’t do it. Good luck.
So does this mean there will be no more Ferguson/racism-specific thread? Will that be combined into the News thread? Or will it remain as a separate issue/continuing thread?
Because while there’s not much discussion over there, I’ve been attempting to keep the focus pretty tight onto racism and police brutality, or on issues directly influencing either one of those (or both). Yes there’s a lot of overlap and yes I miss things, but… I feel that, if diluted with other news, the whole point of starting the documentation over there will be lost.
That being said, I can also take the hint and branch out on my own in this regard. Finally, I suppose.
Hi, PZ. Can I make a suggestion on the specific rule you’ve called out? Not a suggestion of the form “You should do X”, but more just a suggestion of what to emphasize, or how to make the argument for charity more clear.
Most newly-minted rationalists I’ve met love to talk about Occam’s Razor – cut away anything that has a simpler solution available. It’s a great weapon for hacking apart someone else’s arguments, so combative atheists love it for that, and bring it out whenever they can. The problem with it is that it’s great to use against others, but very difficult to apply to oneself – it takes a lot of discipline and a willingness to be critical to the core of ones’ self.
I see this as a problem, because it’s fantastic for defending yourself against ideas you don’t like, regardless of truth value. I’m looking at you, manosphere/slymepitters. It’s also used at times here, though not as regularly.
The sad thing is that Occam’s Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, so often overshadows what I consider to be a much more important tool for the free-thinker – the Principle of Charity. Being charitable to the ideas of others – searching for the strongest valid form of the idea and assuming that to be the argument that’s presented – is enormously important to defeating our own confirmation bias. It’s designed to be directed inwards, to attack ones’ own ideas, unlike Parsimony, which is typically used outwards, to destroy other ideas.
Can I suggest that we emphasize the Principle of Charity as much as we do the Law of Parsimony here on Pharyngula? I’ve always seen your blog as a place where adults talk, and where we are as critical, or more, with ourselves than as with the ideas of others. Making that explicit may help to cool some jets and give newcomers a bit of a buffer.
Just my opinion though! Looking forward to critiques.
A well coordinated army delivers just the right amount of firepower to get the desired result.
The Horde is uncoordinated, and that’s what I see as the cause of the pile-on that scares away newbies (myself included, mostly lurking for years).
I don’t really know how to limit the pile-on effect. Every time it happens, each person piling on is adding a new detail to the conversation.
@PZ – “hostile cliquishness that I want to disrupt ”
It’s very Hamiltonian of you to address the “tyranny of the majority”.
I am glad to see it.
I’m going to miss Thunderdome.The place has its good sides. The atmosphere is different than in the Lounge, which suits me at times.
Oh well, things change.
I’m not sure what rules could help with some inside problems. Regulars have been here for years, even for me it’s already been 5 years or so. People got to know each other, relationships were formed – not all of them positive, as the latest showdown made clear. I don’t know. I think all you can do in such situations is close commenting and tell people to chill. Because the situation is different than with some new commenter because we’re all involved in a way.
So for situations with new commenter: I think us monitors should take some more responsibility in situations of too quick pile ons on new commenters. Instead of joining in, trying to calm the situation a bit. So basically, same rules but with more careful application by those of us who already promised to take care this place runs smoothly.
I don’t know, what do others think?
I have no constructive suggestions re commenting rules, only an observation. Pharyngula is unique among the great sea of internet blogs in that the willing application of rational thinking is objectively encouraged. As such, it is a kind of lifeline for me. Out there in the “real” world hyper vigilance is required. Here, not nearly so much and that is a huge relief and support. The cliquishness bothers me not at all. But yes, any adjustments that accomplish a more welcoming atmosphere to new people can only be an improvement. I also agree with carlie at #6 – the Thunderdome does offer an alternative to the Lounge and that is useful.
I’m going to have to think carefully about this. I would like to see us have a more diverse set of ways to respond. I try to take my cues from others as often as possible for what might be the best response. It can take me a bit to adapt.
PZ,
I like the Thunderdome and I’m one of the people that carlie #6 mentioned that don’t feel at easy in the Lounge. The Tdome, at least in its current form, allows for arguments (polite and not so polite) that simply aren’t possible in the Lounge, but it still has a cozy feel to it (probably because I like the regulars there). Another important function of the Tdome is to host any discussion which are off-topic in regular threads. When I see that I’m deviating from the subject of a single post, I invite the person I’m talking to to the Tdome so as not to disrupt the original thread. Finally, if and when an Injustice thread will be created I’d rather it be devoid of clueless arguments and serve more as a news/educational space, so that the important examples of inequality won’t be drawn out by inane arguments.
For all of these reasons I suggest to rename the Tdome into something like The Off-Topic Thread and keep it with moderate moderation.
On the subject of an Injustice Thread – I completely agree with you! The Ferguson thread is now in its third(?) incarnation and together with its previous incarnations it holds thousands of comments. Having such a thread in an easy to find place is a must.*
As for the cliques – there is a bit of that here, but I think it’s caused more by certain personality clashes rather than cliquishness per se. Some people are argumentative and vocal then others and when they dominate an argument it looks like there is a clique here. My solution: kindly ask them to take a short breather?
*I sometimes post news items that clearly relate to injustice, but in other countries, which means they wouldn’t really relate to what most people would look for in the injustice thread – namely, injustices common in North America where most of the commentariat lives or comes from. This is another example why an off-topic thread must exist.
I’ve lurked on this blog (and other FT blogs) for years, commenting only occasionally. Part of that is just a tendency to reticence. Part of it is I usually can’t claim to have anything original or enlightening to add, and don’t want to post something banal just for the sake of posting. I find most of the commenters here to be intelligent and insightful, and that’s enough. I come here to learn. But it is also true that I feel a hesitation to post because I will be considered an outsider and not worthy of acknowledgement or response.
Just my (probably uninteresting ) two cents. Carry on.
I don’t see the cliquishness or pile-ons as being all that bad here. Obviously some likeminded people stick together and tend to be involved in the same discussions because of their shared interest in certain topics. But in most cases things only get nasty when the new person displays arrogance or is clearly looking for a fight. The thing with pile-ons is that while they can sometimes cross the line to being overly harsh to the person being piled upon, there is usually a whole lot of good information provided. Person A says something ignorant or obnoxious and gets 5 responses but all 5 have different information, different perspectives and really help the audience see the scope of the wrongness of the initial statement. Alot of the subjects that I’ve been most recently educated on (feminism, structural racism, the problematic nature of EvoPsych, Trans issues etc.) has been by way of reading not 1 refutation of a comment, but reading 5 or 10 different ones. Anyways so that’s just something to consider.
Broken Things ^^What they said. In addition, I’m in a time zone way out if sync with the rest of youse, so if I find myself posting something (after rewriting and rewriting and tweaking … I’m not a verbal person, stuff like this is hard for me) I’ll find that the thread is long dead. bummer. Also what Uncle Ebenezer said. In spades.
lol
What??! Cliquish tribalism in Pharyngula comments? Say not so! Whenever did that shit start?
Return to the future!!!
Sven DiMilo #19
I wasn’t even on Pharyngula when you wrote that, but the statistics are intriguing.
PZ,
I like the idea of an Injustice thread but could you keep rq’s racism in the USA thread separate, please, at least for the time being? There’s so much going on at the moment that it would be hard to follow it if mixed with other topics.
I won’t miss Thunderdome.
Can you find a way to incorporate a Pharyngula-appropriate definition of rudeness into the rules? Something along the lines of – refusing to read a link is rude if you’ve asked the question it answers, as are patronising and demeaning language, an apparent refusal to answer commenters who might be women, the assumption of total ignorance in others and rambling on about something but refusing to address questions/read the counter argument about that very idea. Also endless repetition of the point you made which is being challenged. In this context occasional use of the word “fuck” is regarded as much less rude, or not rude at all – something like that, anyway.
Thanks.
@Broken Things, #16:
This is the thing that I most want to disrupt. The value of the comment should depend solely on the content of the comment.
Recently it was me-against-the-world in ThunderDome, and whatever anyone might think of what I had to say there, if people took away from that the fact that fuck-ups are not tolerated because they are fuck-ups and not because of **who makes the fuck-ups** then there will be a good purpose served.
What I fear, however, is that people will feel like you, Broken Things, about being afraid to comment for fear it won’t be taken seriously AND discouraged about the long-term benefits of commenting because, look! Even if I join the clique I might still be torn apart!
So, as typical, I’ve started writing this comment without having any idea where it would go. Along the way, I had an idea.
PZ has always avoided the comment-counter plug-ins. And I think he’s right to worry about such plug-ins reinforcing cliquishness (or worse: encouraging people to make useless, thoughtless comments just to get a high comment count).
BUT…
…if the comment counter ran int he background and its only function was to add to the comment header “Kiss me! I’m a new commenter!” or something much better than that without the connotations of non-consent that communicates a reminder of the welcoming attitude to which we aspire.
After 50 comments, it goes away and is replaced by nothing.
You’re especially welcomed or you’re one of the crowd, but no special privileges, no prizes.
And, really, the new commenter logo/catchphrase/friendly-green font color/whatever is more for the everyone else than the person whose comment bears that stamp. Regulars get a reminder of our values and hopefully develop better behaviors. Persons thinking about commenting can look and see how we treat those comments that bear that stamp. Are they ignored? Do they fetch more hostile notice than comments without that mark? If we do our work right, they’ll be able to see that joining the conversation is low-risk and worth it. But in any case, it will make it easier for someone who is worried about commenting to get an accurate picture of how we treat new folks. Having that information can only be helpful, whatever it shows.
I guess my suggestions would be along the lines of:
Don’t expect this place to self-moderate if you are asking for incremental and somewhat subjective changes in behavior. The rules-lawyering noise will be of greater magnitude than the signal of actual change.
Remember that the status quo selects for people who are okay with persistent hostility. Maintaining that status quo reflects a choice to exclude those who are not okay with persistent hostility.
If there was a way to codify a reminder to all commenters that there’s a chance they could be wrong regardless of the interaction, that would be nice.
This for me is relevant. I assume that my relatively frequent commenting a few years back didn’t make much impact, but I enjoyed it. I don’t comment much now after being on the receiving end of a disagreement with most of the regulars. Not unhappy with that, but don’t see much point in disagreeing with anyone here now and just mostly lurk instead. I find this odd as I am particularly argumentative in real life and enjoy heated discussions. #17 Uncle Ebeneezer is wrong – he assumes that the hivemind is correct in every way, alternatives and nuance are snuffed out within minutes. That is not good.
Solutions. Don’t have any just now, maybe later, but just wanted to say that if you want diversity of opinion, this is a problem.
Now that I think about it, I foresee some other problems that will come up without Thunderdome.
What are we going to do about off topic arguments? For example, prolonged arguments with new folks who are not well intentioned often happen because of speech that is not accepted here or about terms people are not sure whether they are acceptable or not. Sometimes it’s not a problem if they derail a thread, but sometimes they make it impossible to actually discuss the topic.
Now at least someone could ask the participant to take it to Thunderdome. What will we do now?
It’s not an uncommon problem.
I am resigning myself to the necessity of more moderation…which is weird, because the usual stereotype out there is that I censor heavily. I don’t. Quite the opposite, actually, which may be part of the problem — I’m letting a lot of crap go by.
What would people say to having a few people with the power to edit comments? It could be a few elected people here, or I might just give my wife The Power.
Beatrice #25 has a good point about off-topic arguments.
.
I prefer the Thunderdome for some discussions.
Chris Clarke:
THIS IS GENIUS!!!!!!
Chris Clarke, if it is consensual, I kiss you with the kiss-of-the-thanks-of-9-monarchs!
So, your first 50 comments or so, you have a badge of some kind that encourages welcome and generosity.
Then you lose your badge…until you get to 500 or 1000 or whatever the magic number is. That’s when you get a new badge in hyper-enthusiastic font overlaid on a jagged cartoon word bubble.
The message?
I fucking love it.
@25, Beatrice
Perhaps PZ might introduce a “plug your blog” thread. (Limitations: blogs that are plugged must allow comments, and only one plug of a blog per plug-thread. Plugs may point to a blog generally or a particular entry.) This would allow for people who post off-topic arguments to get the suggestion “put an entry up on this topic at your own blog and post it to the plug thread”.
(Brainstorming; inspired by the evolutionary notion of variation.)
Nthing the comments about keeping race related news in its own thread. It would be nice to have a link in the sidebar though.
As for Thunderdome, I agree with Beatrice that it served as a good place to steer off-topic discussions, and the Lounge isn’t always the appropriate place for those.
PZ:
Aside from Section V #2, are there other rules that we’re not adhering to sufficiently?
Chris Clarke!
Good idea; needs more doe snot.
PZ #26
I am uncomfortable with the idea of actual moderators, other than you.
I can think of only two or three people I would trust with that power.
Definitely NOT me.
You should probably check with Snap! first, since they had it last I heard.
chigau:
Would it make a difference if Mods saved a text file of the comment as it previously existed?
And if the mods were then answerable to the Grand High Poopyhead?
The mods having to save the evidence and tGHP being able to review might create reasonable accountability.
I’d certainly trust the Trophy Wife™.*
There aren’t too many others I’d trust and the one’s I’d trust wouldn’t necessarily be trusted by others in the Horde. Of course, really, it only has to work for PZ – the rest of us will make our own decisions, but he’s a good writer that provides regular content. Pharyngula will still be valued by plenty of people even if the entire commentariat (every single person that has ever made a Pharyngula comment even once, on any network, in any incarnation) were replaced tomorrow. If it works for 50%+anything more than zero of the Horde, but makes PZ crazy, it’s a failed solution.
And if we’re not part of the solution, we’re part of the precipitate.
or something like that.
@PZ #26:
Can I ask what you mean by ‘edit comments’? If you mean the ability to append a sentence such as ‘We try not to use demeaning stereotypic terms here. Please refer to [these rules] before posting again.’ as the first step (where appropriate) in a three-strikes-and-you’re-out policy, then I’d be all for it. I’m pretty sure you don’t mean redacting a word or sentence when you refer to editing comments, but I’d be interested to know if you had anything else in mind.
At the end of the day, of course, it’s a case of “My gaff, my rules.” Pharyngula would have to get pretty boring for me to leave.
ooops!
My asterisk was supposed to denote a footnote!
Here it be:
*Have we stopped using that and I didn’t get the memo? I haven’t seen it in a good long while, but I’ve assumed that PZ wouldn’t have used it without it being okay with Spouse…so I’ve thought it was okay but had doubts after not seeing it for a long time. If I’ve messed up, I apologize. I will happily take my correction on the Correction Couch.
CD
I think we stopped using TrophyWife about the same time the Slymers started using it as ammunition.
PZ, how about some examples of what you don’t want to see or something?
Because the OP is rather vague, and while I’m hardly ever early enough in a comment section to pile on, the idea that I’m going to have to be polite and nice and charitable to assclams who spout bullshit out the gate like rape apologia and shit means I’ll probably stop commenting. It’ll be just another source of rage that I can’t express.
Even if I’m late enough that the three post rule (or whatever it morphs into) is past, I see no point in bothering knowing that Pharyngula will be just like every other blog. I’ve stopped reading any other because I can’t read about bullshit and meet it with the same face I do in meatspace. It’s too tiring keeping up that facade, I can’t do it online too.
Of course, I hardly matter and mostly update the community in The Lounge with personal stuff lately so whatever.
UnknownEric the Apostate @33,
At least He-Man doesn’t have it anymore.
@chigau & PZ
Then it makes much sense not to use it. I won’t use it again.
Are you saying unless it is PZ, the rest of us don’t have Trophy Wives? ;)
@JAL:
You matter to me.
I was speaking relatively recently about taking a long time to learn to know commenters as individuals, but you were one of the commenters I came to know earlier.
I hope things get clarified so that you don’t feel like you’re expected to coddle assclam cods.
Dammit, now I’m all over this thread. Sorry everyone.
But I had another thought that’s on-topic and possibly useful.
Can we have a permanent “Tips and Tricks” post?
Lots of people don’t use nyms or comment numbers, and even I leave them out sometimes. So reinforcing that is good.
But many aren’t familiar with the HTML for quoting, etc. It would be very useful to have one page with all the HTML tricks (comic sands, block quoting, linking, etc.) AND little rules like 5+ links goes to moderation; certain words trigger the spam trap, so be careful using racialized or gendered insults even ironically or educationally, etc.
And yes, I **know** that we have a list of allowable tags/attributes below, but not everyone knows the basic rules like closes, etc. People can be afraid to try without an explanation of what does what and how to format it properly…and if we wan’t to welcome new folks, removing one more fear is a good thing.
I’m not a regular commenter here and never will be. But the “hostile cliquishness” is an understatement and is the primary reason I’m never going to bother commenting here regularly (yes, I know, good riddance; you’ve already told me that; I won’t be posting follow ups to this). I just wanted to say I think any changes that address that are extremely welcome, so thank you PZ, even if it won’t change my mind at this point.
I am vague because I don’t want to target anyone specifically, and I particularly don’t want to set up anyone as THE BAD EXAMPLE WHO MUST BE DESTROYED.
I need loose, general ideas to fit a loose, general population.
PZ #26
Yes, make you wife a moderator! Rule us as husband and wife!
But seriously, it would be great to have someone outside this little community to be the voice of reason. Particularly when the arguments get petty and heated.
______________________
Beatrice #25, chigau #27
Did you accidentally add me to your killfile? ;)
I hope y’all will believe me when I say I’m not trying to start a fight or be an asshole with this comment. What happened to this blog? I used to read it every day, but I took a break from atheist blogs about three years ago, when it seemed that it was all becoming organized atheist internecine fighting. As I recall, though, each post by PZ used to get more comments, often numbering in the hundreds. There were a whole bunch of regulars back then that aren’t around anymore. Was there some great schism? The time I’m talking about was a period of aggressive and hostile threads, but there were many more of them. Like back in the crackergate times. What happened?
I feel that maybe Pharyngula used to have more posts that were focused on generic atheistic issues, and fewer on social justice. Is that what tipped the board? I’m on the SJW-side myself, because the alternative seems to be Social Injustice Warrior (read: asshole), but I recall the days when the horde was mostly focused on attacking religion. I’m not at all criticizing PZ’s choices of post topics, I’m just trying to figure out why there is so much less commenting than there was.
AlexanderZ #46
No kill file
short attention squirrel!
psychomath @47:
There has indeed been a schism in the atheist movement, as marginalized people-People of Color, LGBT people, and women-sought a more inclusive movement that wasn’t hostile to their presence. Unfortunately, many in the movement were (and remain) opposed to ideas that would make the atheist movement more inclusive to people who are not straight, white, cisgender, and heterosexual.
All I can do is speculate, but I think the answer is yes. More than a few people over the years have complained that PZ talks about feminism or other social justice issues. They bemoan this fact, longing for the days when he posted about church/state issues or science topics.
As the commentariat grew and evolved, diversity within the Horde grew. So too did a desire on the part of some to help foster an environment where marginalized people could feel welcome.
There probably isn’t any one answer. And though commenting may or may not have slacked off, ISTR PZ saying that his readership hasn’t declined much over the years (contrary to the bleatings of his critics who claim that he has been losing and continues to lose significant numbers of readers).
Sorry, AlexanderZ! You’re not in the kill file (it doesn’t work anymore, but you wouldn’t be there even if it did)
Is this a personal blog where you discuss issues important to you with a small group of like minded individuals? If it’s important to have a place to vent, changes are kept minimal and are just to keep the current audience interested.
If your goal is to actually increase the base of the discussion? Attract more interested in social justice? There are known solutions for goal oriented blogs: To open up the base of discussion the change is to limit the number of comments. New commenters and the oldest commenters are limited to 5 comments per day. This keeps comments focused and on topic. New commenters feel more comfortable wading in and the positions of old commenters will no longer overwhelm the topic. To bring in new commenters, it is as simple as banning old commenters. This can be done merely by eliminating 2 old commenters. It’s also effective to change moderators.
Hm.
I do think the Thunderdome serves useful purposes, as explained e. g. in comment 15.
“Worthy”?
If what you say can be criticized, somebody will do it. :-)
The problem is that when one regular decides that what is on display is arrogance and/or an attempt to fight, all their friends commonly pile on immediately instead of wondering if some benefit of the doubt can be given.
That would be great, yes. There are even regulars here whose ideas of what is rude overlap rather little!
(Indeed, there may be an example of this right in the next 4 paragraphs.)
Well, no… no.
Quoting what you reply to is better. That way, 1) people don’t need to scroll around to figure out what you’re talking about – many people use names and/or numbers instead of quotes! –, and 2) it may be a bit clearer that you aren’t the topic of discussion even if one of your personality traits is.
I think deemphasizing people (in favor of the actual comments we can actually read) would go a long way towards deemphasizing who is and is not a regular or a member of some clique.
Yes!
7+.
…Somebody completely external who doesn’t recognize any of the regulars sounds like a great idea!
This would be great! I vote for this!
I did my first blockquote, there will be no stopping me now!
I have no idea how you moderate against this but…. wtf is up with people getting shit on for posting disagreement, even expressing their limitations and the possibility they’re ignorant of something and asking for clarification? I’m not talking about fundamental disagreements. I’m talking about shit like entertainment and celebrities, which some people are bound to be blown away by, other people not at all impressed. One person’s socks not being blown off doesn’t mean they’re a piece of shit. It genuinely feels like that’s how you get treated for expressing ignorance or disagreement about genuinely menial stuff as an irregular poster. You get snark and sarcasm and snide personal remarks directed at you enforcing and reinforcing your wrongness and likely implying something about your value as a person. What the shit is that? Seriously? I’m not talking about heinous, disgusting expressions of bigotry. I’m talking about really mild expressions of “You know, I disagree/don’t understand/feel uncomfortable with that”. I have zero clue why this gets responded to with venom but it’s given me the distinct impression the regular commentariat here is a) unhappy and unfriendly and b) closed-minded, which is funny because I rarely get that vibe from PZ.
I thought PZ was totally OK with it and I figured “His blog, his rules” and rolled my eyes when inferences about me or others were made because I expressed discomfort or I was treated like I must be stupid because I disagreed with or expressed a lack of understanding of a prominent shared feeling in a discussion. Kinda nice to hear he’s not cool with it though.
I don’t know how to prevent this trend from continuing but can something be done about non-regulars mildly expressing disagreement about non-fundamental matters instantly being treated like idiots and/or shitty human beings? A lot of the people who this has been directed at do NOT seem deserving of such treatment.
I’ve been a reader since, err… back in the ScienceBlogs days, but I stopped commenting much after the situation deteriorated. My opinion is that incivility NEVER serves the cause of justice. I think the ‘group’ ought to re-address that whole issue in debate (preferably civil). As far as I know the evidence is not in favor of incivility as a tactic. Its disadvantages are:
1. Even if you’re right you don’t convince, at best you just silence – in practice, you cause a massive row that goes nowhere.
2. If your goal is to convince bystanders, you may merely turn them off. People who think they have a better handle on justice than their peers ought to be aiming at leadership, whereas cursing people out makes you look weak and powerless. Coupled with the ongoing excuse that abusiveness is justified for the under-privileged. If you’ve got justice on your side, why adopt the role of desperate petitioner?
3. Of course, you also frighten the timid from expressing their ideas – quite rightly! Ultimately, the core group of commenters has acted like a great many fundamentalist religious or political groups – they’ve assigned themselves the role of arbitrators of justice (on their own authority) and set about enforcing ever increasing amounts of ‘purity’. Apart from anything else, this lowers the quality of the comment thread and the blog in general since it stifles debate.
4. If you happen to be wrong, that makes you an abusive bully who’s wrong. Just being wrong is a hell of a lot better.
5. I believe research suggests that conflictual approaches aren’t successful in changing people’s minds.
6. I’m quite sure that if you attack people they invariably double down. It becomes impossible for them to change their mind or backtrack with their pride and sense of honor intact. Some of you are letting yourselves go in ritual humiliations of other people.
7, Abuse is content-free and a waste of busy comment thread space and reader’s time. I used to learn stuff by reading here, but I feel I’ve learned everything there is to learn about cursing people out now. Is it PZ’s aim to offer more?
8. Enforcement by moderation and banning is always an option on blogs, it’s neither necessary nor desirable to let content be determined by mob rule. Let PZ ban the trolls if he wants to
9. It’s been suggested that some people need/have a right to cathartic outbursts. This may be true but it need not be applicable to every space. It’s up to PZ to decide whether he wants a cathartic outburst kind of blog, or a debate kind of blog, but I feel the two are not compatible. At the same time, it’s perfectly possible to express emotions like anger, distress, etc, without acting them out verbally.
10. I’ve always had some doubts about using a blog as a kind of forum, I think it’s not a bad idea for comments generally to address the OP, and mostly leave other commenters alone. Certainly a forum requires more intensive moderation.
11. It’s sometimes possible to promote high quality content threads by specifying exactly what commenters should address. I think Greta Christina (or possibly Stephanie Zvan) may have tried this occasionally.
I would like to see an ethos which promotes, and if necessary insists on civility. I don’t think this is in any way incompatible with justice.
Regarding HTML: I used to keep open a window with a text file with all my HTML codes on it. I’d just copy and paste as needed. Now, on this tablet, I have a clipboard with the codes in it. I mostly just keep the blockquote tags, now, but I can tap to paste the open, my copied text, and the close, about that fast.
I will need my other computer to show what I mean …
Pen @56:
You failed to cite any evidence.
Like the comic sands of a hourglass, so are the Comic Days of Our
LivesBlogs.re 56:
ugh, I’m sorry to offend. That wall’o’text reads like a listicle of justifications behind tone-trolling.
tldr@56:
Nice evidenceless post. Pure opinion editorial. Show us with third party evidence that incivility doesn’t work, and why it doesn’t work, and in what cases it doesn’t work. Nobody has done so to date.
Which is an assbackwards way of showing incivility is appropriate for certain arguments.
This is why I’ve never, ever posted in the Lounge. The cliquishness is strong, people there who have obviously known each other for years, they use in-jokes and in-house expressions that an outsider won’t recognize, and it’s not an environment which seems particularly welcoming to the outsider.
Thunderdome is good for off-topic discussions but again outsiders need to don armor before wading into the cross-fire. I’ve posted there occasionally but never more than once or twice per thread.
Tony @58
Here are a couple of rather basic articles of the kind you can find a lot if you search for ‘how to change people’s minds’. Don’t take these one as unique. You can track down the relevant research papers from the articles.
link
link
This has more meat to it, and covers a variety of topics but you have to wade through it. I rejected one other link because it was just too dense, but you can find a pile of stuff under ‘attitude change research’
link
I have found over the years those who are most against incivility want to be able to discuss controversial topics in a Vulcan like manner, and dismiss the emotional responses. Which makes them incivil….
One thing I wonder-if other commenters express disagreement with Pen’s #56, is that ganging up and piling on?
There’s much I disagree with in #56, but if you want an example of the problem, look at the responses.
Explain WHY Pen is wrong, rather than trying to chop them into chum.
Al Dente @62:
I’m not sure how to address this.
Personally, I’ve done my level best to be open and welcoming to new people in the Lounge. I try to welcome every single new person I see comment in there. Hell, I’ve occasionally suggested new commenters in other threads drop into the Lounge if they feel like being social.
Do you have any ideas on how to make that area more inviting?
Nerd
Look in the mirror.
Different strokes for different folks. Some are put off exactly as you claim – others have commented right here on Pharyngula that a determined “fuck that nonsense” approach managed to wake them up.
Honor is for Klingons.
Seriously, at the risk of running into Blue And Orange Morality: it is wrong to be proud of being right; it is evil to be incapable of acknowledging an error and changing one’s mind in the middle of a discussion. Be proud of the methods that have let you be right, but not of the happenstances that were also necessary for that.
The concept of honor, of not losing face, has done more damage and killed more people than most, possibly even all others. It needs to die.
Incivility has its place in arguments.
Arguments against the cult of civility.
Civility used to stifle dissent from orthodoxy.
That’s what you want PZ?
Pen @ 56 & Tony @ 58,
There is evidence, probably, but it’s completely unknown to the people who abuse this space and who have only one tool in the box. Sometimes that tool is endless repetition, sometimes it is issuing an attempted and disproportionate put-down, sometimes it’s a toddler tantrum.
Pointing out to such people that argument is a very good idea but that if you hope to win it has rules – like you listen to the other person’s point and try to address it, that you develop enough self-awareness to realise when you are beaten, that you stick to the topic rather than trying to divert attention to yourself.
I keep longing for someone – wouldn’t dare ask PZ – to do a little piece on how serious argument, even boisterous argument, is both useful and enjoyable when conducted by adults treating each other as equals and a total waste of time if it’s just a matter of scoring cheap and irrelevant points.
Then we could link to it.
PZ @66 – “Explain WHY Pen is wrong, rather than trying to chop them into chum.”
I think at this point evidence would be appropriate, not just editorial. I know I raised a whole lot of points, some of them are down to PZ’s choices and not matters of verifiable fact. But there is a lot of research in this field and Tony is well within his rights to call for evidence. I would prefer to see this debate settled with reference to research. I’ve done my best at short notice. If you think I’m wrong, show me how you know.
PS – To save time, I love anecdotes but won’t consider them convincing. Also,I do appreciate that these threads move very fast for evidence collecting.
Tony! @67
Possibly it’s just me, but the Lounge reminds me of the high school cafeteria tables where the in-crowd sat. Woe betide the nerd who even looked too long at the kids sitting there. I understand that the Lounge regulars are comfortable with each other there and you are not a high school clique but rather a group of intelligent, mature adults. I just can’t lose the feeling that I would say hello, get perfunctorily greeted, and then be ignored unless I said something truly obnoxious. Over several weeks time I could probably worm my way into the group, I do have some cred as a Pharyngula semi-regular, but it wouldn’t be comfortable for me to do the worm wriggling.
Pen,
It really depends on the kind of thing I’m being uncivil about. Maybe I don’t want to convince, maybe my intention to make it obvious that what I am being uncivil about is socially unacceptable. If I am being uncivil about something really nasty, am I causing a row or the person I am being uncivil to?
Example: bigot writes a comment full of sexist assumptions. My answer contains all the fucks I give about this topic, and possibly a suggestion that they are a shitty human being. Am I the one starting the row there?
Terrible things can be said in perfectly polite ways. You are putting the onus on the side that is hurt by them to stay civil and polite in response.
I would have to look up particular threads, but I’ve seen lurkers or former lurkers commenting about feeling safe here because they knew shit that flies in other places won’t fly here. So it really depends on the bystander and their likes and dislikes. You would obviously be turned off. It took me a while to get used to the atmosphere, but I loved the place from the moment I started reading the comment section.
Remember, even those of us who have been here for years used to be lurkers and newbies. There was something that pulled us to stay.
Things may have changed ,but I am skeptical about how much all these changes are bad (as some are suggesting they are). It strikes me a bit similar to moaning about young people these days are so disrespectful, when I was young we… and people worried about their lawns.
I disagree that cursing makes people look weak or powerless. If I am passionate about something, I might pepper my comment with some fucks. How is that weak? It’s a way to express my passion. Or it can be a way to make a fucking emphasis (you can also you bold letters to make it particularly striking).
I agree that some people are probably frightened by the ferocious atmosphere. It happens. That’s why we have these discussion and usually try to do better for a while afterwards.
Admittedly, the enthusiasm goes down after a while. What can I say? We’re all human, and this particular group has gotten used to speaking our minds without hesitation. Sometimes that makes us too quick in judgement.
But I have to note, for all the debate and disagreement stiffling that supposedly happens… .we get into some pretty wild arguments here. Maybe not debates as you would like them to happen, but then again I won’t step back from my opinion that some things are just not up to debate and I’m glad we make that clear. You would have to work really hard to convince me that is not to the benefit of many readers and commenters.
Sometimes comment threads get a bit into bullying territory and reading them leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I will try harder to point them out instead of just deciding not to participate.
I have seen you posted some links, I’ll look them up.
As has been already mentioned, sometimes I don’t want to change the mind of the person I’m responding to. Sometimes I want to make it clear that their comment is not ok and I don’t expect them to accept my position, but for people reading that who may have been caught in the splash damage to know that what hurt them was not ok and there are people who know that.
Maybe you should suggest to people who double down when they are wrong that they should step back and consider the criticism they are getting. Maybe people whose pride prevents them from considering they might be wrong should get a lesson in good interpersonal relations and personal growth.
Abuse is bad. Not all angry or uncivil comments are abusive, and they are certainly not content free. If I had written the former sentence as Not all angry or uncivil comments are fucking abusive, and they are certainly not content free… would that make the content of my comment disappear?
I get it, you don’t like cussing. But the argument that it’s a waste of thread space and reader’s time is bullshit. The first is not actually limited and the second is completely under the reader’s control. That is: if you feel a comment thread is a waste of your time, you are free to skip it.
Mob rule? We may be all kinds of things, but we sure are not determining what PZ will write about.
If I could personally do that, I would make him make more social justice posts that concern Europe.
Honestly, I’m not sure what you meant with this point. You kinda listed things that already exist.
Well, yes. No one is making PZ do anything, as we have already established. That’s why he’s made this post. He’s not happy with how things are doing so he’s enforcing his King of My Kingdom powers (but with more democracy).
While it is possible to express anger and distress non-verbally, I’m quite sure verbal expressions are usually more healthy. Although, I think I have literally headdesked on one occasion or two.
I’m not sure what that would look like but I’m fairly sure then you wouldn’t be able to have debates that you mentioned as desirable earlier.
It would certainly be a very different place that this and probably a place I wouldn’t frequent very much any more.
I’m not sure how that would look like, I should probably check out what Greta Christina has done.
Pen @ 72,
Not anecdotes but questions to you.
1. How can I possibly agree with someone’s political stance that the right way out of the recent financial crash, caused by other people entirely, is to punish and humiliate the poor and beat up people in wheelchairs?
2. How could PZ put someone right on evolution by pretending to agree with them when, most often, they have no idea what evolution is and when they quote the Bible which they clearly have not read or they’d know there are two creation stories in Genesis?
3. How could Tony or I possibly agree that the way to beat racism or to get equal pay for women is to be patient for another couple of hundred years then come out from under the comfort blanket they offer and see whether things have magically got better with absolutely no work done on either?
4. Don’t you think that when arguing matters of either fact or policy the retreat to “civility” is a cop-out? And would we not be better to set out our case well rather than to assume – as the civility argument does by default – that all “facts” are equally true and all individuals are equally qualified to express an opinion on them?
PZ@66:
OMG this. So much this. Very this.
For the last couple years I’ve been pretty certain that if I suddenly had access to a time machine, one of the first things I’d do would be to go back and persuade myself not to publish that Desert Tortoises w/ Boltcutters pledge. Having seen it (mis)interpreted so often here by people seeking to justify their abusiveness has been one of my chief professional regrets of the last few years.
The point of that piece was that a fetish for civility can obscure legitimate discourse. It was never intended to mean that routine incivility in the face of disagreement is superior to making a habit of attempting to be kind.
Fetishizing civility is bad. Fetishizing incivility is worse.
Al Dente,
As opposed to the high school cafeteria table, you can “eavesdrop” on the conversations in the Lounge instead of guessing what nasty things jocks gossip about. You might even notice new folks coming to sit at the table and chat.
Sure, not every place is for everyone, and I don’t deny I sometimes don’t like some people here (there goes the hive mind theory), but I am a bit annoyed you make highly critical assumptions that don’t seem to hold much truth. I accept criticism regarding some goings on in thread about highly inflammable topics, but this about the Lounge just seems … wrong.
Al Dente#73
The current Lounge has 200 comments from ~40 different commenters, 3 or 4 of whom are ‘new’.
Topics include: kittens, recipes, heart-attacks, bad job situations, therapy, recipes, kittens, and more.
No. Not good.
If I express my opinion in a specific way with specific words, emotions and images I should be confident that my message will not be altered by someone who thinks they know my intent better than I. If someone is going to come along and alter my message, alter my intent … if my missive is modified to reflect someone else’s idea then I do not need to be here. I wrote my message this way to convey my meaning not someone else’s.
If my message violates some rule or tone requirement then criticism is expected and well earned. If violations continue then suspension for X days could be used to get the point across. Further abuses should result in banning.
But altering someone’s message, even if it appears to only be a step toward some moderator’s idea of appropriate tone, too often alters the meaning trying to be communicated and the emotion accompanying that meaning. If I speak here I want my message to be my speech, not some moderator’s.
I could accept a moderator’s ability to add a banner within my message noting the rule violation but leaving my message body intact. This could be a learning exercise for others as well as the poster.
A side note: Sure would be nice if I could alter my own message after it has been posted, lets say within a 30 minute period. Hiding all those embarrassing syntax errors and appllin spllin that one only notices after hitting the “Post Comment” button. I could even alter that highly emotional rant I spewed out and make it something more reasonable when I’ve had a few minutes to calm down.
PZ Myers
That’s an example? That’s “trying to chop them into chum”?
Wow, okay then.
Beatrice @77
I apologize for causing you annoyance but I was explaining the situation as I perceive it. I may be completely wrong but my impression of the Lounge is that I would not fit in well. I’ll give the matter some thought. Perhaps I’ll stick a toe into the water. It’ll depend how safe I think I’ll be.
Al Dente,
I probably shouldn’t have been as offended as I was, but I have found comfort in the Lounge in some difficult times and I feel people are consistent in keeping that place open and welcoming so I read your comment as guesses completely lacking any evidence.
Seriously, observe from the sidelines, stick a toe in, sit on the edge and splash your feet and now I’m really stretching that analogy. Just, don’t judge without evidence.
PZ, having a bad mood day? I prefer teh TDome to the Lounge, I’m not really into the social chit-chat in there. Anyway, it’s your blog, do as you wish. I’m sure the commentariat will adapt.
JAL @80:
It’s not necessarily about the frequency of ‘fuck’s and ‘shitstain’s. Sometimes it’s just knee-jerk dismissiveness.
Beatrice @74
That was a lot of points but I think I can boil them down to this. Re: you’re not actually trying to convince people but merely tell them something ‘not socially acceptable’ is not okay – are you causing a row or the person I am being uncivil to? E.g a bigot writes a comment full of sexist assumptions and you take up time telling them all the fucks you don’t give. And so do a lot of other people. Also you get that I don’t like cussing, so why don’t I skip the comment thread?
Basically, that’s what I’ve been doing. You see, not only don’t I give a bunch of fucks about someone’s sexist assumptions, I also don’t give a bunch of fucks about reading a bunch of people’s lack of fucks to give. I have been reading Pharyngula since pre-FTB days so I am NOT a newbie, and I’ve been mostly avoiding the comment threads for about half that time. PZ just asked, or so I understood, what we all thought about the comment threads and how we thought they should go. Although I’m really into the idea of backing up my opinions with evidence, in the first place, he only asked what I would LIKE. I understand that I may not get it, and in that case, I’ll go back to mostly just reading the posts, not the comment threads.
Pen,
I agree strongly with Beatrice @74 in regards to “civility” and one reason I love this place is tone trolling gets called out. The idea that, ” incivility NEVER serves the cause of justice” just plays into the hands of the oppressors. I was a lurker during elevatorgate and read nearly every word in every thread and I was swayed by the “uncivil” side demanding women not be silenced. I know it’s just my personal experience and not data, but I know I’m not the only one who was swayed to this side of the rift just by reading the rough and tumble words of many on here.
RE the Lounge
I tried out the lounge a year or so ago. I was welcomed by a few folks and followed for a while, but it went to fast and I had trouble keeping track of who was who and who did what. Not my cup of tea, which is fine. That’s why I like thunderdome, it moves slower and only stays on a couple topics at a time.
As far as scaring off new people I read Pharyngula for years before posting my first comment. I’ll admit I was nervous posting the first, but being a cautious person I knew the culture before I waded in and I still only do so sparingly. The problem seems to be when someone walks in thinking they know everything and arrogantly thinks they are bringing up ideas for the first time. Most of the time the first responses aren’t that rude at first but when they doubledown and ignore the substance to the push back it escalates quickly.
Why don’t you just skip the thread, or wade in with your opinion? Your decision, not ours. If you don’t find this blog inviting enough, there are others out there where civility matters more than substance. Hang out at those site.
Pen:
Are you opposed to using coarse language at all times, or only sometimes?
Are you opposed to comments that are little more than expletives or all comments that contain harsh language?
psychomath @#47:
Comments in dedicated comment sections are down all over the web, to the point that publishers are closing them. If you look at the article I just linked, you’ll see that the generally accepted explanation is that those comments are moving to Twitter and Facebook, where people have more control over who they have the discussions with.
Thanks PZ, I think this is a discussion that need to be had.
I am of two minds on the matter, and as much as I respect all that I learned from the regulars, I fear that a mob mentality has been creeping in and IS a barrier for newcomers who are utterly clueless but genuinely interested.
I’ve largely run off because of the cliqueish hostility. A few times I tried to defend someone whose words had, I felt, been misinterpreted. It was hopeless. The principle of charity has been very conspicuous by its absence.
@ Nerd:
Just want to point out that your very first link is an odd choice to defend incivility at Pharyngula. While Herbst is not against incivility….
So either (a) Susan Herbst is a tone troll, or (b) those arguments can be applied to Pharyngula, given that PZ feels things have gotten out of hand.
More generally:
As someone who mostly lurks, there are two things I personally wish would disappear from the face of the blog:
(1) Using “lack of evidence” as a dismissive rhetorical tactic right from the get-go. I really wish Hitchens had said ” “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence after a good-faith effort to request evidence“.
(2) Treating civility/incivility as a binary. It is possible to be less or more civil or incivil. Of course people use civility as a bludgeon. People use incivility as a bludgeon too. Minnesota Nice can be a bludgeon. Pictures of freakin’ kittens can be a bludgeon under the right circumstances. A call for civility is not de facto a silencing tactic*.
It’s a fairly frequent phenomenon that some new person wades in, and is greeted immediately with a wall of “EVIDENCE OR GTFO” and “TONE TROLL”. Maybe I’m missing history on these people, and the response was actually appropriate, but given that I’m a fairly regularly reader and I don’t recognize the ‘nyms… I can imagine what it looks like to people who are completely new here.
Now, of course, this is a SJ space, and of course some things are not worthy of engagement. I certainly don’t expect civil responses to some Charles Murray acolyte, or the like. However, my semi-lurker perspective is that pattern-recognition for that type of content is perhaps tuned a wee bit too high. The unintended mistake or poor phrasing doesn’t necessarily have to be met with total war. Intent isn’t magic, but sometimes it’s useful data.
Anyhoo, there’s my $0.02. Make of it what you will.
* I do wish to make clear re: Pen’s post, I think I hurt my neck nodding so much to Beatrice’s #74. An exemplar of a devastating takedown that is actually quite civil and includes items for further discussion.
Oh, want to chime in and say that if the ‘Dome goes, it really should be replaced by a lightly moderated Off-Topic thread. Some things aren’t appropriate for the main posts or the Lounge; it would be sad if there was nowhere else to go.
Pen @#56:
I’m generally in agreement with Beatrice’s points, particularly on what people are trying to accomplish. There is something your comment reminds me of that I’ve in arguments here, though.
I think a bigger barrier here to backing down happens when someone listens to enough of the arguments to say, “Oh, okay. I see what you’re saying. I was wrong about that one thing.” There are plenty of people willing to follow up to that with, “Whew! Okay, now let’s talk about the other things you got wrong and make sure you really do understand what we just told you. Have some of our time and energy for free education, since you seem open to it.”
At the same time, however, there are generally one or two people who seem intent on trying to make that person grovel. They’re not attempting to educate the person who is open to changing their mind. They just keep plugging away at telling that person they’re awful. At that point, it’s not just counterproductive. It’s also a failure to update assessments of the situation coupled with punishing someone based on the outdated premises. I won’t name names, since PZ doesn’t want to go that route, but they do tend to be the same very few people each time.
I wouldn’t miss that behavior at all if it went away.
Seconded. :)
What do you consider a “good faith” effort to ask for evidence? My first post is usually to ask to for evidence, which is why some, or a lot, say I am boring. The trouble comes when folks think their evidenceless testament is evidence (except when describing personal experiences, which is limited in scope), and think we should just forget the years of discussion which includes what they claim, and seriously consider their outrageous claims.
@ Nerd:
Responding in Thunderdome, both because I think this could veer off and become tangential and I don’t think that’s what PZ wants, and because I want to join the SAVE THE THUNDERDOME campaign.
I’m a long-time lurker and infrequent poster, but I feel that if any rules are implemented to require greater civility in the discussions there must also be clear-cut rules spelling out that bigotry will not be tolerated, and extra moderation will be required to keep those types out. A ‘civility’ policy can often have the unintended side effect of giving tone trolls official weight, and bigots can be extremely skilled at using these policies to shut down those with legitimate anger and turn comment sections into platforms for their own disguised hate.
The only lightly-moderated forums I’ve yet encountered which haven’t been completely overrun are the ones which have a ‘prickly’ commentariat, as the members can drive out all but the most dedicated trolls on their own. Heavier moderation can help, provided the official rules allow moderators to remove bigoted posts, so I’d hope any change to Pharyngula’s official commenting policy would both increase moderation and empower the moderators to remove faux-civil trolls.
Maureen @ 75
Errmm, even David Cameron doesn’t advocate that openly. And I wouldn’t dream of asking you to agree with it. What people are usually doing is advocating politics which inevitably result in that, but without acknowledging the consequences. The problem is usually to get them to admit it/realize it. Do you want to clarify if that’s what you mean?
I’m not sure PZ is actually interested in doing this, but someone who was could certainly appear to agree with their interest in the Bible and get them actually reading Genesis, It’s also extremely easy to agree that their misconceptions about evolution are, indeed, stupid ideas and work from there. It may not necessarily convince them – the important point to me is: what tactic is most likely to convince them? What PZ is doing is pointing and laughing for our amusement. Just saying.
Is anybody arguing that with you? Do you mean those people who think the status quo isn’t actually racist/sexist? I have a whole list of strategies for raising people’s awareness of racial and gender issues, and yes, I admit that in person, I lose my rag and shout at people. I’m not saying I don’t understand that it happens and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t good at it (shouting, I mean), I’m just absolutely convinced it doesn’t make for effective activism. I have better luck in when I’m not doing it. My list of strategies is a bit long for this comment, and depends on context, but I get exposed to quite a lot of racist ideas in particular and I really have had good luck with some of them. I also feel that there is history and sociology to activism and social change from which we could all learn something about effectiveness.
I’m genuinely not understanding you here. I agree that we would be better to set out our case well, and I assumed that meant using substantive arguments. I don’t understand why you think the civility argument assumes all facts are equally true and all individuals equally qualified to express opinions.
Look at it like this – you made a proposition: ‘civility assumes all facts are equally true’. I disagree with this proposition and my evidence is that I hope I’m doing it civilly.
On this point, I doubt either one of us is more qualified than the other, but on others we might be. I don’t know why it would be uncivil of either of us to claim our qualifications when we’ve got them. Or why incivility would help. I mean, would you say something like ‘Fuck you, you ignoramous, don’t you realize I’m a nuclear scientist, and you’re a nobody, who the fuck are you, trying to tell me about the God particle!’ And if you did, what do you think it would achieve.
I can’t imagine why civility would be a cop-out. It makes me wonder whether we’re talking about the same thing.
PS: I’m going to sleep now, so I didn’t read any comment after Maureen’s. And then I’m going to work.
Tony @ 88
I’m not opposed to swear words per se if that’s what you mean. I’m opposed to words whose only purpose is to convey hostility. In general I’m opposed to people saying things in comments that they wouldn’t say to a person’s face in the context of a public debate, at least unless they expected to be resorting to physical violence shortly after that (and getting thrown out of the debating room). I was rude to PZ about five threads ago and I don’t particularly approve of my own behavior despite the fact that the whole ambiance of this blog condones it.
Now I’m really going to bed.
Tony! The Queer Shoop @49
Thanks for giving me your perspective. I can’t remember the exact timeline of my reading of this blog, but I was a reader back in the science blog days, and I quit reading maybe a year after Elevatorgate. I got too horrified by the attacks on Watson and others that were being discussed here to keep reading (cowardly, I guess, but what good does constant impotent rage do anyone?). I still find it bizarre that there are that many people in the atheist movement that are so insistent on their bigotries that they will go to war over them. In a way, it seems like a good sign. If they are this mad, they must actually be losing.
Stephanie Zvan @89
That is an interesting hypothesis that had not occurred to me. I don’t use any social media like Twitter and Facebook, though I have naturally seen bloggers reference discussions that happened there. Thank you for the link. I guess I’ll have to reconsider whether or not to use those platforms again. By the way, I enjoy your blog very much.
Nope, PZ is pointing and laughing because they have nothing but presuppositions, that won’t be taken seriously by scientists doing real science. Why is that so hard to see? What valid arguments do the crebots have that should be taken serious? Their deity exists? The Earth is young? Until you illuminate that problem, you haven’t thought about the difference between how science, with evidence works, and “revealed truth” that is the realm of religion.
[meta]
psychomath @47, from my perspective, what happened is that as the focus of the blog increasingly became social justice issues, an ethos developed and the degree of tolerance toward commenters who don’t sufficiently share, endorse and adhere to that ethos decreased precipitously*.
As a datum, I exiled myself from here a few years ago after persistent requests from many other regulars to do so, when it became evident that my presence alone was sufficient irritant to disrupt threads and that PZ was barely tolerating me — though I was (and remain) sympathetic to that ethos’ aspirations.
—
Anyway, regarding rule changes, I think the more rules and restrictions on acceptable commenting, the more restricted the pool of acceptable commenters. I remember when there were no rules, only norms.
(And for me it’s a shame TD is going; it is the last tenuous relic of the heady days of yore and the only thread here where I regularly read the comments)
—
* cf. Pen’s point 3 in #56.
Nerd
Do you have some suggestions to address PZ concerns?
The ones in the OP?
Hi, John Morales.
Pen @100
If someone says something bigoted, their bigotry is identified and denounced, and they continue to say bigoted things, then hostility is warranted. I’m sorry (no, not really but since you prize civility I’ll pretend to be civil because you’re not a complete nitwit) but there are times when hostility is the most effect way to tell a bigot their bigotry is not appreciated.
There are several denizens of the Slymepit who never use coarse language, who never raise their metaphorical voices, and drink their tea with their pinkies stretched straight out. They are also raging misogynists and at least one of them is an active rape apologist. Hostility to these people is quite reasonable. Or consider Michael Nugent. Terribly civil all the time while blowing his one-note vuvuzela demanding that PZ apologize for naming Michael Shermer in public. There’s another case when hostility is not uncalled for.
Just because you don’t like incivility and hostility doesn’t mean they should be completely forbidden to people who aren’t you and aren’t speaking to you.
What do you mean? I have stayed out of the dog-piles in TD for the most part. I do think PC thinking can run amok, and has on occasion, especially in the TD and elsewhere. I do think that people should take a little criticism without need to rebut it in a three page screed. My being to tired/busy to post helps me with that. But, I have no control over what other people post or why.
Civility just for the appearance of civility? I don’t think so Tim.
floosh
I do believe that being kind to the cruel is cruel to the kind. But change is healthy and this one seems a long time coming for alot of folks here. I’m all for nice when nice is still good.
(Saw Into the Woods the movie this week. It’s stuck in my head. There has been much humming. I’m sorry)
Could there perhaps be some sort of standardized responses from the suggested mods to comments blaming minorities for being oppressed, rape apology, questioning people’s gender and calls for people to be unemotional about things like forced birth and sexual harassment? Because those sorts of aggressions are far more abusive and triggering than the often rightly enraged responses they receive.
I question the use of the word “abusive” to describe telling a bigot (even one with the best intentions) to fuck off. A condescending and dismissive “Bless your heart” can pretty damn hurtful, discouraging and inappropriate considering the topics being discussed here and how they effect the people having the discussion. Calling people’s passionate reactions to oppression that directly impacts their lives and torture they may have personally endured a sign of weakness? That’s abusive. Telling them that their life experiences have made them “overly” sensitive, rude and the reason bigots refuse to see the light is abusive. It is silencing. The charity has to flow both ways if the atmosphere here is to change for the better.
Explaining for the millionth time that the eye does not disprove evolution may be frustrating, but explaining for the trillionth time that there is never a circumstance under which my body can be used without my consent literally chips away at my sanity. I cannot be civil. I’m fresh out of charity. I can be silent. I don’t mind being silent. Silence works for me when something does not feel as if it needs to be said. I’d rather never have to defend my humanity at all. I’d also like lurkers to know that it isn’t OK for people to suggest that just maybe they were to blame for being violated, just maybe they aren’t truly women or just maybe they accused him for fun. I’d like to see clear reminders of that when it inevitably happens. A big red “NOPE” would be nice, but that won;t shut ’em up. We know that. It has to be assertive and as detailed as if it were to come from the horde, without individuals being expected to respond personally if we want to teach bigots not to bigot without losing our patience and charity. Some things should not be up for polite discussion.
The mods could have a list of set responses they could post depending on the situation. Something like:
etc. It’s labor intensive at first, but creates less work for and less frustration for the Horde. If you think polite responses will keep people from doubling down, create them ahead of time. It isn’t like we don’t have a good idea of what the problematic comments will be or how to respond to them. We’ve been having the same discussions over and over for ages.
That would take the passion out of the response and still provide a rational and detailed explanation for people who refuse to click 101 links or read a thread from the start. Take individuals responding on the fly out of the equation entirely and you won’t get flawed human responses.
Official bud nipping would prevent bigots from dominating a thread where everyone else loses their spoons and just has to walk away. This won’t help the calls of “Hivemind!” and “Censorship!” But fuck it. Who cares? Haters gonna hate. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
I don’t think the unwanted responses are the problem. They are a symptom. I think the cause of the outrage is the problem and if that is dealt with the civility desired should follow. It’s my opinion that a large part of the tension among commenters here comes from so often being twitchy from the incoming hostility toward them. We have people doing too much heavy lifting because they alternative is saying nothing. The words are not what needs a remedy. The sense of being constantly on guard is. When you fight bears, you grow claws. Rather than declawing the Horde, let’s do something about those bears and see what happens.
The tips page sounds great. Mods sounds fine. Though I recall that not going so well for the mods before.
This is going to be a major undertaking whatever the changes. Best of luck to those making them. Thanks, PZ for giving us a space to safely read, laugh, learn and discuss important topics. I hope you get the blog you want with these changes. You deserve it. You do good things. I wish I could help rather than just give a top of the head opinions with no solutions.
I can definitely understand that, and I can’t defend that it doesn’t happen. But it is also part of the normal ebb and flow of the thread. I have to consciously fight off the feeling of “these people don’t like me” when I write something that doesn’t get responded to, especially when someone else says basically the same thing a few dozen comments later and gets a lot of attention. But everyone’s time and attention are limited, there’s no getting around it. And the Lounge is often just whirling around the drain of small talk, so there simply isn’t a lot to say directly to one person or another. Some of it is also just that if you don’t post much in any thread, people aren’t going to “know” you well enough to feel comfortable engaging right at first.
I think that’s a really important point. It’s not the lack of civility that makes it unpleasant, it’s the lack of charitable interpretation. We don’t have to (and shouldn’t) bend over backwards overlooking it when people are kind of obviously trolling, but it’s gone really, really far in the direction of shoot first, ask questions later. That’s what the 3 post rule was about, but we kind of ignore that all the time.
carlie @110:
I’m right there with you. That I want responses to my comments doesn’t mean I’ll get them or that I am somehow owed them. Reminding myself of that *and* that it’s no slight against me if someone doesn’t respond to one of my comments is something I often have to do.
Something else that might help new folks come forward is if some of us who have been commenting for a few years were to become lurkers or at least lurk a little more. Maybe that would make room for other people to feel comfortable and less like there is a cool kids table they can’t sit at.
Related story,
When I was doing Vagina Monologues this super cool woman I was much too shy to try to get to know on my own got involved around the third year. On the fifth and last year I was involved, she told me she’d gone home a cried a few times that first year she was involved because we were all already so close that she felt she would never be a part of our tight little group though she very much wanted to be. That blew my mind. I’d have loved to have gotten to know her sooner, but the comradery I thought was such a good thing was also intimidating to people on the outside looking in. Maybe we’ve got some of that happening here.
One thing that might help to slow down the pilings-on that happens is a concerted effort to ask about what the target of an incipient piling-on already knows about whatever topic they’re getting in trouble over. Before going ahead with an argument, encourage the target to talk about where they’re getting their ideas from and then address and target those sources rather than the person.
But also make it a rule that when you’re being asked to explain where you’re getting your ideas from, that you have to make a good-faith effort to comply.
On the other hand, sometimes regulars just spew unsolicited links at the target of a piling-on, which, whatever a link’s quality, doesn’t ever have much positive effect that I can see. Most of us could stand to rekindle our high school essay-writing skills and briefly summarize the main point of what we’re linking in our own words.
Tony (#67)
I think people are accidentally unwelcoming by relying too much on the opaque insider language that Al Dente mentions. So one thing that might help is if we all tried to write comments, even Lounge comments, with newbies and irregulars in mind. In other words, we should inject completeness into responses rather than relying the readers’ knowledge of Pharyngula regulars, memes, and history to fill in the gaps—knowledge which non-regulars necessarily lack and can’t easily gain without displaying their ignorance and marking themselves as “outsiders.”
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Beatrice (#82)
There’s an overt sort of openness and welcoming that’s undermined by a failure to make the thread’s contents more accessible. Rather than asking people to observe from the sidelines, we should be doing more to get rid of the existence of those sidelines.
Pen (#99)
What you’re not getting is that many, many people use civility exactly like the person in your “fuck you, you ignoramus” example uses hostility: to try to bully their opponents into acting a certain way rather than actually engaging or trying to understand where the opponent is coming from.
(#100)
How do you distinguish between those kinds of words and words whose purpose is to convey a reasonable anger? Or, perhaps more importantly, how do you get other people to correctly distinguish the difference between those?
Often enough, marginalized people can’t say the things we’d like to people’s faces because we’d risk being the victims of physical violence. So what you’re really saying here (without meaning to, I’m sure) is that meatspace intimidation by privileged classes should have the power to silence marginalized people online as well.
Seriously, please stop thinking about civility as something neutral that has the same consequences for all people. At the very least, think about who we allow to be the arbiters of what civility even is. (And then read Al Dente’s post at #106 again.)
A. Noyd @114:
I really like this idea. Thank you.
Is the goal of the comment threads expression or education? Are we providing a safe space to respond to the topic at hand honestly for people who don’t often have one irl or are we more interested in a safe place for people who do not know better than to say tired, ignorant, bigoted shit to those people? Can we manage both?
I kinda think it can be done but I’m not sure.
When I started listening to what atheists had to say those atheists were pretty nasty to me, especially the internet New Atheist types. They pulled no punches and I thought they were assholes. They were assholes. So was I. I was all hippy-dippy “We’re all one, man. We’re all part of the divine, man. Where’s your faith? What about your dead grandma?”. That shit is annoying. They were also sick of answering the same trite arguments for divinity and magic and they were right. I don;t blame them at all. They shook me up. They changed my mind. Those assholes made excellent points, provided me with information and here I am much to the disgust and frustration of many of the atheists I looked up to upon deconversion.
Maybe that has influenced my attitude toward charity and civility for the worse. Probably, maybe.
Maybe I should just leave well enough alone, but hey, invitation and all that. I have loved time that I spent here, many people on this thread still warm me to read their nyms, and as such I have a, perhaps unrealistic, feeling of belonging here that I don’t in other comment heavy internet spaces.
Change happens. I have changed, if I hadn’t I would still average ten to fifty comments per day, I can not expect any different from this space. So I can relish the idea that this space is becoming something different, something that I may not recognize, something that I may leave behind, or something that I may, at some point, spend more time in.
Truth is though, I have largely only read the Thunderdome of late, with minimal interaction on my part. Writing a comment takes me more time than I generally want to admit, and I don’t always have time to make a comment that I feel reflects my intent these days. I will miss the clubhouse, but I can appreciate that sometimes a building needs to be taken down to make room for something better.
Sorry to say PZ, but I think you have a serious problem on your hands.
After reading the comments……….it’s like water off a ducks back.
If you want to change the culture here I think you’re going to have to take drastic steps.
It seems like a hostile work environment for the bloggers, don’t they deserve better than this?
Thanks for the opportunity to make a comment on the comment section. The term “Hostile cliquishness” resonates with me. I used to comment more frequently, but stopped because, like most decisions, I simply weighed the pros and cons. I have no problem with the GENERAL tone … don’t care about tone generally if I feel that everyone’s intentions are to authentically share, learn or teach. Chris Clarke’s comment about “fetishizing incivility” also resonates with me. The regular commenters here seem to take pride in the viciousness used in tearing apart ideas and comments, even when those comments are from other semi-regulars who really are interested in sharing, learning and teaching… as opposed to those who clearly have other intentions. People go from “why do you think that” to “fuck you, asshole” pretty fukkin quick. I read the blog because I find PZ’s take on things and the way he explains his take to be super valuable. I still scan the comments because sometimes people are very knowledgeable and share great links. But I find myself skipping over great swaths of comments because I’m not frikkin interested in the ridiculous parsing of what “is” is and the ego-driven intellect battles that happen here. That doesn’t interest me. To be clear, I am on PZ’s “side” of the great atheist schism, and I feel like I’m pretty open and interested in reading and learning about the issues that are regularly addressed here. But, I’m a musician … I play, I transcribe, I study, I write. That’s what I spend the vast majority of my time doing. I’m not a scientist and I don’t work in the social services. I am an atheist of course. I’m here because of the quality of the writing, the subject matter and the knowledge of the group … at times. But I’m not here to get attacked in the comment section when I don’t agree, or I inadvertently irritate one of the regulars. Now, I AM perfectly happy to lurk, to do exactly as I have done and read and peruse and hang back and eyeroll through the back of my head at the exchanges in the comments … so I am really just adding my feelings here. I don’t have any ideas about how things should change. I don’t expect the regulars to change, so … beats me.
A. Noyd @115:
This points to something that’s been bugging me about the idea that one shouldn’t say something online that they wouldn’t say to someone’s face. Having conversations online in a comments section (for instance) is not the same thing as having a conversation in meatspace.
Related anecdote:
A few months ago (when I was still employed), I was part of a conversation at work (I was/am a bartender) involving three guests. One of the participants was a very conservative male. The other two were friends-two women who I took to be liberal. Then there was me. Initially the two women and I were having a discussion about the more than 3 dozens allegations of sexual assault surrounding Bill Cosby and our chat branched off and weaved in different directions as conversations often do. We discussed rape statistics, the existence of Rape Culture, the tendency many people have to believe that some people just can’t be rapists…stuff like that. Well, conservative guy had to chime in with his input, and I’m sure many people here can imagine how that went. He was like a living, breathing Right Wing talking point (or series of talking points). I knew the women were getting irritated, and I definitely was getting angry.
But I could only say so much. I was at work, and this was a guy who was a patron, and as someone who works for tips, well, I didn’t want to say anything that would cause him to not tip me. Not to mention, if I said something he didn’t like, he could easily have complained to management, and potentially jeopardized my job. But at the same time, I wanted to say so much. Not because the two women weren’t able to refute his BS. They did that quite well and didn’t need my help. I wanted to speak up bc as a guy, I thought maybe he’d listen to me, as he clearly wasn’t paying much heed to their words. I chose to be supportive of the women, chiming in from time to time about how I read something that supported what they were saying. But really, I wanted to be able to speak my mind on the subject. I wish I didn’t have to be constrained by having to be civil bc I was at work.
Now, if that same discussion happened online, I would have still chosen my words with care (as I usually try to do), but I wouldn’t have been worried about not getting tipped. Nor would I have have needed to worry about getting in trouble by management for saying something a guest didn’t like. I would have had the freedom to express myself in the manner I chose, which means that yes, I’d have been rude. Such a conversation would likely have included coarse language, as well as informative links, and actual arguments on my part.
And that’s one of the differences between conversations online and offline. There are barriers in meatspace that prevent people from speaking their mind in the way they would choose. I’m not saying those barriers are necessarily good or bad, simply that they exist. When comparing offline discourse to online discourse, one needs to acknowledge that the context in which those discussions occur plays an important role in how people decide to converse with one another.
Works both ways, Tony.
lessismore @119:
Can you elaborate on what you think the problem(s) is/are?
I find this odd. Are you referring to all the comments? I’ve read all of them, and most don’t come off as “water off a ducks back”.
Such as…?
He’s soliciting opinions now, so this is the perfect time to speak up.
Any changes to Pharyngula’s comment policy only goes for Pharyngula. No other FtB blogs would be affected, so your last sentence doesn’t make a lot of sense. What bloggers are you talking about? Who is the they you’re referring to?
@ #121
I don’t quite understand your point. I’m sure you realize that when most people are at work they cannot simply spout their opinions or vent their feelings about any subject that comes up. On the other hand, if you had not been working, a customer, for instance, you could have said whatever you wanted. So I don’t see this as an example of how you are limited in what you can say offline.
PZ — I’m not too troubled by the commentariat here even though I don’t feel like part of a clique, but of you want to change it up it’s your blog to do so.
The only things I would like to change (and this applies to several liberal-leaning sites, not just this one) is the tendency to treat every apology as a notpology and every request for basic information on a topic as JAQing off.
My main issue in regards to the Thunderdome (though this has also occurred elsewhere on FTB) are the frequent — and often immediate — accusations of “dishonesty” when someone has a differing opinion or tries to make a point.
I’d like to see an end to this practice, because even as a regular, I find it intimidating and off-putting. Especially when someone has a legitimate grievance that’s being dismissed as “dishonest” or “stupid”.
I guess my suggestion could be condensed into “If you’re going to call another commenter ‘dishonest’, you need to back your assertion with documented evidence of said ‘dishonesty’.”
Tony,
My comment was directed at PZ if he wants me to elaborate I’d be happy to oblige.
It’s more like foxes and henhouses.
Bunch of assholes earnestly discussing the Asshole Problem.
Mirrors all around.
lessismore
The point of this thread is discussion among the commenters.
If you want to talk privately with PZ, send him an email.
link is in the sidebar, under his photo
Sven
That’s quite the metaphor salad.
Have a nice day.
chigau,
Thank’s, I’ve said what I had to say and if PZ is interested in hearing more all he has to do is post a request. I’m not interested in debating.
I can see my but
lessismore:
From the OP-
Tony,
Are you trying to bait me?
Let me give you a little background about myself. I was a social worker for 10 yrs, I taught assertive communication, anger management, conflict resolution and taught how to recognize and effectively deal with manipulative people.
If you want to play games with someone go find someone else, I’m not interested.
PZ, case in point.
lessismore @135:
I’m not trying to play games. I pointed out that PZ already asked for commenters to give their views on what could improve the comment section around here. But since you think I’m baiting you or trying to play games, I will stop.
Tolerance is only good for solving little problems. When it comes to big problems, tolerance can only help perpetuate the problems.
And that is how I feel about civility as well.
I love this place so much as it is that, though I agree with many of the critical comments in this thread, I worry about the baby and the bath water. I also mostly lurk, but I come here to read the strong and pointed arguments, expressed with little patience for injustice and lack of thought or evidence. I have learned so much here over the past several years. I am a different person, really.
Please tread carefully with any changes!
Paul K @ 138,
Yes. This. So very much this.
If huge numbers of comments are desirable, it is not difficult to figure out how to get them back.
Personally – I don’t think they are important.
I remember when I first joined FtB. The number of times I was called a fuckwit when I first started commenting at Pharyngula. I get a little misty.
Anyhow since then I have met at least one of the Pharyngulites from those days in real life, and we are actually FB friends. And I don’t believe that at least she still thinks I am a fuckwit, and she appears to be nicer than I would have originally thought from the initial Pharygula experience. Those sort of nuances of a person’s other traits often get lost in internet wars. I have been on the internet since it was just discussion boards in the 1990s, and even then there were systems to prevent discussions from devolving into flame wars.
I am not particularly vulnerable to attacks on whether I lack wits or not. But I can see where if someone is perhaps neurodivergent and well meaning, that might discourage them from posting again. I feel as though I am neurodivergent, so that doesn’t always come with insecurity about intelligence.
So I know maybe I am too charitable sometimes to people not deserving of it. I gotta say though that charity is as important as discouraging jerks from hijacking a conversation. I see this through the lens of someone, who has been demonstrably wrong about creationism, and persisted through insults to learn why I was wrong because I don’t like being wrong.
I don’t know if some of you were on the wrong side of an argument before, and persisted through a barrage of an insults to find out why. I have, and I can tell you as a survivor of childhood physical and emotional abuse that abusive language can sometimes trigger those same feelings and memories of being cussed at and disrespected.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t think anyone should let a jackass hijack a discussion. However, I think charity until someone proves they are indeed a jackass is a good thing.
I have even found that on the rare occasion that you change a jackass’s mind that you are decreasing the sum total of jackassery. As that former jackass doesn’t continue to inspire more jackassery. Which is why I will even attempt to reason with the likes of Ken Ham, until he proves to everyone what an unreasonable jackass he is and how bad his arguments are.
Believe me I have gotten into it with many internet jackasses from creationists to MRAs, racists, etc. I have also changed misguided people’s minds. That is the only reason I continue to risk the negativity. It is also a question of purpose are the discussions here to roast the opposing view, to raise awareness and/or change minds?
I agree with Demeisen:
Hopefully not digging myself into a hole and/or stuffing my foot in my mouth…
It is the repetition of the incoming cluelessness (intentional or not) that gets me, and I can only begin to imagine how it is for those without the privilege of being a pasty cis-guy that can hide – and does far too often. I guess something really emphasizing how pharyngula can be a rude blog with plenty of topics where commenters are rightly angry, so if you decide to add a comment in such a thread without making the slightest effort to check the current thread, or very recent threads, for similar topics/comments then you should be very aware that there may be annoyance/anger thrown your way if you drop a big stinking PRATT in the thread. e.g.
I know that #4 below is not necessarily conducive to getting new commenters commenting, but still feel the need to quote my internal processes from ‘the apology’.
…which my groggy brain thinks segues quite nicely into my views on civility. I’ve been swearing profusely since middle school, so it often irks me when someone makes a ‘call for civility’ because they automatically equate colorful (slur-free) language with abusive behavior. As many others have said, ‘polite’ can be far more painful than ‘profane’. Someone ‘politely’ denying the autonomy/humanity of another person is far more uncivil than me being called a ‘fuckwitted shitweasel with my head so far up my ass I can lick my own tonsils’ (sadly, that pathetic insult is the worst description of me that my brain can put together right now). If anyone is looking for a ‘clean’ debate forum, then I suggest you go join the creationists (like the long gone medic0506) over on debate.org where they consider foul language to be a horrible thing while rejecting evidence out of hand is not considered the least bit uncivil or unreasonable or to be even slightly conceding the argument.
…and how I wish these poison ivy?/oak?/sumac? rashes would clear up already. Itchy legs and forearm are making me grumpier than usual.
In case anyone’s wondering, I actually found this thread reasonably civil. The biggest problem is that even though there was some attempt to move towards evidence early in the discussion, it reverted very quickly to an exchange of preferences backed up with articles of faith on the uses of incivility. In itself, that’s fine – it is an internet comment thread – but look what happened as a collateral!
Despite the fact that I’m clearly not alone, several people told me that if I didn’t like the way they do things around here I should go away. This is inherently hostile and particularly inappropriate, given the subject of the OP. It’s the clearest expression you could ask for of the clique behaving territorially and deliberately trying to drive people off who disagree with them. Even as PZ is talking about change to counteract that very tendency, some of you are openly and explicitly saying you own this space and you’re going to carry on as you were no matter what. You see, to me, it isn’t even a question of using insults or rude words. It makes no difference whether you say ‘Fuck off, asshole’ or ‘if you don’t like it, perhaps you shouldn’t read these threads’. The content is the same and it IS one of the problems which has been raised.
I just want to say that I love the space here, I love how bigotry gets called out and how civility as a smokescreen for bigotry is not tolerated. I completely agree with what Jackie wrote in 109.
That said, I do agree that maybe some subtle changes can improve the overall feel of the comments sections. I can see how it would be intimidating for new commenters to take part. Mostly, I comment when I have something to say that hasn’t already been said by someone else, but other people may be more sensitive to things like in-group out-group dynamics and stuff, which I generally don’t even notice.
I think the suggestion that every question not be treated as an attempt at JAQing off and every apology not be treated as a notpology made by chrislawson in 125 are good, solid suggestions that I completely agree with. I also think that holding off on calling people misogynist fuckwads and the like within the first few comments they make, while sometimes true, can be quite off-putting to those who aren’t as clued-up on social justice basic frameworks. I think Jay Smooth’s suggestions of calling out the behaviour, not the person, could go a long way towards showing new commenters that we really aren’t a bunch of sharks looking to pounce and tear them apart on the slightest bit of blood they show.
Further, I think that Sven has been acting like an asshole in this thread and has done so without contributing anything to the conversation other than “I told you so” and “you’re all a bunch of assholes”. I don’t think it’s appropriate for this thread and maybe one of the problems is that there isn’t a mod around to tell him, if it is indeed inappropriate for this thread, to cut it out or take it somewhere else or whatever. Same with demands, immediately after someone posted for the first time, to provide evidence or be known as a misogynist jerkface or whatever.
At the end of the day, more moderation aimed towards maybe sometimes, when necessary (which it isn’t always), guiding the regulars towards de-escalation may be necessary.
Pen,
I addressed all your points, and yet you chose to “boil it down” to one answer to one particular argument of yours.
*shrug*
I just want to state for the record that I, too, agree with Demeisen
I also agree with the points made that PZ needs to clarify what his purpose is for the comment sections. That will go a long way towards guiding any policy changes and moderation considerations. Is it to change people’s minds? Is it to provide a safe space for those who are interested in fighting for social justice to kind of “re-charge” and interact with those who are like-minded? Is there some other purpose?
Pen @ 99,
1. Of course David Cameron doesn’t say it out loud. He likes to think of himself as a Nice Guy (™) and he’s trying to hold together a fissiparous party with a very small majority. But he uses language which encourages such thinking and he’s just re-appointed Iain Duncan Smith to head DWP. And what is IDS doing? Using vast amounts of taxpayers’ money to fight the courts so that a piece of official research which may shed light on the apparent link between benefit sanctions and sudden deaths among the disabled will not be published.
ANECDOTE: Last evening I popped down to the grocer’s. As I walked up the street I saw ahead of me a group of youngsters – late teens? – hanging out and doing nothing in particular. They were not noticeably drunk, they were not smoking weed and they were not making an unreasonable amount of noise. Yet two women, a little younger than I, walking behind me seemed to take exception to their very existence. As I walked past the young people one woman was saying, “Of course, they’re all scroungers.” So, that negativity has become common currency and may be trotted out any time, any place, on the basis of no evidence at all. Add that to media treatment and the rise in unprovoked attacks on the visibly disabled and you have a coarsening of public discourse for which Cameron bears a share of the blame. Whether he admits it or not.
Your interpretation of what I said there is correct.
2. How PZ conducts his arguments is his business. I know he bases his tactics on his very long experience of dealing with this oft-repeated nonsense.
3. There are many people who believe, for instance, that racism in the US is over and/or caused by people talking about police over-reaction or social disadvantage. They pop up here as do those who believe there is no pay gap and that almost all reports of rape are false.
In principle they have access to the same information as everyone else but they can refuse to use it – as we have seen – and need to be jerked into doing so.
There is an argument for patience, sometimes more patience than we here show. There is no argument for using the cover of civility to confirm them in their views, especially when those views are right now causing or permitting harm.
4. You’ve clearly never been here when one or a handful of obsessives keeps on repeating something they have heard which is unsupportable – sometimes scientifically, sometimes theologically, often both – and then they assert they they will not read our arguments or click on our links unless and until we accept their flawed reasoning.
Two or three calm attempts to reason with such people are probably the best course but we are humans, we run out of patience, we are often busy. There’s no good reason to expect us to behave better than they, especially when one of their friends has tried exactly the same tactic 100 comments up.
Sometimes FUCK OFF is exactly the right thing to say and any reasonable definition of freedom of speech has to include the right to be rude to someone who is already being very rude to you.
As for the general approach to civility – it cannot be an end in itself, it can lull the trolls into believing that they really do have a point and, as has been noted especially by Tony, it can be an instrument for controlling the very people who are being harmed. (See response to 1 above.)
Many of us love this place because we can speak freely and people who are at the mercy of malignity and intolerance elsewhere feel safe. That’s enough. It’s a different social good than civility but it is an important one.
Thoughts on “fox guarding the hen house” problem:
Let’s start with the proposition that regulars aren’t fit to moderate without bias. Who can moderate then? Even PZ isn’t always unbiased. I’m not sure how you could get some completely disinterested party to invest time and effort into moderation, or how they could do that without getting to know people after a while and risking becoming unbiased just like everyone else.
Except that we are not foxes and have some traits like self-awareness and control, and since we obviously care about this place, I’m sure in every argument some people are going to be able to keep a cool head and realize the argument has gotten out of hand.
But then the problem that mirrors probably every other group crops up:
People don’t want to speak up against their friends or people they like. I know I’ve felt like that at times. I feel somewhat defensive about people labeling that as scary regulars verbally beating everyone into submission, because it’s hardly that sinister – it can happen in virtually every community with no one driving things in that direction deliberately or even realizing the position they are in afterwards.
That’s why I don’t think that rules are all that much of a problem, but how consistently they are applied.
So really, my proposal is that now that we have been repeatedly told that things have gotten out of hand, we start moderating each other more seriously and consistently. As someone who has accepted be a monitor, I feel somewhat responsible for not being good enough at my job. So maybe a suggestion for PZ: not giving monitors more power, but asking for more responsibility in applying ourselves to the tasks and giving us a serious slap on the wrist when we don’t.
Even the part of the commenting rules related to monitors says:
(bolding mine)
For example, I don’t think my replies to Pen have been in any way inappropriate, but someone more level-headed is welcome to correct me.
I think that a large chunk of the commenting issues would disappear if you had a well-articulated policy on what is the extent to which commentary that isn’t leftist orthodoxy is permitted here. PZ, it’s your blog and you obviously have the right to decide if you want ideological diversity or not, but whatever you want should be clearly articulated. If you don’t want comments that aren’t in line with leftist orthodoxy, well and good, but say so, so that any moderates or conservatives who happen to wander in here know to comment somewhere else.
On the other hand, if thoughtful moderate/conservative commentary is welcome here (and no, that’s not an oxymoron; conservatives aren’t wrong about everything), then I think you owe is to such commentators to encourage at least a modicum of civility.
So, decide that issue, and much of the problem disappears.
eeyore @ 150,
What is this leftist orthodoxy of which you speak?
There’s only one test here – can you support your initial slogan or cliche with a well thought through argument and, wherever possible, facts?
I really hope that this won’t become a polite blog or something.
Having moderators seems like a bad idea: newbies would see them as siding, openly or covertly, with the regulars.
And they might be right.
@numerobis #10
Ask the regulars to err on the side of not joining a pileup, especially against newbies.
This alone might make a difference.
If you are a regular, and you see that others are responding, just keep that great retort for yourself.
@David Marjanović #69
Very well put. Know that I will be using your words left and right.
(I am one of those that changed due to the uncivil treatment.)
Eeyore
Well, that shows what your problem here is. This is a liberal/progressive blog. You can say what you want, even support conservative ideas, but you need to be able to back up your claims, preferably with evidence. Which is part of freethought (a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas). Which conservatives are loath to do since they support the dogma.
Hi – another extremely-long-time lurker, very infrequent commenter here. I don’t have any solutions, but reading this comment thread made one problem very obvious: when people ask for more charity, less hostility and knee-jerk dismissiveness, several regular commenters respond as if they’d been told to stop saying fuck.
It does, yes. But lots of other things also get called out as tone-trolling or lying or other kinds of dishonesty based on mere resemblance to someone’s experience with other people.
But they haven’t had those years of discussion. They really know nothing at all (in many cases).
carlie, it’s the other way around: you commonly say important things so clearly that there’s simply nothing to add and nothing to criticize. I tend to simply shut up in such situations, and so do several other people. :-)
Oh, that’s a special case. There’s no excuse for participating in a thread without having read enough of it to make sure one isn’t just repeating something.
Yep. Many people take their experience with actual tone trolls and project it on any situation that resembles it.
All right, I will reconsider shutting down Thunderdome. I might rename it to something like “Off Topic” to make it clear it is no longer a place for knock-down drag-out vicious infighting.
#154, amrie also makes succinctly clear what the problem is.
One other thing to consider: I am not even contemplating going the faux-neutrality route. This will always be a blog that is openly about advocacy for positions I favor. I am not pretending to be for giving all sides an equal voice — so if you’re trying to persuade me to be nicer to Libertarians and Republicans, well, fuck you too. But there are a whole lot of people who are entirely on our side who are reluctant to step into the grinder — one misstep and they’re pulped. That’s not good.
I guess I won’t open the door to other moderators. I’ve had reservations about that all along — the concern is that anyone who can edit comments also has complete access to email addresses, and I know many people here have reasonable concerns about privacy.
I also appreciate another challenge here: asking people to be more tolerant of diverse comments has to take into account the fact that we actually are under constant attack: there is a small group of dedicated trolls who love to sneak in and leave obnoxious, dishonest comments.
So the assumption that commenters are writing in good faith is too often false. You’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you!
But I’d rather that the chore of handling the dishonest trolls were left to me — I can just pop those zits and be rid of them without the long wrangling that just feeds their need for attention.
You’re right if they’re really out to get you; but that doesn’t mean you’re not also paranoid. :-)
read @153 again.
to add on:
to support Nerd: the issue is not whether a comment is or isn’t reciting leftist orthodoxy. The issue is “courtesy”. Radically rightist orthodoxy can be presented here, IF courteous responses are responded to courteously and not completely ignored or disregarded. That threads be considered ‘conversations’, discussing the OP, and not places to post screeds only marginally related to the OP. Nor conversations that wander onto completely different subjects and get totally lost into a different subject than the OP (possibly warranting being separated into a new thread). [i.e “derailed]
When I said “courtesy”, I do not mean “polite”, nor exclusion of vulgar language. Courtesy allows vulgarities when used to express emotion, and not just thrown in for shock value. Answer questions posed to one’s previous comment. Consider responses to one’s statements and reply cogently with references to the questions/replies and not just simple reiteration of the original comment being discussed.
sorry. one bold, unimplementable condition of mine is “appropriate use of vulgarities”. I agree, the diffuculty is: how to define “appropriate”, and why add more specificity to PZ’s moderation task?
sorry also, for sounding like a “tone troll”, with that “appropriate use” clause.
The real issue (so to speak) is that we are willing to listen to opposing viewpoints (as in rightwing orthodoxy) iff (if and only if), they will also listen to us, and not just post, repost, repost, repeatedly, their assertions, while disregarding any and all requests or replies to them.
in summary, I don’t see anyone here advocating elimination of non-leftist orthodoxy thoughts being presented here, nor advocating unbridled use of profanity to demean the extreme rightwingers.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ugh. all that stuff about using vulgarity with courtesy, was inspired by a recent read about the use of profanity in Game Of Thrones @ HBO. linky:
Why Game of Thrones Uses Profanity Better Than Any Other TV Show
@124, tomh
Ok, how about this? In the real world sometimes saying something in public, calling out someone for being a racist/sexist/homophobe as an example, gets you harassed. Sometimes they follow you around harassing you. Sometimes they can get scary. Sometimes your only recourse is to physically leave (and sometimes that isn’t possible). And sometimes, if you happened to piss off a real winner, it doesn’t end there. Those two women that were having to deal with that conservative guy at the bar, he could’ve easily gotten very hostile and followed them around all night harassing them. Sure, hopefully, the bar would eventually kick him out, but them he could’ve waited around in the parking lot and accosted them at their car. He doesn’t even have to get violent, being cornered by some angry hostile dude is pretty traumatic. And, unless he does cross that line, there’s really nothing you can do about it except try to escape. There’s very little legal recource for being harassed in public. I’ve seen it happen; it’s scary and gross.
In meatspace you are at real risk, whereas online you are relatively safe. Granted, you’re not 100% secure, people can still do some pretty horrid things if they are persistent enough, but in general you don’t have to worry about being unable to escape a hostile person.
I’m wondering how long the people calling anger and exasperation in response to bigotry (regardless of intent) a fetish or something the targets of that bigotry enjoy are going to go on before they hear themselves and realize they are saying, “You’re just looking for reasons to be offended.”
If you come here often and you mean well, but you write rape apology or the like, it does not change the impact of your statement on the people you are harming. It may mean very little to you and maybe you don’t think it’s a big deal, but I assure you, it is.
For people interested in civility, you aren’t actually being civil.
At this point I’d like some examples of fetishized incivility and some evidence that those of us who don’t respond politely enough to suit you using anger or hurt as an excuse to get our rocks off. I’d like actual examples of doing it wrong vs doing it right so that I can learn to do better without worrying about walking on eggshells and moving goal posts.
*are using*
I’d like actual examples of doing it wrong vs doing it right so that I can learn to do better without worrying about walking on eggshells and moving goal posts.
I pretty much agree with what you said, and want to use your last sentence as a springboard to go in an odd direction. (Maybe I’m derailing.)
I liked what PZ wrote about Dr. Tim Hunt and the blowback that person is getting on Twitter. I think that we could take a random list of 20 negative tweets sent to Hunt yesterday and run almost a survey on them. Which ones are too mean and go to far? (I think individual “ratings” would vary.) I’m suggesting this because its a fairly neutral data set. It avoids taking remarks from a Pharyngula thread and might give enough distance that examples of rudeness (or truth-telling) could be dissected and weighed without much personal rancor.
(Meta: we can’t run a survey by picking one tweet, such as : “stinking fucker would have hugged Hitler” and posting it here and saying “Everyone here agrees that this goes too far, right?” because public answering in the face of strong expectations is not going to achieve the same honesty as an anonymous answer. And there’s no good way to count the number of people skipping or declining to answer the question.)
(I sometimes want to turn tables on people who say “that’s too mean” and challenge them to rephrase the point in a non-mean way without completely erasing it. It’s not trivially easy.)
* [ not a real quote from his twitter stream, just fictionalized to illustrate]
If this is still up ror discussion, may I suggest the following guideline?
Respond to another comment with the initial assumption that it was made by someone who is your equal.
This removes objections to the hierarchy imposed by civility. It further allows qualifying interactions to shift that initial assumption in either direction…which is to say, gives someone unfamiliar with the culture if the place the chance to correct or qualify an ill considered comment without being shouted at, lectured, or otherwise chased off. It means treating others, and being treated as, a human being whose life experiences, opinions, and failings are given the same acknowledgement as others. Tossing the idea into the ring without having the time to expand on it much.
Hostile cliquishness is the main reason I don’t usually comment on here anymore.
PZ @ 26:
As an interim step, you could try having monitors who actually monitored threads.
Could we have a welcome thread for new readers and lurkers who want to introduce themselves? That could be a place where links to 101 level info can be front and center. That way they are not jumping in threads unprepared and it will be clear they aren’t trolls and we aren’t baby eating monsters.
A little familiarity can go a long way toward helping people trust one another.
As to the comment that we should not say online what we cannot in meatspace:
Those of us who are acceptable targets for bigotry and violence irl do not often get to say what we mean for our own safety and job security.
When the good ‘ol boys decide to come for you, ain’t nobody going to say anything but, “You should have watched your mouth.”
Tony made an excellent point about class. No, his job is not just like anyone else’s job. Some of us are servants who serve members of the public we’d really rather not. Some employers are sympathetic. Some are either bigots or just don’t care. The level of abuse a person has to take at work goes way up when they have no choice but hang on to that job. What are they going to do? Get another job? Where? Doing what? There are plenty of people starving for hours. You won’t be missed if you quit, but where will you go and how will you eat?
We do not all have the same freedom. We are not all living in the same world.
There seems to me to be a superior attitude among those with privilege enough to feel dispassionate about inequity. How crass and vulgar we lower downs are for not sharing their flippancy. (Oh, they don’t think they’re flippant. They care just the right amount. Just ask them.) These discussions are hypothetical to many of them. They’re opportunities to express themselves are more frequent and more safe. So they assume it must be some character flaw that makes us so awfully touchy.
I have no idea how to politely reach someone like, but I know I don’t think it is my job to be polite to them at all. It also isn’t my job to improve the minds of those looking down on me. Being nicer to the oppressor class never does anything but support the system they run. They either are not listening to us or cannot hear from high atop the rest of us. I find people like that calling for one more space to be designed with their comfort in mind disheartening. I get the feeling they will never stop pushing, that it will never be enough for them. They already see the rest of us as irrational, abusive people who make dishonest excuses to attack poor innocents. If someone else can do it, more power to them.
However this civility and charity thing works out, it will not be enough for those people. There are no neutral parties. “You can’t stand still on a moving train.” – Howard Zinn
This will be a constant tug of war. We’ll have to take stock, reevaluate and restructure over and over again as the years go by. Nothing worth having is ever easy, is it?
a3kr0n @133,
I’m sorry to hear that. Could you please expand on that? An example would be nice. I may be awfully simple, but I need my terms clear. Hostile how and cliquish how? I get the feeling I’m not seeing the forest for the trees.
I need a little extra help and I’d appreciate anyone who will take the time to spell out more clearly what we’re trying to achieve.
I must have missed quite a bit lately because I’m just not getting it. I want to.
I guess I’ve been lucky, but when I’ve stepped in it here I recall being told to check myself and that was that.
I checked. I came back. I thought all was well. I don’t often hang out in the dome or the lounge so I probably miss alot.
Probably digging, but my ‘refusing to rest’ brain is not really finding much in the way of ‘don’t tell me to stop saying fuck’ comments until Pen dropped the lengthy comment which triggered a small pile-on. Before that, the comments were mostly about observations of hostility and cliquishness discouraging those commenters from posting more frequently and possible methods to counter the knee-jerk hostility to new commenters not being sufficiently educated, ‘pure’, or deferential to the regulars. Think Maureen Brian’s #21 may have been the closest with a request for clarification of Pharyngula rudeness in the rules, which I apparently forget about as it was more thorough in saying most of what I wanted to say in my earlier comment but without my rambling, passive-aggressive shittiness.
Nevermind. I think I just figured out what I can best do to help. I can shut up and get out of the way of progress.
Pen@63,,
I’ve read your references, but none of them actually deal with the issue of civility/incivility at all. The BBC link (which in turn links to the abstract of a study in Psychological Science) does suggest an interesting approach: asking people to set out how they link a policy they propose would have the effect they want (rather than asking for reasons for their belief – but like the others, no reference to civility or its opposite. So your cliam that research supports your view appears to be unsupported.
Well I do sympathise with eeyore here. How are they to do that in the face of reality’s pronounced leftist bias? ;-)
“link a policy”@173 should be “think a policy”.
Jackie @ 167:
This isn’t new, and it’s fairly simple. It’s about attempting to apply charity first, rather than after a page and a half of hostile replies, making an attempt to find out if someone is an honest interlocutor rather than assuming it. I know how difficult that is to do, but there have been enough times where I’ve taken the time to kindly address someone going against the tide, and it’s turned out that they weren’t the enemy, so to speak, but wouldn’t stick around because of being subjected to a hostile rapid fire combined with dismissal.
Given the fast pace and long term acquaintanceship among people here, charity first is a tall order. PZ implemented the monitor system to help deal with that, but the monitors don’t want to monitor, and many long-term regulars whined about it so much, they (the monitors) just faded into the background. I think the monitor system could work, and work well, if there was a consistent presence by monitors in threads, guiding the discussion when needed, and reminding everyone of the commenting rules now and then. People would get used to monitor presence eventually, and it would go a long way in helping new people to feel a bit safer about diving into the legendary shark tank.
I like Jackie’s idea of a newcomer thread. Like the lounge, a chatty place to get to know one another specifically for getting to know new people. It would need heavy moderation, and it should *never* be a pre-requirement that one must post there before posting somewhere else, but the general gist is sound, I think.
Gen @ 177:
We have an introduction/new people thread – after the initial burst, it didn’t get used, and I don’t think it would help, because what this does is to keep splintering Pharyngula into sections, but doesn’t do a damn thing at all where general commenting is concerned.
Pharyngula has gone through three phases in cyberspace: pharyngula.com, scienceblogs.com, freethoughtblogs.com.
It has also gone through three foci (which don’t overlap at all with the address changes): pro-science/anti-creationism, pro-atheism/anti-superstition, pro-feminist/anti-bigotry. Each change has brought about a partial turnover of core commenters and a different tone, typically trending towards greater emotionality. (I don’t mean any indictment of peoples’ reactions by that: the personal and social harm caused by the malefactors in each arena increases approximately exponentially compared to the previous one.)
I liked it better here back in the earlier phases (the issues were clearer and less painful), but I doubt “we” (PZM) could revert even if “we” (he) wanted to: the current themes matter too much, and reappear in too many forms, for us to shut them out once they’ve emerged. So our esteemed host’s questions might be rephrased as how best to handle commentary on a de facto SJW blog, which of course leads to, “How do the other blogs of the same ilk deal with this?”
In my limited experience, not too well: e.g., Shakesville (last I saw; I gave up there long ago) descended into cliquishness to make the Lounge here look like a brand-new MeetUp. Facing increasing limits to my time online/on this planet, I read very few comment-threads outside FtB, but get the impression that the most successful cases (e.g., Skepchick) rely on heavy moderation. Can anyone here with wider experience suggest other examples whose strategies might work in this context?
Caine@178: well that makes sense, I guess. I also agree with your post at 176 about the monitors – that was the feeling I got, though I can’t say for sure, and I’m pretty oblivious to these kinds of power-game going ons.
Maureen @148 – all of the political examples are really interesting and I would love to talk about them more, but I think they would do better in a different thread.
With regards to civility, you say the same thing as many of the commentators, I don’t agree. I don’t really have time to defend my case better right now, nor do I think it would be worth my while. The issue as regards this blog seems likely to be decided on votes and I’m outvoted. See you around.
Beatrice @ 148
Well yes. If you look again, you’ll see that all your replies have to do with preferences and subjective responses to situations. I’m not going to tell you you don’t feel the way you do. I’m not going to tell you I feel the same way. Does this blog’s etiquette require me to insult you because we have different preferences and responses? I’m not doing it.
All, in all *shrug* seems self-evident on both sides, but I’m glad we’ve let the world of Pharyngula know that we’re shrugging.
@164
I don’t think it is a simple matter of using a cuss word such as “fuck” or even an insult such as “ignorant”. It is a matter of context in which words become ableist and abusive. So an example, I was arguing with someone who thinks transracial and transgender are equivalent basically Rachel Dolezal equals Caitlyn Jenner. He was quite hostile and angry at what he called freethinkers who don’t accept Dolezal’s fraud, but accept Jenner. (who didn’t defraud anyone)
I tried to explain that as a white person he doesn’t understand appropriation and passing, and he trotted out the old chestnut that I don’t know him; he is part Cherokee. (He is blond and blue eyed).
This angers me on several levels, because I was trained from the time I could speak that maybe I didn’t understand when someone was being racist, and automatically treating me like a foreigner because I look Asian even though I am biracial.) I don’t pass, and I can’t choose to pass for white, like Obama. So transracial is a one way street. It even works to the point where you are gaslit when someone is being out of line, and bystanders join in hoping to not hear an argument and basically silence you the victim to keep the peace. A teacher I once went to for help because I wasn’t just having my hair touched without permission, (a problem people with Asian hair commonly encounter); it was being pulled repeatedly in the hallway. She dismissed the problem with the boys pull the hair of girls they like chestnut. So she got peace and for me to not bother her with my problem, and I still had a problem.
For a long time I went with the maybe I am misunderstanding people’s intentions rather than make a fuss, because that is what I was trained to do. So yes, I get being silenced and having legitimate problems dismissed, excused as silencing techniques. Even being a victim is shamed.
So to the examples, lets say I responded to Mr. Part Cherokee with an insult like ignorant. (Not even going there with fuckwit IMO it sounds very close to the ableist “fucktard” which has no correct context)
Here are examples with different contexts:
1. You are ignorant, and too dimwitted to understand your own privilege.
2. You can’t understand the point of view of a person of color, because of your ignorance of their experiences.
3. Fuck off! You ignorant honky!
IMO one of those is an acceptable context for using the word ignorant. The other 2 although more gratifying and possibly more disruptive to Mr. Part Cherokee’s narrative IMO is dismissive to his abilities to ever learn. And I don’t think very effective, because it gives this person an out to defending his tripe, by allowing him to argue it is your problem because you are incivil. hostile, abusive, etc.
I did strongly argue against him, and someone friended me for being “awesome”, and people asked him why he was so angry about this issue.
All right, let me clarify what I meant by leftist orthodoxy.
I agree with Nerd that statements of fact should be backed up with evidence, but a lot of time what’s being talked about here is personal opinion about what is good policy, for which liberals and conservatives alike are simply offering their opinion. A good example of that is the death penalty; whether you think it’s a good idea depends entirely on your presuppositions. If you see it as fundamentally unjust that murderers are allowed to live while their victims aren’t, then all the discussions about whether it deters or how much it costs are beside the point. On the other hand, if you’re just not willing to give the state that kind of power, then it may be convenient to be able to argue that the DP is expensive (and brush aside practical ways to reduce the cost) but that, too, is beside the point since you’d still oppose it even if cost cutting measures were implemented. So it isn’t about citing facts and figures; it’s about people deciding what their position is and then not caring about contrary arguments after that. Liberals and conservatives both do it.
The other practical problem I see is that the concept of bigotry sometimes gets stretched here beyond all recognition. I was basically accused of being an anti-gay bigot, even though I myself am gay, for being willing to carve out a narrow exception in anti-discrimination laws for bakers who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings. Believe it or not, there are non-bigoted reasons to support the bakers, and opposition to compelled speech is one of them.
Finally, the real problem with using “fuck off” as an argument isn’t the tone, but the fact that it contributes nothing to the discussion. It may make the speaker feel better, but it sheds no light on what’s being discussed.
Well this is…interesting.
I am hoping that we will get some clarity when the actual commenting changes are made, rather than just preliminary talks about forthcoming changes. It seems like there is a very thin line that needs to be placed somewhere. And there is going to be a cost for every benefit, regardless on where it is placed. But I think it needs to be perfectly clear what the boundaries are, what the expectations are on the part of commenters, a general idea of what the limits of “charity” are, and so on.
As for more specific issues:
A reminder to not “pile on” seems like a good basic and simple policy that will prevent some major issues.
Dywalgi’s suggestion is a fairly good one for a policy idea. It sounds like a good “recommended attitude”.
Chrislawson also brought up two major yet specific and simple issues: Dismissing all apologies as notpologies and dismissing all questions as JAQing off.
I’ve also noted a resistance towards providing evidence or citations for things, often telling people to look it up themselves. Which is hypocritical, because we often demand evidence ourselves, and it comes off as intellectual laziness. We should be willing to provide links for people, even if we don’t trust their intellectual honesty. Because if we outright refuse to do so, there is reason for them to question ours.
As a general idea: Perhaps we should think of things in terms of proportionality and escalation. Respond with a tone and attitude proportionate to that of the comment you respond to. Do not escalate unless that person, through time, erodes whatever charity you would give to them, either through an obvious and undeniable lack of honesty in how they debate and/or through fairly clear bigotry.
Someone who is rude can be met with rudeness. Someone who is polite but is simply mistaken about a matter of fact should be met with politeness. Someone is polite and is a bigot is rude, and can be met with rudeness.
Obviously, that sounds nice and simple, when it really wouldn’t be when put into practice, but I think that is going to be true for anything we go forward with.
Eeyore @ 184:
I wouldn’t have called you a bigot, however, I think your position is one in which bigots could shelter, and in doing so, plant a wedge for protecting bigotry. If we were having that discussion, I’d go on to clarify quite a bit. I can see where you would most likely be willing to have that discussion, but would shut down rapidly after being called a bigot time after time. These distinctions are crucial to constructive discussion, and again, the only way I see clear is to implement monitors as a consistent presence.
@184 this is a good example.
The baker example
Possible responses
1. You anti-gay bigot!
2. Even though you are gay that doesn’t automatically make you right on all gay issues. The baker serves the public, and is not allowed to discriminate on which part of the public they serve. It is a slippery slope to segregation.
Not that I want to divert to this particular argument, but using it as an example.
Actually there is evidence it doesn’t act as a deterent. So, you lie when you pretend it is a matter of opinion, not one that is evidence based. Most of your contrariness comes from your inability to look for and find evidence for or against your opinions. Or that you don’t even try. You pretend it is all opinions without any backing by evidence.
Not gonna derail. Here is eeyore made the gay wedding cake argument they allude to: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/02/doing-the-right-thing/
Their first comment is at 62. Read and judge for yourself.
I would say further debate should happen in the Thunderdome, but the rules are in limbo, as is TDome, so I just don’t know anymore.
I’m one of those who was asked to be a monitor and now isn’t monitoring. So assign appropriate blame here. **IF** people want me to do that job, I’m willing, even if it would tend to distance me somewhat from the rest of the Horde.
Nerd, #188:
Nerd, there are times when it’s appropriate to call out lying. There are times when someone is discussing a specific comment that you know they’ve read because they’ve mentioned it and they blatantly say something is or is not in that comment in contradiction of fact.
But ”
1. You communicate X is true
2. To lie is to communicate what you know to be false
3. there is evidence X is false
4. therefore, you are lying
doesn’t hold up. It is possible to believe X is true despite evidence X is false.
I wouldn’t normally call you out on this, but this is ***exactly*** the type of thing that PZ (and many others) wants to reduce. We’re in a thread specifically about creating a different climate and this seems a perfect example of how the present climate sometimes goes wrong.
CD @ 190:
I was willing too, but I found myself alone, and getting abuse from every quarter for it. It’s not enough to have one (or even two) people willing to do it – a team of people need to do it, and do it consistently. Along with that, there needs to be no favour of those on the privileged side of town (long-term regulars), and I know from experience the amount of fucking whining and blaming of the monitor[s] which will happen when they are reminded of rules or guided back into fruitful discussion. Anyone willing to monitor needs to keep that in mind – it’s not fun. (Although, I have been something of a Universal Blame Acceptor around here for a long time, so perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad for others.)
There are people here who seem to be addicted to being abusive, and stomping on that is going to raise a lot of howls.
OK, many things that are coming together here.
1. Yes, I think we’Re trigger happy. It’s not the first time we’re having this discussion, we’re having it periodically. Then we’Re trying for a while and then we’re forgetting again. We must do better.
2. We’re often not charitable. That’s true, and it’s not good, but I also don’t like how it’s framed by some. There are reasons why we’re often not charitable. The regular appearance of slymepitters, harassment and the sheer exhaustion from pushing stones uphill. It’s not like there’s just a group of meanies that jumps at innocent people who are arguing in good faith, though we’re doing that as well and that’s bad.
See, this would be a perfect example. “leftist orthodoxy” really isn’t a phrase that would convey good faith to me. It sends a “not another one of those vibe” to me. While it’s probably wrong to jump to that conclusion, it’s also a fact that it’s the right vibe 9 out of 10 times.
3. What’s the aim? As beatrice has mentioned, sometimes the aim is to tell people their shit is unacceptable. As Jackie mentioned, sometimes it’S to tell marginalised people they’Re safe. Sometimes it’s to change minds. The question how we shoudl behave depends on the goal.
+++
A.Noyd
Honestly, I’m not seeing that happen. How much completeness do you have in mind? Explain the Latvian potatoes jokes? Tell everybody about our private situation every time we talk about our families? I understand the problem, but I don’t see a solution this way. It sounds good, but that’s why I’m asking what you mean by that.
I still send troll and slyme alerts.
.
anteprepro
The Rules and the Thunderdome have not yet changed.
Carry on.
Maybe that’s the problem? Not you specifically, Crip Dyke, but in general. People like some of the other people, and it’s harder to call out the people you like. I think Nerd was completely out of line with that comment, but before today I would have just shrugged and let it slide. Maybe that’s the kind of thing that we need to combat.
I’ll also add that I think this is a perfect example of why some people are arguing for (some) civility. It’s not that “fuck” is an inherently bad word, it’s not that people need to be polite to truly loathsome ideas, it’s that:
assumes intent, specifically attacks the author instead of the ideas, and shuts down all possible future conversation. Heck, I pointed out that one of Nerd’s references was actually a call for limited civility, and got told I was arguing that we have to engage every creobot as if they’re serious. (see Thunderdome). :)
Mind-reading and accusations of dishonesty as a default behavior is not civil. Put another way, where’s Nerd’s evidence that eeyore is actually a lying, pretending, contrary person who didn’t even try to find evidence (all Nerd’s words, thanks)?
CD, you think I was out of line, to point out, with evidence, that presuppositional opinion can be negated by facts. Interesting.
If someone actually took the time and effort (one google search, top item), to do their own research and actually look at the data, not their presuppositions, it wouldn’t be a problem. They could see it isn’t just presuppositional opinion.
Now, how should this be handled in a manner you consider more appropriate? Don’t just criticize, show the response you consider better, so that all of us can look at and criticize it.
Re: monitors/moderators, a random idea.
Would it help if people who were monitors and moderators had separate accounts for that purpose? So that if they commented with a note or warning in a thread, it would be via an account that just says Moderator or Monitor or whatever. That way if someone like Crip Dyke and Caine, who might want to participate in the thread as a regular commenter, but also want to issue a Monitor Note as a reminder of a rules violation, can do so without giving their comments extra authority, and without also drawing ire or disrespect of the authority of the Monitor Note, on the basis that is just one person who was commenting in the thread and then suddenly makes a command. It will be slightly more obvious for newbies to take those notes seriously and it will remove a little bit of the jarring reaction between regarding that person as just another commenter and then regarding them as a legitimate authority making a rules pronouncement.
Not sure how much it would help, but it might cause a little less stress for those who decide to become monitors. Hopefully there isn’t as much wailing and gnashing of teeth in general. The anonymity might actually backfire, making it easier to complain about monitors in general, and potentially making it easier for monitors to abuse their Tremendous Power. But, yeah.
Nerd, just because something can be negated facts, even if it is easily done so, even if a small amount of research is needed to contradict their statements…..that doesn’t inherently mean they are lying. Ignorance is a thing that exists.
anteprepro,
I like your suggestion in #198.
Although you are also right about risks. Person A who is a monitor argues with someone, person B as Monitor chastises that other person. It could look awkward.
My point wasn’t that Eeyore was lying about the death penalty, but rather that there is only a difference of presuppositional opinion between the right/left. By showing evidence to one example that it isn’t just presuppositions, it negates his “everything is presuppositional” statement. Everything can be looked at to see the effect of policies/presuppositions in real life.
Enough self-rationalization though.
Show should it have been handled better, getting my main point across?
I’m conflicted on the way an “anti-dogpile” policy might affect threads. That’s especially true with the potential affect the policy could have on potential derailings and the more infrequent participants. Consider the common scenario of a single interloper with very strong, yet wrong-headed, convictions stumbling into a thread: People like this can often be good at steering an entire conversation their way.
Depending on how the more-frequent posters react, an ideal anti-dogpile policy could shut down these sorts of derailings, especially if combined with a policy regarding repeated derailing attempts. If poorly implemented, however, an anti-dogpile policy could lead to a fragmented conversation: A few high-volume posters shift the topic of a thread rapidly and leave the lower-volume participants out. Think about the Joshua “It’s just a thought experiment” Shaffer thread from May: Once Joshua himself jumped in, the topic very rapidly became his misunderstanding of his own ludicrous “thought experiment.”
That’s an extreme example, and probably the very type of thing you want to avoid, but I’ve seen single people with very persistent bad ideas keep coming back to ask more questions, and the topic sort of organically moves in that direction. In a situation like that, a poorly written or poorly implemented policy against dogpiling might discourage somebody who posts less frequently from coming in with new ideas. I say that because it’s how I would feel: Without very well-defined rules on what constitutes a “dog-pile” post, I might be worried that anything I’m expressing isn’t sufficiently new and/or polite.
I guess, depending on the desired outcome, there are at least a couple good ways I can see around those problems. The first is to give ego-posters a set limit in which to actually address replies – if they just keep rehashing the same argument over and over they’re done (maybe relegate them to the off-topic thread where that discussion could continue.) That would prevent threads from going completely off the rails into uncomfortable areas, but it seems rather draconian and easy to accidentally kick out non-trolls. The other option, which is more similar to others I’ve seen floated here, might be to allow a large number of people to rebut a potential troll, provided their rebuttals bring something new to the table. That could be something like supporting an existing poster you agree with, rather than just throwing on more insults, or it could be a new idea or a new way of parsing existing ideas.
I’m not entirely sure about all of the above, but I’d like to close with a little bit of an explanation of why I’m worried: It’s not that I want to continue the outright hostility, it’s rather that I’m a reformed troll myself. I used to spend way to much time in the *chan circles, and I can’t help but look at these sort of polices through that lens. Forum codes of conduct are the very things I used to exploit before I realized how much of a shitbag I was. I can say from first-hand experience that there are a bunch of people who are very good at leveraging forum rules to shut down, rather than encourage, free discussion. When I read about a “civility” policy, I think about how I could have used that back when I was trolling: Use “just polite enough” language to rile the regulars up into anger and, once they attack me, get the mods to kick them instead of me. It’s much the same with a policy against too many people piling on one poster: I’d use a few sock puppets to shift the conversation in uncomfortable directions and hook a few regular posters. Once that’s done, I’d crank up the post rate and drown the thread, and everybody else, under a sea of noise (to which few people can respond for fear of being perceived as “piling on.”)
In closing, I’m not here to argue against anything changing, ever. I’d very much like to see the discussion climate improve here, but I want to stress how important it is to set the rules correctly. It’s important to be strict enough that the rules are effective, but also fluid enough that people with legitimate grievances can be forgiven for transgressions while rules-lawyer trolls, who push the line as far as they can but never quite cross it, can be properly dealt with.
Actually, the whole argument against what I said to Eeyore comes down to a continuing problem, and one that actually causes a lot of the dog piles.
If some new person comes and posts, thinking all opinions are equal and need not be supported by evidence, how does the commentariate go about convincing them otherwise? What limits and methods can be applied?
That is a real question that should also be addressed.
Nerd @ 201:
By not assuming you can read Eeyore’s mind, accusing them of “lying” or “pretending” as opposed to genuine misplaced conviction or ill-informed opinion, your accusations after all being based on zero evidence other than your own presupposition.
Unless you’d like to provide some arguments in support of your telepathic abilities.
Demeisen @202:
Thank you for sharing this. It gives a different perspective on comment policies.
As with the dogpiling problem: Us reglars could simply trust the others more. Only comment when we really have something new to add.
re @201:
Nerd, let me add my interpretation of the criticism thrown at you.
When someone new presents an argument full of presupposition and no evidence; instead of just telling them “presupposition with no evidence. Dismissed.” Rephrase that to. “What you presented was all presupposition. Try again, adding evidence to support your position, that I disagree with.”
I’ve found (in my experience), asking someone to support their position either cues *crickets*, or gets them to reconsider their position.
Based on my previous notes about “aggressive v assertive” type discussion: “Aggression” (semantic aggression, not the physical kind), tends to elicit defensiveness, and tends to result in the “doubling down” type behavior. Whereas “assertiveness”, usually elicits cooperative behavior and promotes rational thought about their argument rather than an emotional response. Dismissal, as the first response, can be categorized as “aggressiveness”, while asking for clarification is in the “assertive” category. [the key: embolded]
An argument in favor of strongly worded defenses of marginalized peoples. It helped me to ditch programming to get along with someone saying something racist fo9r example. The best arguments I have read in these discussions have helped me to not question my own judgement of whether someone is being racist.
So people can be innocently misguided in these things and at the same time demonstrably wrong. Society defends the status quo. And people often give lip service to justice. There are all of these insidious systems in place to allow injustice and silence the victim to keep apaths content in their inaction.
In my experience, people do more good when they demonstrate why they are right rather than hurl abuse. There is a spectrum of wrongness from misguided, misinformed, even brainwashed basically ignorant or mis-educated to people actively benefiting from propagating injustice and horrible human beings. The only benefit to reasoning with a horrible human being besides persuading bystanders is that you could potentially cause them to question their arguments. You stop a person like that , and you stop them hurting people.
It is hard at first to tell who is genuinely misguided , or just being manipulative. I proceed like they are misguided, and the more evidence they provide that they aren’t invalidates their argument.
Like the time I argued with TF on the Magic Sandwich Show. He had already provided ample evidence before I went on that he was obstinate and massively uninformed on the topic of rape. Furthermore, he interrupted most everything I said. Afterwards I felt horrible especially after lots of abusive youtube comments about stuff like my weight.
But I go to a lot of conferences with Aron. And everywhere I go people bring up to me what happened to TF? He is demonstrating to reasonable people that he is completely unreasonable. At QED there was a panel about disagreement. And one of the panelists was like TF’s arguments on feminism are bad. And the audience laughed. DPR was standing right next to me, and I( was like see everywhere I go people say this. He said TF would say he doesn’t care what they think. I said doesn’t he care about being right though? I won’t go on MSS to discuss feminism again, as it just seems as though they want someone to pown , and aren’t really listening and talking over you to basically say what about the menz? I can’t make a coherent argument being talked over anyways. So the measure of doing any good is not met.
Those things are worthwhile to me doing some good. I don’t see hurling abuse no matter how well deserved as doing much good.
[OT] Lilandra @ 183:
About “Mr. Cherokee” – a fair amount of Métis people are blond and blue-eyed, just so you know. Myself, I’m mixed race. I have light eyes and very white skin (with freckles, even!), and I’m half Oglala Lakota. I’m afraid that you’re the one coming off as rather ignorant, Lilandra. You might want to exercise a bit of caution in judging a person’s race by their appearance. /end OT
Nerd, I did not say the question of whether the DP is a deterrent is presuppositional. I said the question of whether the DP is a good idea is presuppositional. It is possible to believe the DP doesn’t deter, but is still a good idea for other reasons. So, I’ve been called a liar by someone who didn’t even understand my argument.
Instead of assuming that someone is lying because they reached a different conclusion than you did, you might try assuming people are honest even if they are mistaken. That won’t be true 100% of the time, but it’s probably true more often than not. Then ask why an honest person would hold such a belief. You might occasionally find that some issues aren’t as clear cut as you originally thought.
Tony @205:
Thank you for sharing this. It gives a different perspective on comment policies.
I’m glad I can actually bring something to the table. I do feel that I should clarify a bit, though: I’m not against comment policies entirely, I just feel they have to allow enough leeway for appropriate moderation (although that requires the right person in charge.) Sure, you can try to write every possible scenario into the rules, but then they become an enormous, nearly-unenforceable mess. Having no rules at all is likewise a recipe for disaster: Just look at Reddit and 4chan for examples. What you need are rules which can be bent for people who deserve it, and that goes in both directions: Somebody who is “politely” arguing in favor of some inhuman shit doesn’t deserve a podium, and the person who responds aggressively because they were legitimately offended doesn’t deserve to be banned.
Ugh, blockquote fail on my part at #211. Tony’s quote starting with “Thank you for sharing this” should be in a blockquote, and my original quote from upthread should be a nested quote.
Nerd @201
Eeyore said nothing about deterrence as a reason to support the death penalty. If he had, your links would have been relevant. What he said was that if you believe it is basically unfair for a murderer to live when his victim has died then arguments about other things (including whether or not it acts as a deterrent) are unlikely to change such a person’s mind. The presupposition here isn’t whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent but rather a belief in “an eye for an eye”.
Demeisen @ 202:
Yes, we’re all experienced with that, and I don’t think anyone needs to worry about any type of civility policy. Civility is not the same as charity, and as Chris pointed out in #76, this thread, “Fetishizing civility is bad. Fetishizing incivility is worse.”
As for the dogpiling, it can be problematic. I don’t think it’s problematic if those responding are making actual arguments with a minimum of hostility. Then, the various arguments and points of view are a good thing. It’s curbing the attack dog aspect of dog piling that’s a concern.
@209
I can’t tell from what you wrote if you have experienced discrimination on the basis of your culture. That is possible despite passing; if you grew up in the community and experienced prejudice aimed at the community. The point I was making to this person, who was raised entirely in the white community and raised as white and was less than half Native American was that he didn’t understand transracial doesn’t work both ways because he doesn’t have the experience of not passing.
I apologize if I explained that poorly.
@ Nerd: I’m not attempting to speak for CD, but this was just mind-boggling.
/facepalm
This is not even remotely a fair characterization of Crip Dyke’s comment. Moreover, do you actually believe that that’s what you said in your comment to eeyore? To remind you:
Again, I am in no way trying to speak for Crip Dyke, but this is exactly what you did to me earlier (and in the Thunderdome): misreading/misrepresenting the argument, and insinuating that your interlocutor has ulterior motives. Here, the “Interesting” dig. In my case:
You may think my contributions are not useful, or wrong. That’s fine! Challenge me and others on what they’re actually saying! You’re not doing that here.
At what point do people get to consider you a dishonest interlocutor? Personally, I’m well past that point myself. To me, it looks like you’re very much ok with the current model, despite PZ’s concerns, and actively trying to derail any sort of conversation leading to change. I could be wrong. /shrug
I’m rather irritated that my concern has been brushed off as concern for cussing, when that clearly wasn’t my point. I did not mention it and I clearly wasn’t shocked that PZ thinks the non-existant cussing in the 3 response to Pen was a problem. Is it now charity for everyone new but I don’t qualify?
“But no one’s talking about tolerating bigots”
But I am. Because most don’t start slinging slurs around (they don’t even get past the filter if they do). No, it’s their “perfectly reasonable and polite” bullshit I’m talking about.
Because most people are racist, are anti-abortion, are rape apologists etc. and are wrong. Applying charity is ass-backwards when it’s the status quo we’re fighting against. And plenty of new people DO come in with that shit, (there are plenty of stories of people who got the rough treatment and later thanked the Horde for it) so when you’re talking about being charitable to people, especially new people, you have fucking include that consideration. That’s bullshit to shrug it off “but we’re not talking about the social justice aspect”. This blog usually talk about social justice, that’s what most people are here for and it’s how most new people fucking find it and what threads they comment on. Changing even one part of the comment policy to be more charitable will effect everything else.
So, if it’s true that this will still be a fierce safe place, how do you propose to protect that with having more restrictive rules? How will you hard code it so that people don’t let bullshit stand for fear of violating one of them? Or is it just “ignore the trolls, notify PZ and he’ll deal with it”? Because that would be the death of what I found safe here too.
I can find plenty of other liberal bloggers with the same opinions but none of them have a whole group of people to protect and defend victims with no hesitation or bullshit politeness. I liked how it’s not just tossing out those people, but commenters running that bullshit out. I don’t know how but it feels different and better to have a safe place that isn’t just carved out and protected by the blogger like a bubble but to have a whole community that actually does something. I wish shit spewed in real life got shut down and proven as bullshit so thoroughly and quickly as in these comments.
A lot of people have been thankful for the comment section for exactly the same reason. So instead of brushing off a rape and abuse survivor, why not work and put forth suggestions for rules to protect that aspect? For all your “loose vague suggestions for a loose vague community”, everyone seems to ignore a huge vulnerable population. Saying “But that won’t change” isn’t enough because being a safe place isn’t fucking defacto, charity and politeness is though because that serves the status quo. It isn’t just that easy to say “but we don’t tolerate that”.
HOW won’t you tolerate it? HOW do you instruct commenters to be “charitable” to that kind of shit while keeping it a safe place?
Because right now, I’m fucking worried as hell. I fucking cried yesterday reading this thread because of how it seems like Pharyngula is going to go.
(And thank you Crip Dyke for your #42. I’ll keep lurking to see how this shakes out and post a goodbye in The Lounge if this is no longer a place for me.)
Applying charity is ass-backwards when it’s the status quo we’re fighting against. And plenty of new people DO come in with that shit, (there are plenty of stories of people who got the rough treatment and later thanked the Horde for it) so when you’re talking about being charitable to people, especially new people, you have fucking include that consideration.
I have been reading this thread and the suggestion for some sort of change to be more on the line of “how can we be more decent until someone clearly outs themselves as a bigot or jerk who actually does deserve the rough treatment, instead of assuming right off that something poorly worded or ill considered instantly deserves a good shake, Horde-style.
Don’t get me wrong…I think it should be pretty much open season on those who deserve it. But when a noob, or even oldbie, gets piled on for something they don’t mean, and merely phrased poorly or without enough qualification, that’s not any sort of social justice so much as social bullying. Essentially, what’s wrong with an extra comment or two to make sure that the person you’re about to skewer is actually expressing what you think they are?
My apologies, the first paragraph of that last post (218) was meant to be a quotation from (217), I am not familiar enough with the tags to make it display properly as that.
That brushing off of rape and abuse survivors is indeed something between regrettable and reprehensible. And in this thread, it’s going in more than one direction.
Like for instance in the repeated and re-repeated assumption that the issue here is limited to how the Horde treats apologists for oppression, when one person after another in this thread* has said they feel excluded to varying degrees by the Horde’s tendency toward angry bee swarm behavior.
Casting the issue as “people are saying we need to be nice to the MRAs” erases the experiences of those of us who have been unfairly victimized by Horde behavior. It’s a form of gaslighting and it’s obnoxious.
* Including the blog’s former co-blogger, who is — for the record — also a rape and abuse survivor. But that doesn’t count, right? Because reasons.
Dywalgi,
<blockquote>My apologies, the first paragraph of that last post (218) was meant to be a quotation from (217), I am not familiar enough with the tags to make it display properly as that.</blockquote>
Gives you
Dywalgi:
To quote someone, use <blockquote>Paste Text Here</blockquote>
That’s an important distinction, and nicely phrased.
This is already in the commenting rules, but as has been said, the commentariat will try for a while, then forgets all that and charges ahead.
JAL:
I think the best way for me to explain changes I’d like to see is to point to the threads on Chris Clarke’s posts, many of which got plenty heated, but had a much less vicious tone. That was down to Chris being very active in his threads, but also because he had an expectation that people would have actual arguments and attack ideas, rather than simply going off like little hostility bombs. Do you remember the NYT thread? No one imposed any sort of niceness or civility on us, and there was a fucktonne of people speaking their minds on that thread, loudly, with passion and anger. There was a point to that passion and anger, and a whole lot of good arguments, too. What there wasn’t was a lot of pointless abuse, something which happens a bit too much in some threads, and I’ve done my fair share of indulging in that. I know I can be better, and I know I can help to maintain a ferocious safe space without being needlessly hostile – it takes more thought and effort to do so, but I know people here can do that, if they want to.
I don’t suggest Pharyngula adopt that kind of tone, but it would probably be good for commenters to check out comment threads at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/.
Things that are way out of line get deleted quickly. Culture there is different than here, but no bad idea stays unchallenged. As I said, I am not suggesting we adopt Libby Anne’s rules – I like this place to be a bit more on the rude side.
But maybe just to see that things can be done differently and effectively. Different approaches work for different people and different situations. I still strongly disagree with suggestions of civility above all…. but just reining things in when it’s appropriate would be good.
Libby Anne’s comment policy is here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/comment-policy
(and while I’m mentioning her, Libby Anne’s blog is all around awesome and you should read it)
I notice that you’ve all ignored my suggestion.
Please re-read my comment
There’s a problem with certain commenters immediately assuming “dishonesty” on the part of other commenters.
IF you’re going to call a commenter “dishonest”
THEN you should be able to demonstrate that dishonesty with actual evidence.
Please just stop doing this — it’s driving people away!
Many thanks, Beatrice and Caine!
Chris
I think this very thread is a good example of what the often problem is.
It is good that you acknowledge that is IS indeed going in more than one direction
There’s the issue.
IMO there are several groups of people here:
-Folks who have a legitimate interest in changing the climate here. I acknowledged several problems in my #193, which so far got zero reaction because it obviously doesn’t fit the image that’S being painted.
-Folks who have a legitimate interest in maintaining the climate. As “legitimate” I define “marginalised person who feels safe and protected because of the climate”.
-Folks who are just interested making their dislike for the Horde known and who feel like it’s free ice cream Sunday.
Only that you’re doing the very same thing here. You’re using something you surely consider an apt paraphrase (“people are saying we need to be nice to the MRAs”), but that’s not actually the argument that is being made. Maybe you simply misunderstood, but it doesn’t make it not strawmanning. You are mostly ignoring replies from people who acknowledge that there are problems and who are looking for ways to change it. Helloooo-o, we’re here.
See, that’s another one. And I guess you’re tossing that in because you’re angry and you’re hurt. Welcome to the club.
Giliell, there are absolutely people in this thread who recognize the existing problems, yourself very much included. I have been appreciating such comments, and it would have been nice for me to say so.
But I think you’re wrong when you say that my paraphrased “we’re supposed to be nice to the MRAs” is inaccurate. It may not be an argument being made here, but it seems to be one of the *assumptions* being made by a number of people here in framing their arguments. Some people here absolutely ARE eliding the people who are neither trolls nor arguing in bad faith but who have been made targets for hostility.
And my appreciation for your comments here, and PatrickG’s and Caine’s and others, as much as I should have mentioned it, doesn’t change that. Last time someone stepped on my toe at a public event, no one criticized my complaint because I didn’t preface it with praise for those people who brought cake. (And it was really good cake.)
what Nerd has done in this thread is something he does all the time , except hes generally probably more smug , toxic and content free. (Floosh- no evidence, you are lying and or a shit human : being the basic template for a lot of his posts ) Why I dont comment is because he and others of his ilk are never/rarely called out for the intellectual dishonesty/abusive behaviour. The same behaviour would not be tolerated in a newcomer or someone on the opposite side of the political/cultural spectrum. Some people use the cover of being on the right side of the cultural divide , to unleash and wave around their inner asshole. Its more about self aggrandizement than fighting the good fight for them. Its about getting their licks in, they arent saying anything different to what has been said before but it is important that they also land a punch. Can one simple rule at least be , dont throw the same punch multiple times?
I would say this should depend on how easy it is to look things up. Often it really is no more effort than just typing a word or two into Google; in that case “look it up, the knowledge of the world is at your fingertips” is perfectly appropriate.
(I agree, of course, that it’s not always that simple.)
I personally have long stopped taking Nerd’s kneejerk reactions seriously. I just ignore them and scroll past, except for an outburst like the one I just deleted* maybe once or twice a year (Nerd was already on Pharyngula when I joined in 2006). For better or worse, people who are new here haven’t learned to do this, so Nerd most likely contributes to turning them away – and I most likely contribute by not calling him out more often. :-|
* As I read on, I found that others have already said everything I wanted to.
I really don’t think Nerd has any such master plan. His hostile comments – that’s not the totality of his comments! – are all just knee-jerk reactions to keywords – and has been for at least nine years.
Wouldn’t be the first time that survivors accidentally trigger each other on Pharyngula. :-(
You can’t notice that.
I, for one, had read comments 126 and 127. I fully agree with your suggestion. Because I don’t like to state the obvious, I haven’t said so…
I’m another very, very longtime lurker who has commented only a few times. I almost always agree with PZ and the majority of usual commenters, but I’m still really afraid to comment here and be ripped to shreds by the very people I admire so much. I commented the other day one minor criticism of something PZ said, and suddenly I’m “ranting” and “slamming” and being condescended to about whether I read the OP. I’m afraid to go back and see what other responses I got. I love reading this blog, but it’s true that it’s not welcoming to people who aren’t regular commenters.
As for suggestions, what about an off-topic lounge for newbies and lurkers to get to know one another and the regulars so when we try to comment, we’re not unknown interlopers?
Chris Clarke,
Er, I admit to having understood some of the calls for civility in that way. Not all, but some – probably a nice fit into Giliell’s group of “Folks who are just interested making their dislike for the Horde known and who feel like it’s free ice cream Sunday. “.
I guess that’s because so often people who complain about getting nasty answers really are saying that we should be nice to MRAs.
Well, David, when I post something and nobody says anything, it feels an awful lot like I’ve been ignored.
Not that anyone is obligated to reply, of course. I’m just feeling a bit small and invisible today.
@ David Marjanović:
Obviously, I think that’s a huge problem directly addressing the OP.
Nerd, and regulars who engage in similar behavior, drive a lot of the comment threads lately. I put it earlier as “EVIDENCE OR GTFO”, applied to anyone who hits on the trigger words you mention. Pattern recognition without comprehension, or, as you put it, knee-jerk reaction.
I also think it’s a double standard, as rahulkedia says. Regulars simply get to engage in behavior that would be absolutely ripped apart if they weren’t regulars. The solution to this seems to be that regulars need to call each other out more (as has already been mentioned, and clearly by you just now).
@ Gilliel: What group would you assign me to? Is there not possibly a group of “people who have an illegitimate interest in preserving the climate”? I agree there’s a strong tension between your first and second groups.
I think I’ll shut up for a while, because I’m probably coming across as rather more obsessive on this topic than I want to be. I’m consigned to the hell of working on a beautiful, sunny Sunday, which means it’s really easy to hear that “Ping! New comment!” sound and give into the DROP EVERYTHING NEW COMMENT impulse.
Also, WMDKitty, saw your comments, but felt I was sort of walking on the same lines. Thus didn’t comment.
Rahulkedia @ 228:
That would work for me, as long as it was actively enforced. I do think people should at least try to provide a considered response, rather than any type of standard/boilerplate response. It’s the boilerplate response which is most likely to be a hostility bomb, too.
Dingo Abbie @ 230:
I am sorry you were jumped on in such a manner. This is a sterling example, however, of things which some of us want changed, and JAL, if you’re still reading, here’s your answer. I know it’s been standard, for years, to respond to this sort of post with “yes, happened to me too, this is the sharktank, yada, yada, yada”, and I think if any one change takes place, it should be to stop reinforcing that shit as an okay sort of initiation ritual. Kneejerk hostility of the “you aren’t one of us” kind has gone on for so fucking long, it’s damn near become obligatory.
Dingo Abbie, I hope you stick around, because I think new voices are valuable and wonderful.
Hmmm. I put this suggestion down upthread, but perhaps I should re-think it. I suppose what worries me is that a newbie thread would simply turn into another lounge, just as insular, but separate.
Rather, being an unknown interloper shouldn’t be considered a problem in the first place.
David @ 229:
That’s your privilege though, David, because you have been here long enough to be familiar with people, and have a thorough understanding of what’s going on. Put yourself in the position of new people, who do not have that familiarity and understanding.
This is a genuine question? How can we encourage each other to distinguish between the content and the style of what someone says?
Take Nerd as an example, because he’s been mentioned already. Sometimes his style annoys me but I recognise that as a person he’s under considerable pressure as to time and responsibility so I’ve never bothered to say anything. I let it go, always.
But if someone like eeyore, (who is not new to this space) pops up with a firm opinion on a contentious subject then it is not unreasonable to assume that he is aware of the evidence/arguments against it and has come down firmly on one side only after considering that.
In an ideal world someone would ask politely whether he is aware of A, B & C and the conversation could continue on the basis of what he said. In the real world it is impossible to tell from one or two posts how much thought has gone into the original assertion, especially if there is no response to a probing question.
People can use triggering words and dog-whistle language in blissful ignorance or they can use them to rile and distract. Surely the onus is on the speaker, always, to make himself clear – even if that takes a couple of goes. It’s why we generally set such store by people answering the “why do you think that?” questions. Then again, people coming from other forums may well be unused to that and be overly offended by it.
How PZ might incorporate that idea in the rules I have no idea!
I confess to being the first person to bring up the word “fuck” but I was thinking as I wrote that of a thread years ago when several people had used demeaning language about more than one group of people well represented here. At least one had taken offence at a phrase being challenged and after lots more of the same a regular was thoroughly rude to one of the team of proto-gamergaters. They very soon went away. I’m pretty sure it was before gamergate itself, though similar things have happened since.
Yes, as I said two sentences after what you quoted: “For better or worse, people who are new here haven’t learned to do this, so Nerd most likely contributes to turning them away – and I most likely contribute by not calling him out more often. :-| ”
…Are you saying he doesn’t have time to comment here?
If someone enters a thread like this
how should we react?
No, David, I’m not. I saying that Nerd is who he is and we should respect that even if we caution him as to the potential impact of his rapid fire approach.
Well, chigau, since the background and intent of the commenter is unclear (at least to me), a request for more information is necessary. Or at least, that’s what I responded with right before I saw your comment here. Synchronicity!
This is my first visit in a long long time. I hope this does become a more welcoming place, with civil discussions. Atheists have a hard enough time convincing Christians that we’re nice people. I never recommend this site to people who are new to atheism, but I may change my mind if a new day dawns.
chigau @241:
I don’t think there is one proper response. I think PatrickG had a reasonable response, though it’s certainly not the only one possible.
Maureen Brian — You’re making excuses for Nerd’s abusive behavior. That’s not okay.
If Nerd thinks someone is wrong, he needs to demonstrate why and how they are wrong, instead of dismissing it.
If he “doesn’t have the time*” to engage in a proper back-and-forth, he shouldn’t comment here.
*Hilarious, considering he always has time to be a condescending douchebag to people who really don’t deserve it.
WMDKitty @ 246,
And when Nerd did produce a link to some of the contrary information how was that received?
I’ve been under the sort of pressure that Nerd is under. Cutting him of from people he values is a disproportionate action. Asking him to modify his behaviour will do fine.
Thanks for the explanations. It’s starting to dawn on me. Thank you for your patience.
I think I have alot more shutting up and listening to do.
@ Tony!:
Lies! I am the One True Path*!
*Not intended as a factual statement.
@ Maureen Brian:
I would submit that this is part of the “privilege of the regulars”. You can do that. People Nerd attacks, not so much.
Some months ago I was on the receiving end of Nerd’s “claims given without evidence” script. So I produced some evidence. It was ignored. I didn’t expect an apology from Nerd but an acknowledgement would have been nice. A discussion of my evidence-backed claims would have been even nicer.
It’s things like the regulars’ acceptance of Nerd’s boorishness that leads me to think of the regulars as a clique.
This is turning into a pile-on on individuals. Stop now, please.
Chigau @ 241:
PZ @ 158:
WMDKitty — Survivor 14 June 2015 at 5:12 pm
Squikketty squikketty squeeek squeeek!!!!
Seriously, it’s nice to get responses to what I consider to be a worthwhile post but I don’t expect it as my right in this place. Post something bad and watch the fur fly… ;-)
Oh, hi PZ! (slinks back into his hole).
Chigau @ 241:
You can read my reaction, which was to request clarification.
WMDKitty @ 246:
This is a fine example of unnecessary hostility, which adds nothing to the discussion.
Oh, so it’s “turned into a pile-on on individuals” now that one of the super-regulars is being criticized?
Sorry, PZ, but Nerd’s abusive dismissals are a prime example of one of the behaviors that drives people away.
And I stand by my statement — he should either take the time to tell the person why and how he thinks they’re wrong, and back it up with evidence, or stay the fuck out of the serious discussion threads. This “Dismissed” and “Floosh” nonsense is outright bullying, and I think we’ve put up with it long enough.
Caine — It’s an accurate description of what he does. Why defend it?
ladyatheist @ 244:
To each their own.
I *do* recommend people come here. We do get things wrong. We do respond to people badly at times. We do jump the gun in criticism. We can be hostile to newcomers (and regulars). But that’s not all the commenters do. There is good that goes on here, such as providing an atmosphere where some people who have been victimized feel comfort and some measure of security. I’m not saying we’re perfect. We’re not. I’m not saying we cannot improve. We can. But I’m saying this isn’t a binary situation where it’s the Pharyngula commentariat is without problems or the Pharyngula commentariat is so problematic that they drive people off in droves. It’s somewhere in between, which means there is merit to this place and to the commenters (both new and old),
And, incidentally, we’ve had civil discussions. We’ve also had incivil discussions. This too is not either/or.
WMDKitty
It has been established that Nerd’s script is frequently annoying/dismissive/cruel.
You, and everyone else, can stop now.
WMDKitty @256:
I think the problem is that you’re focusing too narrowly. The problem with the atmosphere is not attributable to any one person. Sure, an individual can contribute to a hostile atmosphere more than others, but it’s not all on them. By tuning your focus so narrowly on Nerd, you lose sight of PZ’s overall point.
Having cited an individual as an example, isn’t dwelling on the particulars a bit excessive in a discussion that did not start out, specifically, about them? That does rather fit piling on rather perfectly, no?
If this whole thing was about one or two people, it would have an easy solution. Like any cultural problem, though, it isn’t and it doesn’t.
Using the discussion as an excuse to air personal and historic disagreements and slights does exactly nothing towards finding a solution that might work better or at least less worse. It is just a different way to perpetuate the same problem that you feel hurt by.
The “problem” has been around two years ago, then Chris Clarke left, and allegedly things got better, but as it turns out it’s still there. Maybe it isn’t a problem, but a feature.
If the “problem” are conflicts among the ingroup, then the method for social justice blogs has been to use heavy moderation to avoid scrutiny of the ideology (it’s inconsistent and as such will alienate one group or the other when inspected too closely). SJ blogs do this already, and Pharyngula with the “after the fact” moderation is not well attuned to the defense mechanism of the social justice ideology universe, which relies on policing of thought and evidence before it can do damage (Trigger warnings, scare mongering of enemies at the gates and such things evolved to do this effectively). Heavy moderation also prevents that evidence can transpire that would challenge the “narrative”. Social justice sites make good use of it, and FreethoughtBlogs already does as well, so that won’t cause an issue.
If the “problem” is instead that not enough newbies come in, because of hazing, then your problem is that you attract the wrong newbies. “Freethought” in the title can be misleading. The only audience that fits in here are people with a strong belief in Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality Feminism, Identity Politics, with postmodern infused and weaponized discourse tactics (with correlations to Blank Slate views, Islam coddling et cetera), commonly known as “social justice warriors”. The newbies who complain and don’t get past the hazing simply don’t belong here. Maybe you need to steer even more towards a SJW audience and leave atheism and skepticism behind entirely. The main antagonizing force has been “the patriarchy” anyway and it’s – I’m told – much bigger and more menacing than any religion.
The correct people are fine with “incivility” but not for the weak rationalizations cited above (notable, how most beliefs here are just a collection of rationalizations). Obviously, civility is about form and you can express good ideas as well as heinous ones civil and incivil. Incivility and uncharitable interpretations are a feature of the social justice ideology, too, which relies on finding foils nearby to be seen fighting the good fight against otherwise intangible forces such as the patriarchy. Thereby, the SJW overcomes cheap signalling all around them and can show “true commitment” (everyone is for LGBTX for example, but occasional opinons can be viewed as cheap signal). That’s why distortion and telephone games are commonplace and enhanced by the fact that “safe space” communities are strictly hierarchical. For one, they need to produce the foil themselves. For another, regulars only glance at what lowly newbies and outsiders write, then “translate” this with their spin. The others then read the “translation” but skip the source, comment with new spin and so on. Getting many replies isn’t what makes a proper SJ dogpile. The Delibertate Offense Gish Gallop, as a tactic, makes it.
TLDR: the system in place (audience, ideology, mismatch of different expectations) produce a “problem” which is really a feature of the “safe space” Pharyngula, too, has become. Heavy moderation is compatible with it and can solve one part. The other part goes away when a different audience is attracted that is compatible with the one that feels at home already.
WMDKitty @ 256:
No, that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is that people are only discussing one individual, rather than addressing the wider issues of the OP. A tendency to template/boilerplate responses can be discussed without pinning all that behaviour onto one person, because a fair number of the commentariat indulge in such behaviour.
It would be best, I think, to speak for yourself.
No, it wasn’t an accurate description of what he does, and it was unnecessary. Certainly, you can make the point that you feel he behaves in a condescending manner, but that’s not the same as saying condescending douchebag. It reads to me more like a personal ax to grind. Also, as far as condescending behaviour is concerned, a whole hell of a lot of the horde is guilty on that score – I’ve certainly posted my share of shit in a very condescending manner, and it was wrong of me to do so.
Caine #256
Had I reacted sooner, my comment would have been much like yours.
I probably would have stopped with the no gendered insult request, though,
because I really am kinda sanctimonious.
Dywalgi @ 261:
Afuckingmen.
I am, incidentally, quite fascinated by all the connotations that seem to be attached to the wird civil, and cannot help but wonder if divergent associations with the word are contributing to the disagreement. Words are neat and quite apart from the content of the discussion, thanks to everyone contributing, it waa fun to think about during an otherwise dull workday.
Some questions for the wider discussion
1) Is Pharyngula to become a philosophical debating society where reality checks are forbidden?
2) At what point is it appropriate to ask for evidence backing assertions?
3) What attitudes can be displayed when folks won’t back up their assertions with evidence, after repeated queries?
I’ll abide by whatever rules are decided upon. Look at the bigger picture.
I’ll apologize for my contributing to the pile-on. It’s very easy to just keep responding to new comments.
Without addressing individuals in particular, I do find it very troublesome that some regulars are explicitly saying that another regular’s cruel behavior should simply be ignored, because reasons. That does seem to be a “privilege of regulars” that contributes to an unwelcoming environment for non-troll newcomers, and should be addressed.
4) When is it appropriate to apologize to people for dramatically mischaracterizing their argument, throwing in passive-aggressive insults in the process?
5) How is it appropriate to simply ignore an entire thread of discussion as if it never happened?
And I’m out after that. Too frustrated at the complete lack of addressing a hundred comments. But hey, just the way it is, I guess.
Nerd
How about after three comments?
@247 – the links that were produced were in opposition to an argument that was never advanced – and that behavior was at best never called out, if not actively enabled. Such strawmanning would (justifiably) never be tolerated from a non-regular. Without question, it discourages participation, at least in my data set of 1.
It also hurts the overal quality of the thread – and no, I don’t give a fuck about tone trolling. But Nerd’s links had some interesting meat on them, which could have led to a good side discussion, had they not been framed as an accusation against a strawman.
This not only may scare off newbies as posters, but apparently it also causes regulars like you to skip over them, which causes a potentially interesting discussion to get lost. When the noise obscures the signal to that extent even for regulars, it becomes difficult for lurkers even to lurk, much less participate.
To 266…
1. No, I don’t think anyone is saying that.
2. When an assertion is one that can reasonably assumed to need evidence.
3. Any attitude can be displayed. I suspect a more relevant rephrase might be what attitudes will further contribute to a more complete understanding of the subject and reduce the risk of diversion into argument or incite unhelpful and hurt(ful) feelings.
and to 268…
4. Whenever one is made aware of it, of course.
5. It isn’t. Unless of course it is not relevant to the issue at hand, in which case, maybe it is a separate problem that needs its own platform.
PatrickG @ 267:
I don’t think that should be ignored. However, I’d prefer to confine discussion to the commentariat as a whole, rather than an individual, because it would be quite simple to start the finger-pointing and yelling on a personal level. Among the commentariat, there are those who seriously enjoy being hostile for no good reason, and it’s important to address such issues without starting a “well, to name names…” clusterfuck. Also, we’re discussing a commentariat who are very well acquainted with one another (most people, not all), and there are a lot of grudges simmering in the background, which tend to boil up in any comments discussion. That sort of thing simply isn’t helpful.
I did bring up a need for monitors to be actual monitors, especially when it comes to the privileged side of town (long-term regulars), and I do think that would be a very good thing in the long run.
I would appreciate more thought out responses on the part of everyone, and I include myself in that. It’s very easy to get into a commenting rut, and that applies to us all, not just a few individuals.
A reminder – could people please use nyms (and numbers) when responding? People are not post numbers, and this isn’t twitter.
Caine @ 273
Shall do and thanks…hadn’t picked up on that convention here.
@ Caine:
Appreciate your response to my frustration. I hope something constructive comes out of this. I think I’ve made what constructive comments I can, to wit:
(1) No firewalling newcomers
(2) If firewalling known trolls, identify those as such to people who may not be aware
(3) Regulars must not accept behavior amongst themselves that they would not tolerate from newbies.
Given Nerd’s insouciance, I won’t be participating in this thread any longer. Too aggravating.
Nerd of Redhead @266
Reality checks are certainly permissible. If evidence is missing, then it should be asked for rather than dismissing arguments because of lack of evidence. When evidence is given it should be acknowledged or shown to be misleading or insufficient. Refrain from “floosh!”
PatrickG @ 275:
I agree with all of that.
I understand, I’m going to be out myself. You know I think the world of you, and that I feel your voice has always been a valuable one, so I really do appreciate your contributions in this thread.
Al Dente @ 276:
Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed. Excellent answer, thank you.
Well, actually, I didn’t. At least not recently, since I’ve commenting so sporadically.
/blush /thanks
The defensiveness coming from some regulars in this discussion is aggravating, I agree, PatrickG. Others have been open or are opening up to criticism and suggestion, which is nice. I don’t know if its enough to turn the blog’s comment section around.
People who don’t belong to the elite group of posters on this blog often are treated very badly. It’s a fucking shame.
I don’t believe anyone has expressed concern for the treatment of people who come here and are told to fuck off after they express sympathy for issues like spousal abuse or opposition to gay rights. It’s the people who are on your side who are treated like horseshit for a “missstep” that may well not have been a misstep at all – it may just be disagreement over some minor aspect of an issue or even just the way it was expressed – that I believe people are expressing concern for. They get treated as badly as the people who actually do come here hailing MRAs as heros and they often haven’t done a thing wrong. They just received condescending dismissal or outright abuse because someone misunderstood them or wouldn’t tolerate them disagreeing with some aspect of the prominent opinion of the regular posters here on some issue.
I don’t know why the regulars here tend to be so hostile towards everyone but each other but it often is the case. People who aren’t assholes are subjected to it and it sucks. Their presence is often treated with, AT BEST, condescending dismissiveness. Often their treatment is utterly venomous. For whatever reason any minor disagreement or expression of thought in a fashion that doesn’t exactly line up with the way in which the regulars communicate with each other is found to be lacking. It often feels like regulars a) simply won’t tolerate disagreement, regardless how minor, and b) will find something disagreeable, even in posts that overwhelmingly support and agree with them.
I don’t know why people are treated like shit here for deviating a little from the dominant arguments or why regulars are so eager to find fault in newcomers’ posts. I don’t know why, even when a non-regular DOES say something silly, its treated with the same degree of scorn Paul Elam would (and should) receive. I don’t know why the commentariat is so exclusive and trigger happy and more eager to exclude than entertain the possibility they’re wrong about something or simply misunderstood and throwing new posters under the bus at the rate that occurs here is as bad thing.
This is what decent people are telling this blog though and writing everyone who has had negative experiences here off as an asshole isn’t productive. A lot of us who have been on the receiving end of abusive behaviour by the regulars here are really frustrated seeing defensiveness in response to expressing, yeah, for whatever reason the atmosphere here to anyone who isn’t a regular is exceptionally unkind and unwelcoming.
But, no, this isn’t the place or time to point the finger at specific posters who have taken advantage of their elite status as embraced regular members and abused non-regulars. They’ll either figure it out following this discussion or they won’t and their behaviour will need to been stomped out as soon as its displayed after the changes in commenting rules are set into play.
PatrickG @267
THIS.
If we’re going to hold “outsiders” to certain standards, it’s only fair that we hold ourselves to equal or higher standards.
Is it possible that the big divide here is coming down to what level we want the comment thread to operate at? It seems like a number of the regulars expect newcomers to already understand the basics, and even do some lurking to understand the culture, before their first post. That can lead to the sort of attitude displayed here, since educating newcomers is tiring for many. I’ve seen a number of other communities develop a very insular viewpoint more as a defense mechanism; a way to keep the potentially well-meaning but privilege-blind from dragging the whole discussion down to a basic level.
A solution sometimes implemented elsewhere is to split up the discussion: For example, the reddit “fempire” set up a standalone subreddit to be explicitly 101-level and welcoming to newbies, so the kind of insular “don’t ask ‘stupid’ questions” attitude isn’t permitted. Anybody posting in the primary discussion area(s) is expected to know what they’re talking about, and that is made abundantly clear in the official rules. People who post the same well-meaning but problematic stuff the group has seen a thousand times are asked to take it to the 101 forum, and bans are handed if they don’t comply.
I don’t know how well something like that could work here: It would require a second venue, like a forum, operating alongside the comment threads. That way, the blog posts and comments could provide a more welcoming atmosphere, while the more serious and experienced social justice types could have a higher-level discussion forum, something which can be kept clear of tiring and potentially-triggering 101-level stuff. A forum would also have the benefit of a more useful layout for things like the off-topic and news threads. I know it’s probably a lot less feasible, but it’s just a thought.
WMDKitty – thanks for posting.
I don’t even know if some of the regulars realise how skewed their perception of how badly people are treated here is. Of course they recommend people check the place out and feel safe here. They’re not on the receiving end of the hostile, exclusionary behaviour that occurs here! I’m sure it goes over a lot of their heads. It’s easy to miss stuff when you have the privilege of being an embraced regular.
marinerachel @282:
I’ve done so bc I’ve seen new commenters express their pleasure at finding this place and the commentariat. I’m not saying this negates the issues people have with hostility. I’m saying that a hostile environment is not the only thing that new people encounter here. Isn’t there room for a bit more nuance than simply new people are treated to hostility?
Chris Clarke #252
Yes. For the ultimate impact.
But in the meanwhile…
.
actually there is some good advice between 252 and now
Chris Clarke
No, I am not casting the issue has just “being nicer to the MRAs”, and your experience certainly does matter and I’m sorry for it.
But my last comment explicitly brought up how to also hard code that fierce protectiveness alongside the newer, more restrictive charity ones and specifiy brought up the new people that have spouted bullshit like rape apologia.
There is a difference between MRAs and well meaning new people.
And there is a difference between well meaning new meaning new people, honest mistakes, and those that really fucking believe and will defend no matter what that “she shouldn’t have been wearing that”.
The problem is all those last three can and often say the same fucking things. So where do you draw the line on charity and rape apologia? How much are people expected to respond to nicely and charitably as to not scare away yet remain a safe place?
If MRAs, rape apoligists, and well meaning new people also often say the same things, how do you tell the difference? How long are they given to prove they are or they aren’t? How much more of that bullshit are people expected to read and respond to?
I like how in this space there was no question that it wasn’t allowed, but now at the very least that reaction will be delayed. If not completely taken out given PZ’s further “I’ll deal with the trolls” comment. How bad and how blatant must it be for PZ to take over rather the commenters?
THAT is what I brought up. And I’m honestly disappointed in your response.It’s like you didn’t read it, didn’t care, and just decided since I’m a “regular” that I must be against you.
I’m not. I want to know if this space, which I found safe and shared many things in, is going to continue being that space for me. And yes, I did bring up the fact that other people have said they found this place to be the exact same thing for them for the exact same reasons.
I know this isn’t a safe place for everyone. I know there are places out there others find safe that I do not. No place can be nor always will be a safe place for everyone.I want to know if I’m losing my safe place or not. And it matters a great deal to me because these new rules sound like every other fucking blogs rules where I do not feel like it’s a safe place for me.
It is PZ’s blog with his rules. If his new rules are safe still for people, is safe for new people and is safe for you, good. I’ll be happy for that. But I will be very sad to lose my last safe place.
JAL @285
I don’t think that I understand, and I would very much like to. I don’t think that anyone wants an influx of arsehats, or is suggesting that anyone who is one should be given a cup of warm cocoa and a gentle word. And I don’t see how what has been suggested thusfar would make it open season on those who find it a safe place.
However…what is apparently a safe space for you is a very much not safe place for others. I think that the idea is to try to fix the last bit without losing the first. Not, thankfully, a zero sum game.
I currently happen to disagree with your position, but very much empathise with the feelings behind it. I think what I am failing to connect is how a potential arsehat/noob failing to be instantly shouted down for a bad comment is safer than one shouted down or redirected once the ambiguity is removed. Ultimately, you’ll end up reading the comment in either case.
If I am missing something, please explain if you are willing.
I read the original post last night and was going to comment about why I stopped posting here. And then I felt afraid that I’d be piled on and didn’t want to.
And that is precisely the problem. This place has become so hostile that I don’t even want to comment here ever, even though I am friends with quite a few of you on Facebook or irl. There is a distinct cliquishness, lack of charity, and constant rehashing of old slights that is very hostile to people who aren’t regular commenters.
One big problem I see–not all threads have a troll in them, and when there are no chew toys, the Horde too often turns on each other. It’s happening in this very thread, it happened to me, and it’s happened to quite a few old commenters who went away.
So, here are some suggestions:
1. Do not take disagreements off thread unless the interlocutors both agree to do so, or are booted. It is really bad form to argue with someone, and then shit-talk them in the TDome or elsewhere.
2. Assume good intentions, at least of people you have seen here before. We all like to say “intent doesn’t matter” but of course it does. (I would really like people to stop using the ‘intent isn’t magic’ phrase to justifying assuming bad intentions–that was never the purpose of the phrase. It’s purpose was to explain how intentions aren’t an excuse to justify harm.) Sometimes people don’t say things in quite the right way. Sometimes they say something you misunderstand. Instead of jumping on them immediately, ask them a question. Assume they aren’t a terrible person making a horrible argument.
3. Stop objectifying people. Stop treating people like they are whetstones for your rhetorical barbs. Stop haggling, stop nitpicking, stop intentionally misunderstanding them and forcing them to explain over and over what seems perfectly clear. I don’t mean that you shouldn’t ask for clarification. But there’s a difference between asking “Hey, I didn’t really understand what you mean by that. Can you please explain?” and telling them what they must have meant (usually the most outrageous form of their statement), forcing them to be on the defensive. One is talking TO a person; the other is talking AT an object.
4. Allow learning to happen. No, this doesn’t mean that you are obligated to educate, but it does mean that you don’t denigrate a person for not knowing what you know, or having learned what you have. So often in SJ circles we attack first, before considering the ramifications on a person who is otherwise a friend. The principle of charity is too often lost. This is why I don’t often participate in this space anymore. I am tired of communicating in this way. I want us to be able to learn and grow in public. We absolutely have to have a space to be wrong, and to be open about being wrong and to ask for help. I would much rather contribute to your learning than go through a frustrating, multi-hour conversation of rhetorical point-scoring.
It’s clear to me that my participation here isn’t helping anything. It’s certainly not helping my cardiovascular system. I wish you all well in crafting something that works for you.
Dywalgi @ 286 is a great example of what I’d like to see more of–honest questioning, assumptions that ze could be wrong, and attempts to engage JAL as a person, rather than use xem as a rhetorical object.
Ok. Not sure I have a whole lot new to bring to the table but still want to add my $0.02.
I fall somewhere between “regular” and “lurker.” I’ve been around long enough to see several changes of the commenting style etc.
PZ I’m glad you’re asking our input on this, but I agree with the above comments that, ultimately, this is going to be about what you want and can handle reading on your own blog. It is truly a fine line between mandating politeness and civility and giving shelter to tone trolls.
I think as a commentariat we can probably find that balance, but it will take effort, and clear guidance as to what you want from us.
I have no issues with monitors, but I came from RDNet and other forums and mods are a natural part of the background to me. However, they have to be able to do their job, and need to do it consistently. The idea of a monitor account to post from so that those comments aren’t tied to their own ‘nyms might work well here.
There are days that I feel we can be too abrasive and there are days that I revel and join in being abrasive because sometimes, that shit just doesn’t need to fly.
I’m going to voice also, that the folks here, regulars and infrequent commenters alike, have taught me to be a better person. Sometimes it was by example, other times it was by smacking me upside the metaphorical head.
Lastly, I’d also like to put in a vote to keep the Thunderdome in some form, as for me it was the place that I could drop the complete shit that was making me rage without disrupting the charm and comfort of The Lounge; as The Lounge is where I’ve often gone to get cheered up, mope or otherwise be emotionally needy. Truth to tell, I probably post most when I’m in a depressive or anxious mood, because this is where I have had people help through those times. Which is selfish of me, but there you have it.
TL;DR, we’ve changed commenting culture here before, we can do it again, just give us clear guidelines, please. I’ll be happy to follow whatever the decision is.
I really don’t think some people are getting it seen as people are still assuming what anyone is asking for is tolerance of bigotry spouting by noobs. I give up.
@Marinetachel 291
There is a reason for it. I don’t know what it is yet, because I don’t see the issue that they are responding to yet, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. People don’t generally react that strongly without a reason.
I have seen in other forums especially uoutube, that jackasses can dominate the conversation. They talk over marginalized people, and argue for the sake of arguing. Even people i respect on other issues are chronically wrong on social justice issues.
These are a few of the things that keep them from listening to the other side:
1. Condescension: They think they know better than people they admit are victims what is best for them. ex. Act fearless, dress conservatively, etc.
2. Devil’s Advocate. Don’t really care about the issue , but know in some part it is true, and pedantically peck at the argument while claiming not to hold the views they are arguing. ex. Blacks who are shot; shouldn’t have broke the law.
3. Minimization: There is an actual problem, but it isn’t as big as people think it is. Ex. First word Problems, Islamic Feminist have it worse. Western feminists are petty.
4. Pointing to an exception as if it is the norm and there aren’t still problems. Mostly I see this as people saying things are much better than they were. Ex. There are more female scientist where they were few to none in the past, or i know a female scientist therefore this is not a problem.
5. Victim blaming and shaming. Ex I was molested as a child, but I got over it. I can’t stand victims. Why can’t you be like me? I am a winner!!!! Victory lap around losers.
Those are just a few and I am sure people make these spurious arguments here. And yes it can get out of hand where people basically go on and on denying real problems. This is how injustice propagates. And I know well intentioned people are trying to disrupt these narratives so they can discuss the issues.
However, the danger in this is over-generalization to people, who aren’t making these sorts of arguments and are well intentioned. There are also people, who make these arguments who are badly informed, brainwashed by society, etc. that are reachable that the bridge is burned to right away.
i think giving people latitude until they actively confirm that they are a horrible person overall not just momentarily horrible on the issue and can’t be worn over works better than hurling abuse. Give people room to be wrong and be persuaded they are wrong. I know very few people, who didn’t believe wrong things and do wr5ong things until they learned better and grew.
Yes Ken Ham is not going to grow. But people, who listen to others trying to reason with him are learning from good arguments and his bad example. So much so that young people are ranking religion as not very important in their lives because religion is incompatible with science. And they see this in YEC debates very plainly.
Should you allow 4 or five disingenuous people to dominate the comments? No.
Give them room and if they are disingenuous, shut them down. They make a good object lesson for lurkers anyways.
Yes I don’t see the domination by trolls and racists etc here that I do on youtube. However that doesn’t excuse abuse towards well intentioned people, some of whom survived abuse and are trained by society to shut up. You want to help those people open up not nip them in the bud.
marinerachel @ 282:
I think most regulars do realize there’s a problem, that’s obvious when reading this thread. None of this goes over my head, and I rarely miss stuff. A lot of us really try, every day (for years) to be inclusive and fair. I think it’s important to remember that all of us are capable of bad behaviour, and it would be a mistake to assume that everyone pointing out privilege is a paragon who has never indulged in said bad behaviour. I do think it’s important for people to vent and talk about these issues, and I think it’s also important to recognize those who do make an effort and want change. Long-time regulars do need to take on constructive criticism, and be very aware of just how easy it is to fall into asshole behaviour. I do think some of it comes from the Sisyphus problem. People get very weary of rolling that bloody boulder back up the mountain for millionth and half times. That is definitely not the fault of new people or those who don’t comment much, nor is it an excuse. It is a partial explanation of why and how regulars can end up being so snappish and quick to judgement.
Some of the very worst meltdowns here have happened over the privilege of the commentariat regulars, and some people left over being called out and not having the same privilege they previously enjoyed. As for not being on the receiving end, well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve certainly been on the receiving end, a whole lot of times, for years. I’ve had incredibly nasty shit said to me, had accusations lodged against me, been ignored, all that. I agree that such behaviour is very hurtful and harmful, and contributes heavily to a toxic atmosphere. I do think that people here need to be more thoughtful and considerate, losing the gratuitous hostility, while still being able to be engage with bluntness and passion. There are many things we should all be angry about, and there are many people we should be angry about, too, such as those who engage in rape apologetics or blatant racism. There are also many times we should take things a bit slower, be sure that we know what we’re talking about, and many people who should be given time, consideration, and good arguments, rather than knee jerk hostility.
(Caine)
That’s a huge part of it, and also part of why I tend to try to stay out of certain fights as much as possible. I’m crap at remembering who’s mad at whom for what, and there’s an awful lot of the time when the argument that is happening in the threat isn’t the argument it looks like, and anyone who jumps in to what it looks like ends up in the middle of a shitstorm they didn’t bargain for. That’s just the way things are in large groups. Too many times there are people who get mad that everyone else in the entire commentariat aren’t on their side against someone, when what they have is a personal grudge that no, other people might not be on their side for, and it ends up being one gang against another. I’ve been here long enough that even if I don’t remember the background, I can see when that’s happening and stay out, but god help any newbie who stumbles into the middle of it on accident. I don’t know, maybe some guideline about if you find yourself arguing with one specific person in dozens of comments on the same thread, it’s probably gotten off topic and personal and you should stop? Not letting go of personal slights was what got Strange Gods in trouble so often, but the only thing that made SG stand out was that he was more single-minded about it than most of us. We’ve had lots of threads devolve into personal arguments that in person would be happening in the corner of the room, but on a comment thread they’re right out in the middle where it kind of takes over everything. I’m not saying to not keep in mind what a person does or what kind of reputation they build for themselves, but long repetition of the same personal argument doesn’t gain anything.
Part of the issue with that, I think, is that it would help to have clearly-defined “duties” in terms of shifts. Either certain people tagged to certain threads, or certain times of the day, something like that. Otherwise it’s honestly just randomly whether someone is there and sees something or not.
@Gen, #195:
quoting me:
Quoted in full for truth…mostly.
But also this: There are other reasons to let things slide, and I don’t think that this is an example of me letting Nerd slide in the past because we share a friendly bond. While there’s a friendly familiarity there, and while it’s true that some of the things Nerd talks about in relation ship to the Redhead’s struggles are familiar to me (on both sides), Nerd is actually one of the regulars that I haven’t developed any special feelings of friendship for. It’s not anything wrong with Nerd that makes me think Nerd isn’t worthy, it’s just we’ve rarely directed comments specifically to each other, so what bond there might be is simply community membership and the basic decent feelings that develop for another person as you learn to know a bit about them.
No, in this case David Marjanović speaks for me:
Obviously I haven’t been involved in Pharyngula nearly as long as David Marjanović, but yes. if people aren’t familiar with Nerd, some percentage of those people are going to be put off by him, possibly quite strongly. In my failure to provide a counterweight of welcome, I am the problem. But it’s not unwillingness to call out a friend.
I often read the first couple of words of a Nerd comment (outside of the Lounge), see where it’s going, and I’m on to the next comment without thinking much about it. The familiarity makes invisible whatever might be unique about the comment in wording, tone, or target. And so I don’t notice if a particular comment by Nerd is appropriate to call out – I just didn’t spend that long on it.
==================
As for a Monitor log-in,
FUCK YES.
The last thing I want is to be treated as an authority by position. To attach my account to a “monitor note” comment always felt horrible to me. There might be people around here who respect me because X. But I don’t want them considering that when my current point is Y. Every discussion is new. I could be wrong at any moment – even in how I act as a monitor.
To be a monitor, you have to be accessible to PZ via e-mail. I don’t know if the monitors will be resuscitated, but if they are, I advocate for accountability to PZ and anonymity to the Horde. The Monitor log-in would help that tremendously.
Of course, I’ve been told that certain elements of my writing style are identifiably idiosyncratic. Given that, it’s ***just possible*** that if I vary from the pre-written scripts to help someone new to the place one or two people might barely have an inkling that it’s me logged into the account.
Possibly.
I think the bigger problem with monitors is that they’d be chosen from the very regulars who are the problem.
I’m a former “super-regular”, and I think many of the old-timers here will recognize my ‘nym, furthermore I have had the privilege to get to know some of them very well outside of this blog (you know who you are☺). I drifted away for many of the reasons discussed in this thread, but one of the primary motivators was the increasing intolerance toward new (or perceived as new) commenters and their ideas with little regard given to the actual merits of those ideas, or the thought processes the generated them, and the motivation and intent (yes, intent does matter) behind expressing them here. Attitudes like some of those expressed by JAL and Nerd in this very thread are a large part of the problem. I know PZ doesn’t want people singled out, but I think that it is appropriate in this instance to give concrete examples of the problem should the community have any real desire to exert effort to modify itself to become less overtly hostile, not only to new arrivals, but also to established regulars.
@291 marinerachel & 292 Dywalgi, It’s been somewhat mentioned above, but maybe* I can clarify a bit.
Ever since Elevatorgate and subsequent feminist issues became prominent topics, we saw a major uptick in folks who would intentionally hide behind so called polite words, while insinuating that women were all infantile or incapable of making decisions about our own bodies. That shit takes a mental toll, and there are only so many times you can see the same 5 scripts without losing what few scraps of patience one might have left.
Yes, collectively sometimes we jump the gun, and I agree that is something that ought to change. The problem as I see it is as mentioned above. How do we tell the sincere questions about things like bodily autonomy from the same question from an MRA when the first post looks the same? When that post is offensive and hurtful to many here?
I don’t know the answer.
More and more consistent moderation nearly always helps, but that is a time sink for whomever does it, and would give this place a more traditional forum feel, which I don’t know if that’s something PZ or the commentariat want.
* I could be totally wrong, wouldn’t be the first time.
Carlie @ 295:
Yes, that would help. Whether or not a solid, consistent presence by monitors could be done (and done well) is dependent, I think, on PZ accepting and deciding that more intervention is needed to implement any sort of lasting change. As it stands now, there’s no reason for there to be monitors or a monitor group at all. I know there is great reluctance to intervene, and I do understand all the reasons for that reluctance.
That said, it seems to me that there has been a foundational shift in Pharyngula. Back in ’08/’09, there was a lot of self policing going on (like you, Carlie, pushing for people to stop using gender based insults), I think that was easier then, because we didn’t get nearly the amount of commenting visitors we have now. Lots of people now drop by from FB and Twitter, to comment on a certain thread, without any particular desire to be a regular, but still want what they say to at least be considered, rather than getting smacked about immediately. The commentariat has always been on the insular side, and that really doesn’t work anymore with all the new people all the time.
A. R #298
You “drifted away”?
Really?
@Cyranothe2nd, 297:
I’d trust CripDyke and Caine, for starters. CripDyke’s already trusted with frontpage posting on this blog, and presumably has a good working relationship with PZ. Caine’s major fault is trying to be too fair (so fair! so fair!*). I, personally, can’t see either of those two abusing their extremely limited power. If they did, we can all blame PZ.
Based on complaints by former/current monitors (and especially given CripDyke’s enthusiastic endorsement), I really hope psuedonymous monitoring happens. It would require a large enough monitor base to prevent identification, but there’s fantastic people here. Shouldn’t be an insuperable barrier.
It should be very easy to set up accounts that identify as Monitor, but from which it would be very easy for the Tentacled Overlord to know who’s doing what as a monitor. If it’s not easy this platform sucks, but shouldn’t be hard to work around.
* Sung to Carlie Simon’s tune, if it wasn’t obvious.
Motherfucker: Carly* Simon.
@rawnaeris
Aha, that makes more sense, thank you! The issue you raise is a good one…I personally tend to err on the side of pointing out the connotations of polite asshattery in order to sift out the clueless from the malicious, but that is a personal choice and not one anyone should feel obliged to make in their free time. Although, possibly a balance would be for those who find it taxing to just not engage until it is clear that a poster needs an invitation to the world?
A.R @ 298:
Then you shouldn’t be doing it.
This ^ is a major problem. You want to complain about specific people, so you do that, even though PZ requested that not be done. Putting that aside, you complain that the attitudes of specific people are a large part of the problem, but you don’t bother to say what you think their attitudes are, or why they are problematic. This is one of the reasons that arguing from personalities is not helpful. Speaking about specific attitudes in the commentariat, and taking the time to outline what you think is a problem and what might be a solution is helpful.
Frinst., I understand where JAL is coming from. Pharyngula was not always a place where those of us who have been victimized could feel safe, with the assurance that certain things would never be allowed to slide or be met with silence, such as rape apologetics. It has been a long, consistent effort to make this a place which would not allow a refuge for those who do indulge in rape apologetics. There’s a fear that the principle of charity can be taken too far, or that it may end up applied to those with extremely toxic ideas and attitudes. Now, I don’t think that would (or will) happen, but I understand that fear.
There should at least be an attempt to understand before excoriating someone as The Problem.
Rawnaeris @ 299:
At this point, I don’t think it’s about what the commentariat wants. It needs to be what PZ wants, and finding ways to implement, along with all of us being able to accept change and adapt.
My 2 cents.
First of all let me say that I am one of the people that did respond to harsh criticism and profanity. The criticism I got was not pleasant but after I spent time thinking about what people were saying it started to make sense. That was when I started seeing the things I was being told about. The repeated awful things stated in “proper language” which is a means of keeping social bullshit functioning. Intense emotion and startling is often required to break that up a bit. The filters that are triggering people are there for good reason. Intense critical confrontation needs to remain part of the tool box, we just need to figure out how to pick when it comes out.
That being said there should be more deliberate or structured escalation here (maybe even some teaching on de-escalation). Pharyengula could do with a “rules of engagement” that is given heavy input from people used to the relentless parade of awfulness that is invisible to cis white males like me (see Beatrice@74, Jackie@ 109, Giliell@ 193 or JAL@ 217 for examples). At the moment I choose to be hostile if I see someone with firsthand knowledge of the patterns acting like it’s appropriate. But if we could find some patterns among examples of commentators who were yelled at too quickly maybe we can work off of that. As long as we do drive off the people that deserve it a system might not be a bad thing. It should be as clear and specific as possible and there is no reason that the bunch of us could not come up with such. But I would hope this place stays a safe space for particular kinds of people first.
Some comments that might pertain to such rules.
*I frankly don’t care about profanity because learning to see the substance around the naughty words is a good skill. People should be called out for a tendency to overlook true obscenities when pathetic swear words are present, like my family did with my Facebook posts about Ferguson.
*Insulting statements of fact should be supportable by the person using them. Since the source of information for the fact is right there in the comments with us it should not be a problem to point it out. If you see such a thing you should be capable of outlining it for the rest of us. In particular being called a “liar”, “dishonest”, “stupid”, “sanctimonious prick”.
At the group level “Mob mentality” is functionally confused with strategic group cohesion on a regular basis. In fact an accusation of mob mentality is a way of fallaciously dismissing what the group is choosing to be strategically cohesive about so if the object of our cohesion is irrational or illogical it should not be a problem to actually demonstrate it.
“Troll” is a felt description and one that I only find useful when attached to something like “tone troll”. Essentially a person is feeling that the social environment is disrupted. Well meaning people disrupt communities all of the time.
*Insider language may be becoming a problem. I’m not sure yet, but I have see people call another person a “pitter” on pretty thin evidence. Those people share behavior with a lot of other shitty parts of the internet.
*I very much agree on calling out behavior and not the person. It can be pretty satisfying to outline precisely why a person is a racist, homophobe, sexist and similar. Think of it as giving people watching the diagram of what is in your head.
*Link the rules right next to the button for posting comments. Make it contrast with the surroundings and maybe even blink (perceptual hooks and making people think about rules right before they post). If we come up with some rules of engagement put those there too.
*Noob tag for a certain number of posts is a good idea. 50 seems excessive.
*We should have a policy about piling on. We should be able to clearly describe the difference between harassment, bullying and criticism. For visitors if nothing else if we want to be role-models. A nice side effect of getting that under control is that the people I have seen ignore the substance of others can’t use the excuse of there being too many people to talk to.
Caine, @ 306
QFT. I hope I made that clear in my previous posts, but. Well. QFT.
Caine @ 305:
I don’t think I need to explain my problems with Nerd’s attitudes. Those have already been discussed in depth. As for JAL, my problem can be summed up with this quote from a post above:
I will grant that most people are racist. In fact, everyone is, to some degree. This has been discussed at length here and elsewhere. But the comment as a whole represents a dismissive, prejudiced attitude that is unhelpful in an environment that strives to have any function beyond being a safe space. Safe spaces are important, and TET provides an excellent one for regulars, but having educational spaces is important too, and has always been an important part of Phayrngula historically. You may recall that Walton was converted from a libertarian cupcake to a leftist immigration activist via reasoned and respectful education, along with some hard knocks. I think a reasonable solution would be to delineate potentially contentious threads as “education spaces”, where obvious trolls are ignored until PZ can deal with them, and where Monitors will carefully ensure that the environment is appropriate for actual, useful, education. Yes, there may be a handful of cases where the abuse led to a former cupcake becoming a regular, or at least changing their perceptions and attitudes, but I am convinced that they are far outnumbered by the cases of doubling down that I saw far too often when I was here. (Anyone remember Misognraj?)
Frankly, I have a limited degree of appreciation of JAL’s argument too. I don’t agree with in in the slightest, but I do appreciate it. However, I do see it as a sort of slippery slope situation. This community has enough sense to recognize someone who is far too toxic to keep around. Continuing rape apologia in the face of (non-nuclear) correction is an example.
@301 chigau:
What do you mean?
As someone who comments here very rarely, I think it actually would have been better for the OP to ask people what they see as the problem, rather than asking for proposals for “new laws”—and actually deferring solutions and proposals explicitly to a later thread (although I agree with the suggestions as listed in #287). I think if people arrive at an understanding of what the problem is, they’re more able to align their own behavior to avoid it, even in the absence of “rules” and “policies.”
I don’t feel like the problem is one of “regular commenters” vs. everyone else (newcomers, irregular commenters, etc.), although certainly the regular commenters influence the “culture” in the comments, or even one of “charity,” “assuming good faith,” etc., although those might be sufficient to solve some of the problems. I feel like the problem is that the conversation is often a contest of wits (one commenter above said “the ridiculous parsing of what ‘is’ is and the ego-driven intellect battles”) rather than a shared inquiry (although, obviously, the two are not mutually exclusive). It’s about how people grapple with statements and arguments in which good-faith is really not at issue. As the comment said, “I would much rather contribute to your learning than go through a frustrating, multi-hour conversation of rhetorical point-scoring.” (My comment is not based on how my very few comments have been treated but what I’ve observed in the comments generally.)
I agree with PZ on many issues, but i rarely comment here. My understanding of the culture is that abusive language is often used here to ironically defend safe spaces. I still see people justifying abusive language in what resembles a two wrongs make a right argument. If improvement is wanted then people using abuse to defend “their safe space” has to stop.
If PZ and the commentariat settle on something that gives abuse even a little latitude, I am only a person and I can find a community for my needs elsewhere. I can’t deal with it; I get too much already.
and
PZ, cliquish tribalism is directed towards anyone here, not just newbies. And the fact that some regular commenters get/got(is it still a thing?) to act as “monitors” adds/added to that same exact tribalism.
Yes there is that. Unsurprisingly.
That about sums it up. But again, it’s also hostile to regular commenters. And I don’t even mean myself.
The Horde has been amazingly generous to me, and incredibly cruel to me. There’s obviously room for improvement in how you folks treat other people.
So… is it at all possible to maintain a space that’s more charitable yet is still safe for those like JAL?
I do rather like the fact that this is a safe space for people. I do rather like the fact that bullshit gets called out and swiftly dealt with.
At the same time, I wouldn’t mind seeing less dismissiveness, and it’d be nice to see less people being afraid of commenting.
There has to be a balance. (I apologize for continually bringing you up, JAL, but it’s your posts that have prompted me to respond at all). JAL should be able to continue feeling safe here, while we can perhaps extend a little more charity generally. The question is how to go about achieving that balance.
I am only a moderator at one space, and that’s my blog, which gets so little traffic I really don’t do much monitoring. But I try to maintain a safe space at my blog. On many posts I have explicit rules stating the level of tolerance – which is always zero – for misogyny, JAQing Off, etc, and that I reserve the right to determine what that is for myself, because it’s my blog. I don’t think I do a good job of maintaining that balance, but as I don’t have the traffic, I don’t have the testing to know if I’m pulling it off.
So I’m not sure if I have suggestions.
There is one thing I would ask again. It was brought up once, but no one responded to it, and I’ve harped on it in the past, but… editing our comments. I’ve been a member of spaces that gave you a short (sometimes as short as 5 minutes) window to edit your comments. I understand arguments against this, but Facebook has this great system where you can actually see the comment pre-edit. Would this be at all possible? I still have those little moments of anxiety when I read a post I’ve already spent so much time proof-reading and I find missing words, missing letters, misspellings, poor grammar, terrible wording… all of which I missed before pressing “post comment”. It would be nice to… you know… not have that. I accept it because I do accept the arguments against it, but I just don’t agree with those arguments and wish we had it at all… even in a severely limited capacity…
CD @ 296:
This has been bugging me. I’m not so keen on this idea. People who are likely to treat you as an authority already do that, they just don’t attach monitoring to it at the moment. Obviously, people who are monitors should be people willing to do it, but beyond that, I think transparency and accountability are important, too. If someone is concerned about sullying (for a lack of a better word) their posting with the occasional monitor comment, it would probably be best to cycle out.
Of course, I could be completely fucking wrong, and the pseudoanonymity would work splendidly.
I think if you want commenters on equal footing, none can be moderators in the first place. And also, this from upthread
is a really good idea to keep things equal (the number of comments could be open to discussions). Obviously, some people’s heads would explode. And PZ’s revenue might take a temporary dip.
Improbable Joe @ 313:
You have been incredibly cruel to at least one person here. Earlier, I tried to stress that we have all behaved badly at one point or another, but I’m starting to get that dead horse feeling. People are happily using this thread to complain, point fingers, and blame, but most of those fingers don’t ever stop at themselves.
Yes, I’d say that’s obvious. I’d also say that it’s obvious that in making such statements, we need to include ourselves in them.
Rorschach @ 316:
Monitors, not moderators. Many members of the commentariat, the long term regulars for the most part, already feel that all commenters are not on equal footing, and that feeling gets driven home to new people and infrequent commenters, a number of whom have said as much in this thread.
The function of monitors, and their complete lack of power has been explained to you more than once. It was explained to you the last time by PZ, so it would be nice if you would stop acting as though it’s moderators with super powers.
Hello Caine, I know better than to start an argument with you here, so thank you for your comment.
But I will say this. It amazes me how in this thread the most vicious bullies on Pharyngula have morphed into reformed remorseful fluffy little bunny rabbits, and are allowed to get away with it. Until this gets fixed, the comment section won’t get fixed.
@PZ:
Yay!
Calling it “Off Topic” is boring.
How about “Big Backyard”, or “Playground”, or “Sandlot”? (I sort-of think of it as being “outdoor voice allowed”, in contrast to the Lounge being more “indoor voice appropriate”)
If you really want to do that, I think the real problem might be the description of “no-holds-barred unmoderated chaos” that is attached to Thunderdome now . Just because a thread is more boisterous or about digressions that don’t fit anywhere else doesn’t mean that people should think that anything goes.
Nobody’s personality is a monolith.
I think potshots like what Rorschach took in 319 should not be allowed from towards anyone, regular or not. That ties in with what people said earlier, that commenters have a history with each other, and I think vastly contributes to what is perceived to be the toxic atmosphere. It’s already addressed in the current commenting policy, that you shouldn’t bring a fight or grievance over from other threads, but it is seldom enforced.
Sorry, that should be “potshots… should not be allowed from anyone or towards anyone…”
Ha, good luck! The unrelenting, unreasoning hostility I got here simply by identifying as an anarchist made it clear that this place is a nest of angry wasps who leave a lot to be desired when it comes to targeting their stings.
I know I said I wouldn’t follow up, but there’s another, independent point that came up in the comments that I think is worth responding to.
I think the focus on Nerd is not helpful. Speaking as a receiver of his invective, I find it odd to defend him, but his was less bothersome and easier to ignore than what seemed like a deliberate attempt by other regulars to find the most uncharitable reading of my words imaginable, even when that reading was directly (and obviously) contrary to the words written. I was far more bothered by that than a little unjustified name-calling. There are bigger problems than Nerd’s “script.”
OK, I really am done now.
PZ
Thank you for keeping the Thunderdome/Off-topic thread!
I also agree with anteprepro #198 – a distinct monitor account (let’s say something with a different coloring of comments and a picture of a monitor lizard as the avatar) would be great.
I trust the current monitors (as well as those who stopped being a monitor) completely and I seriously doubt that they would misuse their “powers” (aka, the ability to ask someone to disengage). I’ve also never seen monitors argue as monitors (as Beatrice #200 fears). However, since they would be using a single account they could use the associated email and Google documents to clear out personal disagreements discretely. Furthermore, they could use the above for storing pre-made comments that address common transgressions, making their job easier.
PZ, if you have rules in this place you need to be a bit more rigorous about enforcing them. Not enforcing the rules is nearly the same as not having the rules in the first place. And if you’re too busy to do that then the place won’t change much.
I think pat of the problem is that we suffer from both small group thinking in a large group setting, and social thinking in what some people consider to be a more work-like setting.
In a small group, you decide who you want in and who you want out, and deliberately push the unwanted out. In a large group, you just can’t really do that other than in broad strokes, because one person’s potshot is another person’s legitimate grievance. Behavior against norms everyone agrees on can be policed, monitored, socially reinforced, whatever you want to call it, no matter how large the group is. But when personal slights are involved, there can’t be (and shouldn’t be) an entire group shunning, and nobody should expect that to happen and get mad when it doesn’t, or expect to be able to snipe at the other person continually and not have everyone else get tired of it. And the more it comes up, the more likely people who are trying to keep their mouths shut and not escalate it end up throwing in, and pretty soon it’s an all-out group fight that has no good way to be resolved.
Another conflict I can see a lot of is differences in approach as to whether the commenting section here is all social, or if it’s “professional”. That’s part of the tug back and forth, I think. It’s like having asshole co-workers. There is some behavior that is simply not tolerated (sexist/personal attacks/etc ) and is smacked down immediately by everyone, but there’s also a lot of getting your work obligations done and staying out of each other’s way as much as possible. When the “work” of the thread is explaining a particular idea, or making an argument for or against something, it shouldn’t matter if someone has a personal problem with someone else if they’re both arguing the same direction. Personal stuff bleeds over because we’re human and that’s what we do, but it’s off-topic in most threads.
And reading over this, I see that I’m hyper-focused on how “regulars” treat each other, because I can see that as a big part of people saying they don’t want to jump in as new commenters, like walking into a room and seeing everyone fighting and just turning around and walking back out. But I don’t know. Maybe that’s not as big of a deal to new people as how they themselves get treated.
I recommend comment 287.
Caine was a monitor here for quite some time, and then resigned, because – as far as I can tell – she took it so seriously she completely exhausted herself and several other people (myself included) in the process.
For the record, though, I don’t think she abused her powers at all.
By identifying as an anarchist? I find that hard to imagine; do you have a link to the thread where that happened?
*facepalm*
One missing slash. *sigh* Well, I think everything is obvious, and I have to run now.
Alexanderz,
I was worried about others being suspicious about unknown monitors warning them as they are arguing with someone who they know is a monitor.
Forget it, I’m paranoid
The problem isn’t just a lack of charity, it’s a lack of humility. (If you will pardon the arrogance of pointing out someone else’s lack of humility.)
I know that “ignore the trolls” is out of style these days, but “someone is wrong on the internet” syndrome is very real and is (I believe) at the heart of the problem that PZ sees.
Real trolls–bigots, racists, misgoynists, 4channers–will get hammered by PZ.
As for the rest–there comes a time when not responding (and not reading posts, if it comes to that) is really the best response. Take that mind-numbingly stupid argument that got the Thunderdome shut down–it was obvious that no one was actually trying to communicate / persuade, it was just a circular firing squad. Everyone would have been better off just leaving the thread for a while.
The best solution in cases like that–or even to people you think are obvious tone trolls, sealions, or whatever–is just to let it drop. Let the person yammer on–if they cross the line, PZ will get them.
The thing is, this solution requires a fair bit of humility. People have to be willing to let other people get in the last word, even if that word is stupid and mean. Otherwise, things just spiral out of control.
Chris
Now, if it’s not an argument being made, then it can’t be an accurate paraphrase. You’Re talking about assumptions you’re making about assumptions. And I think it’s a problem that’s not specific to you, but one that let’s us escalate quickliy: Instead of showing why an argment is wrong, or misgynist/racist/…, we make assumptions about that person. Not without having developed a good pattern recognition, though.
Patric G
1. I don’t
2. Yes, there absolutely is. Same as well meaning folks doing the best they can while showing that intent isn’t magic.
I may have missed it, but I didn’t see anybody do this. People said they simply ignored certain behaviour and understood why the person engaged in them. That’s something different.
Believe it or not, but “The Regulars” are ordinay folks with complicated lives and histories. We carve out our little comfort we can get and yes, sometimes that means our “regular privilege” allows us to simply ignore others’ bad behaviour. Because at least I personally can’t fucking care about everything.
+++
Nerd
I think that asking for evidence is good. BUt maybe yeah, a different approach is in order.
Not a standardized knee-jerk one. More like “You made this, this and this claim. Could you please back them up?” Maybe?
+++
Cyranothe2nd
And of course the one time you don’t preview you fuck up the html…
Humility is hard when you’re right.
That’s part of the problem too. The people we disagree with are so profoundly wrong — creationists are scarily ignorant, the MRAs and anti-SJW brigade are practically evil in their oblivious malevolence — and having such black&white enemies is a curse in itself. It means that anyone who deviates a smidgen from the shining paragons of the group norms is making accommodations with evil.
I’m seeing that play out in this thread, too. You’re either Good or Bad. You’re either a terrible example or a leader.
Unfortunately, that means someone new, who is thinking things through and trying to learn, isn’t treated as someone who’s a bit gray and just needs some learning to be on the side of niceness — they’re treated as someone who must have the errors flayed out of their hide.
PZ@335, Newbies can get flayed, but a lot of the real nastiness is between regulars, either two individuals with grudges or (worse) groups of people who dislike or hate each other. There is a lot of history and a lot of bad blood on this blog–just look at this thread for examples. And it’s sad to think how many former regulars have been driven off by this sort of in-fighting.
The old saying comes to mind, “academic feuds are so bitter because so little is at stake.” This is even more true about blog comments. The sub-thread above about monitors is a good example–having a few people to monitor threads, send alerts to PZ, and let people know when they violate one of the standards of conduct is an excellent idea, but because some people are incapable of not making things into a power struggle, it spirals out of control, into recriminations, suspicions, and bitterness.
If people, and I mean regular people, not trolls and bigots (who, again, will get hammered), would just treat commenting like civilized conversation, without turning it into a battle for pride, then these problems would largely go away. (And no, I don’t mean “no cursing”–my friends and I curse all the time in regular conversation. There is a big difference between cursing at someone and cursing around someone, a lesson that a fair number of people need to learn.)
I think for a monitor system to work here, PZ is going to have to put in a lot of work in the beginning, combing through every thread and backing up monitors (or gently chiding them, if they’re wrong) when people start to attack them for doing their job. YMMV and all of that, but from where I’m sitting that looks like the solution most likely to bring about a good outcome everyone is happy with. I believe the current commenting policy is very good; it’s just the application of it that’s undergoing problems and monitors could help with that. But, like I said, for that to work, PZ is going to have to have a much heavier moderating (not banning necessarily, more guiding) hand for a while.
TBH, I only commented on this to draw out the irrational hostility that exists and is alive and well, as we have seen happen to Cyranothe2nd (and Chas obviously) in this very thread. And I dont even remember that person. You fix this PZ and you fix your comment section. And good luck to you. Assholes trying to fix the asshole problem.
Nepos
I agree, but so far I haven’t seen any good proposal how this is going to be solved.
Say nothing when a regular behaves like an asshole: get accused of giving your friend a pass.
Say something: get accused of making this a hostile place.
That’s even worse when you’re the one who’s at the receiving end of it.
See, this is what I mean. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was nice. While it takes everybody to make that happen, it takes just one person to bust it. What is the solution then? Does it become the responsibility of the one who feels under attack to let it go and turn the other cheek? That’s what many people are afraid of: that this is going to be used as a means of abuse. There’s a lot of passive agressive sniping going on in this thread, and it also comes from people who claim that the climate here is too nasty and hostile. What’s the response to this? You react and you’re the nasty? You know, it sounds certainly like a lot of my childhood abuse.
Giliell #339
I think Lofty #327 has a good approach – make a rule, no matter what rule as long as it isn’t too draconian, and stick by it. We already have a Rules page which is often ignored. One of the best rules there is three-comment-rule which I think satisfies both JAL‘s desire for a proactive commentariat, while still leaving room for intelligent conversation as long as the person is willing to listen. The saddest part is a lot of people here try to keep the three-comment-rule, but it takes one person to ignore and the frenzy starts.
It seems to me the best solution is for a moderator to catch the first rule-breaking comment and remind people to behave, at least for a moment. That way we’ll know whether we’re dealing with someone beyond the pale or someone willing to listen and learn. To that end I think a separate monitor account is necessary so that they won’t be afraid to comment and won’t burn themselves on the job.
Actually, let’s try that rule right now:
rorschach #338
That sounds like the very definition of trolling. In what way do you think that this is contributing to this discussion (before you answer, I’d like to remind you that PZ is already aware of the hostility here and that’s why he made this thread to begin with)?
It’s the second time you called the commenters here assholes. Do you think calling names with no clear examples of what assholery you’re referring to nor a suggestion for how to change it is productive? In what way? How do you think it advances a thread that is dedicated to prevented undue hostility?
I’ve seen some unequivocally dangerous-in-real-life, threatening and vile positions (e.g. forced-birther “arguments”) thoroughly stomped on – at length, every damn time the forced-birther kept coming back and back and back – and that was imo both needed and valuable in itself (valuable to have a lot of voices raised against that shit, for as long as it takes, for all to see).
I’ve also seen cases where I thought someone was (possibly/probably) arguing or questioning in good faith, and they’ve been stomped on. Sometimes we’re too trigger-happy, sometimes we’re right and it really was a troll.
I tend not to have much confidence in my own judgement when it comes to trying to see if someone’s in good faith or not, so I don’t speak up to ask that people be given more space before stomping. I should, but I always second-guess myself. This is my fault.
This is not much of a contribution, I’m sorry! But in some specific cases a pile-on can be a thing of value that keeps this place safe for survivors, while in others it’s the loss of a potential new valuable and interesting voice; it’s difficult to arrange things so as to keep one and prevent the other, but the principle of charity and automatically clearly visibly labelling new voices as such could help.
I think a return of the killfile might be useful. At least from the perspective of being able to not feed the obvious trolls until PZ comes along to clean up the droppings.
Giliell@339, I think that comparing blog comments with child abuse is a gross exaggeration (in both senses of “gross”) and that language like that merely exacerbates the problem.
Having said that, your comment did spark an epiphany. The problem, at the bottom, isn’t courtesy, charity, or humility–the problem is that people are taking comments on a blog way too fucking seriously.
[I’m switching to generic “you” here, not “you’ as Giliell. I tried writing it with “one’ instead of “you”, but it was just too awkward.] Here’s a thought–before posting or responding to a comment, you should ask, “does my emotional well-being depend on how this comment is received?” If the answer is yes: don’t post! Take a deep breath, go to a different website, maybe go outside for a bit.
Only post when you aren’t emotionally invested. Otherwise, you will probably 1) piss someone off; 2) get pissed off; or 3) both.
Giliell @ 339:
Yes, and it’s an obvious example of “oh, it’s different when I do it!” This thread clearly demonstrates that a lot of people are not at all willing to let go of grudges, mixed with the implication of their sainthood (it’s not me, I never do any of that stuff, but you people…), that I think PZ is going to have one fuck of a time making any actual changes here.
I’ve barely posted here at all for months, and this thread has been a good reminder as to why.
Yikes. 341 comments and I haven’t gotten a word in edgewise. And with the disclaimer that I did not read those 341 comments, here goes:
I’ve been a regular reader since forever (the Scienceblogs days). I used to comment a lot under a really lame pseudonym and got tired of that, especially during the time others were railing against the slyme pit for hiding behind their pseudonyms in order to say vile things. So, this is really me.
I still read Pharyngula pretty much every day, but rarely comment anymore, because it seems just a little too much like the same 20 people are participating in the conversation. And I already know what their opinion is. I never go into either the Lounge or Thunderdome — so keep or don’t keep has absolutely no bearing on my readership.
I wonder what the ratio is of readers to commenters. I’m sure the stats would be instructive, especially trends over time — more visitors, fewer commenters would be my guess.
So, anything that encourages more participation from the lurkers and near-lurkers is a good move, in my opinion. And most especially finding a method of encouraging people to disagree with the OP in a coherent way. Some commenters do not tolerate even the mildest of dissent.
Nepos
Well, I guess you’re not the one who can get triggered by them, right?
I raised a lot of points and honestly told you about how I feel about it and your response is that I should lighten up and stop taking things serious. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is over.
Dear all,
I’m another long time lurker who has never posted before out of fear of being savaged. This discussion seems helpful though, so I thought I’d break my silence and pitch in.
It seems to me that the safe space v. learning space question really is a zero-sum game. Being a maximally safe space requires that anyone whose comment is consistent with them being an mra/etc being immediately shouted down (even if it is also consistent with a well-meaning lack of familiarity with SJ issues). Conversely, to be a learning space more such comments must be engaged with. Most people seem to be suggesting an intermediate position (e.g., give posters the benefit of the doubt for a handful of comments, shout at them if they provide evidence of being in bad faith). This is certainly possible, though it would reduce the safety of the space.
PZ’s desire appears to be a shift towards learning, so here are some suggestions:
1 – ban “evidence or gtfo” statements. They mindlessly privilege the consensus and shutdown discussion. Why not say “I disagree. Here is evidence against your claim … … Do you have any evidence to support your claim?”. At worst this can be used to build up a SJ FAQ that you could point people to in future to save time.
2 – Anonymize posting. The fear would be rampant trolling, but it sounds like lots of the anger here is personal and ego-driven, this would stop that nicely.
3 – Limit the rate at which an account can post (e.g. 1 every 2 hours). This would help diffuse tension as people can’t engage in rapid back-and-forths and would dissuade trolls. It would also disincentivize pile-ons as joining a pile on would prevent you posting anything else for 2 hours.
As for monitors, it sounds like horrible job for anyone. More generally, I think PZ would prefer a community of less hostile people, not a community of hostile people being restrained by beleaguered monitors! I think encouraging a climate of community self moderation, with offenders being temporarily prevented form posting, could do well. I agree this would require lots of work form PZ in the short term.
Thanks all for your posts, many have been great.
Nepos @ 343:
How is proposing Vulcanland helpful? This is wrong on more than one level. There are situations and subjects which should call up passion, and there’s nothing at all wrong with that. As some people have said, if you aren’t angry about ___, something is wrong. That said, you make the same mistake a lot of people make, in assuming someone is being all emotional over something when they aren’t. Also, I’d like to hear how you plan to wave your wand and instill this attitude in thousands of people – we are discussing blog changes, not advice to a few people.
Giliell said it reminded her of her childhood abuse, and I understood that, because I shared some of same type of abuse, which leaves you stranded, not knowing which response will allow for you to be temporarily okay, or which response will end up in more abuse being piled on, which then leaves you cowed and frozen. There are a lot of people in the commentariat who have a background of abuse, and it’s not unusual to bring it up, in regard to certain behaviours.
Nepos, your post is a stellar example of tone trolling, whether you meant it to be or not. “Don’t take it so seriously!” “If your feelings get hurt, you’re wrong!” Do you understand that “not posting when you’re emotionally invested” means that the people for whom a topic has the most impact don’t get to ever speak on it? For example, I’m seriously invested in making sure that reproductive freedom exists for women. I get really angry when it gets stomped on, because it affects me personally. When a law gets passed that restricts my reproductive freedom, that is the very definition of invested. So should I not be able to comment? Should emotional impact never play a role in developing social policy? You’re basically saying “the internet isn’t real”. That… isn’t helpful.
Whenever you got nasty to someone that did not merit eternal infliction, lend your hand. There will be times when you will disagree some more, days with shine, days with shrines, sober days, sob errs days, there will be days we’ll be all silent.
I love you Horde, even when we disagree.
I love you Horde because we all need to be reminded that the first of any diversity is not where we see it, it is when we share it raw, when we palpe it with uncertain digits in the dark, and explore it however unpleasing it is. Borders and frontiers need to be discovered on the sharp thin lines, not from the vacuum of delusions.
☮
Giliell@346, Good for you! I’m glad to see you’re taking my advice.
No, seriously, Giliell just demonstrated exactly what I’m advocating. If everyone just stopped responding to posts (or people) they find inflammatory, offensive, or whatever, then a lot of the noise and heat would die down.
It’s the “I’m right / No! I’m right! / No, you’re wrong and an idiot!” / etc. etc.” spiral that needs to stop–and that dance takes two to tango. And unlike child abuse, reading comments here is totally voluntary.
Does this sound like “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen?” Because it’s supposed to sound like “if you don’t like the heat, don’t set the fucking kitchen on fire.”
Worksfromhome @ 348:
No.
@AlexanderZ340
I agree that without specific examples of assholery there is little we can do to work on a general profile for what we are trying to deal with. (Additionally when people simple give their emotinal impressions and include no substance it comes off as passive aggressive insulting).
Since I’m a person that has to monitor and manage his assholeishness if PZ does not mind people can pick examples from me. I try to figure out where I’m an asshole on a regular basis so when I am an asshole I’m choosing that path. I don’t mind being example #1 and if others volunteer we can get a data set to work off of.
carlie @349, I’m not tone trolling, I’m saying, if someone “shoots” at you with a blog comment, it doesn’t benefit anyone to shoot back!
This isn’t a game, this isn’t a war, this is a comment thread. Last post doesn’t win, and you don’t get a prize for out-shouting trolls. Or to paraphrase nietzsche, “when you fight trolls, be careful that you don’t become a troll.”
There are a lot of people here, Giliell included, who dance right along that line. Being on the “right” side doesn’t mean you aren’t a troll.
Nepos @ 351:
Oh FFS. Giliell took 2 sentences out to explain something to you. You dismiss it, and act the asshole. That isn’t helpful, and I’ll point out that as reading comments is voluntary (as is posting), that applies to you, too. Perhaps you should have taken your high road, Nepos, and refrained from posting.
Again, it’s the great implication of sainthood, “Oh, me, I don’t ever do anything wrong, I don’t suffer from bad behaviour, it’s them!” And the rest of us, out here on the raggedy edge…
Nepos
You just advocated that abuse victims shut up and you claim victory when I do. Be proud, be proud. If you think you haven’t done damage, I can assure you that you did.
Caine @355, I understand Giliell’s point perfectly well, I just don’t agree. I think no one is forcing her to read or respond to my comments, or anyone else’s comments, and that if they upset her she should either ignore them or let PZ hammer me. If PZ doesn’t hammer me, then perhaps I’m not as offensive as she thinks.
Look, this isn’t a “safe” place, okay? It could be, there are lots of places that have great comment threads that are quite safe–Making Light and Scalzi’s Whatever blog leap to mind–but those kinds of sites have intensive moderation.
If PZ wants that kind of place, he’s going to spend a lot of time moderating, or appoint some moderators. Otherwise, people who want to hang out here have to get MUCH thicker skins. That’s just human nature. If you don’t like it–ask PZ to implement strict moderation.
Finished reading through comment 345.
I’ve been reading Pharyngula for almost a decade now. I’ve ventured into the comments from time to time, and I don’t have much hope that a rules change will make a real difference. It’s a culture that’s been built around and influenced by PZ. The blog attracts people who like seeing PZ tear down nonsense. Unsurprisingly, a lot of people who enjoy seeing it done enjoy doing it themselves. Some like it so much they move to that mode given the slightest opening – even in areas where reasonable people disagree. It’s plain to see that some people see this as being part of a collective who harshly deal with perceived bad people. That culture can’t be changed by rules to be more accommodating. As long as detecting destroying a bigoted interloper is highly valued, it will happen in some form. That’s a good thing, it just means there will be false positives.
@346 Giliell
This. (I am using this as an example, and not to focus on either of the people specifically)
There are two wider problems this shows, beyond the learning space/safe space issue, which I quite agree with.
1. How much precaution/avoidance of subjects can be reasonably expected of other commenters? Triggers are hard things..the responces they can elicit are real and often painful, and they can be both unpredictable and have shifting boundaries. Where I find it hard to see a line, though, is where they can alao be used to censor others. There needs, I think, to be reasoned and reasonable expectations for both sides…on one hand to protect those who get triggered, but on the other to protect others from being made feel responsible for another person’s unintended emotional responses.
2. Feel vs. Think. A lot of things get discusssed here that cause strong feels and strong thinks. And, I suspect, a lot of conflict comes from confusing which of the two a post is referencing, in part, because language and nuance tend to blend the two together. How to handle it? Not aure, but thought I’d toss it out there.
@Nepos
I’m not trying to downplay your desire to find ways of manage conflicts. But you are off on a couple of things.
What we consider games are very often instinctual practice for serious things. Sports is war. People fighting over genres are engaging in low-cost tribalism. Gambling is risk. We should be more aware of the connections between games and war so we can understand that emotionally social war on the internet feels like a game to too many people (I’m not assuming you disagree or agree, just saying that this is more complex then what you posted).
The fact that we are in a social conflict means that like it or not comment sections, blogs, forums and many other places are sites of conflict. If nothing else we need to respond to people treating places on the internet as arenas in a conflict in that context. As if it really is a conflict with those psychological rules being relevant to the situation.
Or to paraphrase nietzsche, “when you fight trolls, be careful that you don’t become a troll.”
Giliell@356, did I point a gun at your head forcing you to read my posts even after you’d decided I was a troll?
The sad thing is, I don’t feel triumph at causing you pain–I feel a deep sense of despair. Has it come to this? That saying “hey, don’t yell back at the trolls, let PZ hammer them instead” is, in itself, enough to cause people pain?
Shut it down, PZ, shut it all down. Or bring on some good moderators to decide who is right and who is wrong.
I don’t comment much. I won’t claim to be a regular reader, but I drop by.
I don’t comment much because there are a lot of awful people posting here. Luckily the Horde is there to oppose those awful people, so this is one of the few places on the internet where I have the luxury of many people who have my back without me having to dance and sing in order to be worthy of protection.
I really, really hope that sticks. There are so few places where people defend me. I don’t want to see that end.
Crap.
In #360 that last sentence was Nepos @354 and I meant to respond to,
Nepos @ 361:
Your words are right there, you know – we can see them, so don’t pretend this is all you said. You told Giliell that bringing up her abuse was inappropriate and gross. Perhaps you should apologize for that.
Brony @360, I was about to say, my post @354 applies to me as much as anybody!
And your point about the deep meanings of apparently trivial interactions is well taken. But ultimately, a comment thread is a voluntary association. And IF PZ chooses not to draw clear lines about what is acceptable (via strict moderation), then it is up to the participants to draw the line where they need to, and step away when that line is crossed. Unfortunately, people aren’t willing to do that, instead they fight over where the line is. [And yes, I’m doing that right now, but that’s the topic of the thread, in a way.]
As I said in 361, I think that if PZ doesn’t like the way the comment threads have been going, he needs to either implement strict moderation or shut it all down.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece, which is primarily for PZ anyway, so I’ll take my leave of the thread. Since I post so rarely, hopefully my, ah, fellow discussants? victims? won’t jump me the next time I stick my nose into a thread, assuming PZ doesn’t get wise and just nuke it from orbit (it’s the only way to be sure.)
@56, Pen
“Never” seems to overstate the matter. See (doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.722), “Ridicule as an educational corrective”. Contrariwise, (doi:10.1080/10510979209368370) indicates it’s far from universally effective — though nohow, that still seems to suggest that responding in kind to insult may help influence the audience (though perhaps not the primary target), belying your suggestion about bystanders being turned off.
My personal model, based on my amateur reading of psychology technical papers: human thought may be modeled as having two systems, the reflexive and reflective. The reflexive dominates, since it’s cheaper to run, but is subject to Wason Selection related failures (taking “P→Q” to be equal to “Q→P”), which in turn can lead to contradictions, and cognitive dissonance if such contradiction becomes apparent. The reflective system avoids such failures, but runs less (being more metabolically expensive). Cognitive dissonance triggers the reflective system, which can help override or modify reflexive habits. Surprise is one form/signifier of cognitive dissonance. Thus, when surprising, insults can be expected to help persuasion by triggering the reflexive-to-reflective shift that facilitates “changing one’s mind”.
On the other hand, the commentariat her at Pharyngula seems to tend to overuse it, reducing its effectiveness for achieving that end. I prefer trying to save insults for very, very special occasions.
From another perspective — and expressly contradicting your assertion that Abuse is content-free — insults may also be viewed as a social signal to indicate assessment of “merit” (a can of worms left aside) of another signal source, or assertion of “dominance” (ditto). I suspect this impacts the Infante paper I noted second. Also note, however, that the persuasive impact of calling someone an ignorant slimewaffle may be different for the audience than for the slimewaffle. Contrariwise, it’s a cheap signal (particularly for rote rather than custom-crafted insults), easily counterfeited; thus again, overused.
I’ll also note more generally that the notion of “civility” involves normative expectations in both the prescriptive sense and (via Overton window) a descriptive sense of “norm”.
It might be interesting for PZ to try and have a thread where people hammer on the question “What is civility?” from first philosophical principles. For added challenge, it might be done in a heavily moderated thread.
@184: eeyore
Counterpoint: it signals that the speaker considers
1) That the message they are responding to lacks merit
2) That this trait seems significantly correlated to messages formulated by that messenger
3) That the lack of merit is so egregious that the cost of fully explaining the message’s deficits are utterly disproportionate to the cost of its evaluation or cost estimated for that message’s formulation.
…and passes this assessment to others, to facilitate social resource allocation triage. Cue digression to the classic computer science problem of the “Byzantine Generals” and message convergence.
Much of politeness appears to involve phatic communication of “you are valuable enough for expenditure of my limited time resources”; messages to the contrary may help others waste less time trying to teach pigs to sing.
@335, PZ Myers
(Perhaps atheists might get a kick out of quoting the KJV translation of Job 38:2 at some of the theist ignoramuses: Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?)
There seem at least two senses of arrogance: assessment of merit far beyond norm, and assessment of merit far beyond actual. In one sense, it would be arrogant for Michael Jordan to expect that he would probably be able to beat nine of ten members randomly picked members of PZ’s commentariat in at least two of three games; however, I expect experimental testing would probably show that assessment quite justified.
However, I’d put out a caveat. I have a loose conjecture is that people with extreme high outliers in ability or other resources tend disproportionately likely to end up high on Sidanius’ Social Dominance Orientation and low on Altemeyer’s Right-Wing Authoritarianism — in both cases, because they find that the ability of others, and the judgement of the median of the crowd, are both relatively low value compared to their own. Contrairiwise, research (doi:10.1073/pnas.1118373109) suggests that social dominance tends to correlate to over-estimation of one’s own contribution to one’s merit. Social dominance orientation appears correlated to what is frequently though loosely called “dickishness”.
The blog’s regular visits from the willfully ignorant probably does not help the dickishness; this tendency may also be worsened by the same bad arguments being constantly re-deployed, which previous careful polite rebuttals for have fallen on apparently deaf ears — which in turn leaves it reasonable to infer that trying to deconvert creationist #673452 is a waste of time, and a preference of the alternative of trying to get them to go away as quickly as possible.
1) Ask commenters to only say something that they would say ,in person, to whoever they are responding too(I’ve found that this has reduced most of my vitriol). using your real name also helps (though not an option for everyone)
2) A thing to consider is that perhaps your commenters are getting their cues from you over what is acceptable or unacceptable or how much charity is to be shown
3) i’ve found Pigliucci’s policy of commenters self policing themselves to 5 comments per thread to be smart. Perhaps you could have a variation of it.(it is self policied)
4) Civility is not anti-thetical to Justice (Nor is it justice to be deliberately insulting to people when there is always a possibility that you , yourself can be wrong). Take for e.g. arguments against creationists – If I look at say Jason Rosenhouse – who is polite to a fault – Are his arguments any weaker because he chooses to be civil ? Would his arguments be better if he chose to add “fucking idiots” everytime he talks about creationists?
Ceesays @ 362:
I don’t want to see that end either. That’s what JAL is worried about too, and I’m rather surprised by all the people who claim not to understand that. Anyway, I don’t think PZ wants that to end at all, and it’s why there’s a reluctance over heavy handed restraints, but there’s got to be a medium somewhere. And for what it’s worth, Ceesays, any time I see your nym, I head over to read, your comments are always incisive and thoughtful.
tl;dr: Swearing at ideas, misfortunes or oppressions: OK; Swearing at or to exclude people: Bad; A Not-Thunderdome, moderately moderated Off Topic Thread & a How To Page: Yes, Please.
This is maybe more in reference to the first half of comments. It took me a while to get to posting this and I haven’t caught up on where the discussion went in the meantime:
In my earliest memories of swearing it was a device used by certain men to underline their privilege and exclude women and children from the discussion: ‘You prissy little people should not bother to add your opinion to our big, bad, worldly discussion.’ Later, I saw it in class-based speech patterns. So I swear mildly around my children because I want them to be comfortable with different kinds of people and not at all on the internet because I’ve seen how easy it is to make a mistake.
IMO swearing is a mistake when you use it to exclude or degrade a person for insufficient reasons or when you use it for sufficient reasons that are nevertheless not apparent to onlookers. If you tell a slyme-pitter to “Fuck Off”, you may know you are doing so because of a long pattern of offensive engagement, but to any part of your audience that has only seen a fragment of the discussion it looks like people get told “Fuck Off” or “Fuck You” here whenever they don’t get your inside baseball.
I don’t myself see any good reason to say this kind of thing to people you aren’t familiar with. If they’re being rude, tell them (and the audience) why. And unless you’ve been appointed Imperator of Internet Ettiquette your idea of what’s rude is still up for discussion (as is mine, obviously).
Yes, there are academic and lawyerly types out there who use a kind of civil-no bad words included- swear in precisely the way I remember men using regular swearing in my childhood- to belittle & exclude. I object to that just as much.
Regarding a certain Irish blogger- I wondered during his first couple posts whether I agreed with him, but soon enough found I didn’t. In fact, in following the discussion and following up on links I saw that FTB was a friendlier place than I remembered. I’m on the fence about whether or not to engage more. I’d rather talk about ideas than cats, but Thunderdome, for reasons that are probably clear now, doesn’t sound like my thing. I like the idea of an off topic thread, though.
I also like the idea of a How To page. I’m one of those people who doesn’t know how to do block quotes or add interesting stuff to my user name, etc., etc.
Martha @ 360:
To add something nifty to your nym, click on your nym right above the comment box, which will take you to your profile. You can add something there, but be sure to scroll all the way down and click ‘save changes’ or whatever it is, or it won’t take.
Some simple html:
To quote someone, use <blockquote>Paste Text Here</blockquote>
Italics: <em>Text</em> (<i>Text</i> can also be used)
Bold: <strong>Text</strong> (<b>Text</b> can also be used)
Nepos #354
Yes, it does. Please go read JAL, ceesays and others. People “shooting back” is fundamental to advancing the social causes of this blog.
Also, when you said that this isn’t a war you could not have been more wrong. Every FtB blogger gets death threats and daily harassment. Natalie Reed had to flee because she was in danger of being doxxed – something that would have caused real physical harm to her. Some of the commenters here have been doxxed by pitters. Many, many commenters were triggered in the worst possible way. The fact that you’re dismissive of triggering is your personal failing and should not be projected to others or adopted as a commenting rule if PZ wishes Pharyngula to continue being a progressive blog. Which, as far as I can tell, he does.
Finally, not being bad enough for PZ to ban you is hardly a defense of your arguments. Despite his reputation PZ is very lax when it comes to banning people. Your continued posting only says that you’re not in gross violation of the existing rules. That’s not a good thing if that’s your only defense.
__________________________
Brony #353
Alas, you’re polite to a fault :)
deepak shetty @367:
How I respond to people in person is not always going to be the same-it depends on context (I imagine the same applies to many other people). Using my example upthread (comment #121), if I was part of a conversation with conservative guy while having dinner, or drinks, or at a party or other social event, I would have responded to him differently than I did when I was working. There isn’t one way I respond to people online and one way I respond to people offline. It’s context-dependent.
Also, the subject matter is important. For me, there are issues I respond more strongly to (regardless of online vs offline)-feminist, racial, and LGBT issues, specifically. It’s not that I don’t care about other problems, but those three in particular are ones I care strongly about. If I’m talking to someone in meatspace who expresses libertarian views on non-discrimination policies, or someone who has MRA-like views, or someone advocating against marriage equality, I’m likely to respond quite stridently to them (again, depending on the context of the discussion). Which is how I’d respond to them online.
And yes, using one’s real name is not an option for a lot of people. That’s not a helpful suggestion, IMO.
It is not uncommon for threads at Pharyngula-especially contentious ones like those about guns, racism, abortion, or rape-to have hundreds of comments, with many new people popping up in the higher numbers. What happens if you respond 3 or 4 times in the first 100 comments (perhaps you’re having a productive back and forth with another commenter), but then along comes someone in the 200s and you find yourself feeling the need to respond to them multiple times, but you’ve reached your limit?
martha @369:
The Lounge is an off-topic thread that’s strongly moderated.
If someone doesn’t care enough to read the previous comments in a thread, the chances of them caring enough to thoughtfully consider and respond to your comment are low. But you do have a point. I think the limit should reset itself with every additional [X number of comments] on a thread. Perhaps three comments for every 100 on the thread. Excluding TET, TZT etc.
And maybe reset once a day?
@AlexanderZ371
Weird. I always feel like I’m an asshole or at least that it’s leaking out somewhere. On the inside I always feel like an asshole because of what I’m suppressing and channeling. I can turn it on like a light switch so I spend a lot of time trying to figure out when I should turn it on. I’ll have to think about that.
@abb3w 366
That comment has so much in it that corresponds to my experience. I’m going to have to think about that for a while.
deepak shetty @ 367:
Not necessarily, no. However, a friend pointed something out to me which I think is important. I think civility is both too loaded and too loosely defined by most people to be a useful frame for this discussion. A much better one is ethically. The commentariat needs to treat new/unfamiliar people, even those who are disagreeing, in an ethical manner. That also means not using safe space as a brute cudgel to smack down new/unfamiliar people, disagreeing or not.
A.R:
No, limiting posts is not a solution, in any sense. The culture of the commentariat needs to change, with a focus on ethical behaviour. This is not impossible, the culture here has changed several times already.
*lightbulb* That is excellent, thanks.
Sorry, forgot. My last comment was directed at Caine‘s number 378.
@Nepos, #361:
It is exactly this attitude that if maintained will make mods a failure.
Mods should NEVER be used to decide who is right and who is wrong. Good mods are there to remind people of the values that we are striving to put into practice. If something written goes diverges from those values sufficiently to cross a hard boundary a mod would alert PZ or, in the high-power-mod version, redact the smallest possible amount of a comment necessary to pull the comment back over the boundary.
I had been previously asked to be a mod under the old mod-system and accepted.
I would decline if mods were telling people who is “right”. That’s just a terrible idea.
Interesting comments. It seems to me that the root of the “problem” is just the common fact people have different ideas about what civility, politeness, abuse, etc., consist of, and when large numbers of people collect there are a large number of different ideas. But really moderating a busy blog is no small task, and unless PZ wants to spend an inordinate amount of time parsing every comment, I don’t see much change coming. For me, personally, I don’t think much, if any, change is needed. The one simple rule I would implement is that anyone who uses “STFU” or “GTFO” should get a vacation. (I think it’s the caps that bug me.)
This is nothing new, though. I first commented on PZ’s blog in 2006, when PZ and Ed Brayton were at each other’s throats, when I criticized Dawkins for apologizing on the whole “religion is child abuse” issue. I took a raft of crap over that, including the most vacuous dig of all, which still appears today, “you’re not helping.” The more things change, the more they stay the same.
@A. R.
I agree with Caine that cultural change won’t come from mere commenting-per-hundred limit, but I also wanted to say about
that I don’t think this is actually true.
At least in the sense of being less likely to “thoughtfully consider” than someone who read the whole thread. [the odds of anyone thoughtfully considering any one particular item read on the internet are low, I’m just arguing that this doesn’t necessarily make them lower.]
We’re vain creatures we humans, and even when we aren’t, seeing our names attached to something psychologically stamps as important not merely in general, but important to us. Priming is a thing. Priming with your name has effects. This is part of why selling contact lists is a big deal in marketing circles. Seeing something addressed to “A. R., Crip Dyke, and family” would get a different response from us in our hypothetical happily-married-home than “occupant”. Maybe it would only delay junking the letter for half a second as we scanned for other clues about content, but that’s the point: we look more carefully at the content.
Alexander @ 340, Rorshach DID provide examples of “asshole” behavior. Read his entire comment.
He named the way that I and Chas had been treated in this thread as evidence of asshole behavior.
And it is YOUR behavior in cherry-picking one sentence from his comment and demanding he provide evidence that he’s already reference that is hostile. This is not to pick on you but rather to point out a larger trend of glossing over what someone else says in favor of your own interpretation, rather than asking an honest question if something is unclear.
Gilliel @ 333
Can you see how you’ve taken what I said and both introduced an idea that doesn’t follow from any charitable reading of what I said (eg that everything everyone had said “doesn’t count as shit” and that the colloquial use of the “the problem” must mean that there is only one problem because I used the word “the”) , and then magnified it to mean that you, personally, are The Problem?
This, too, is what I meant when I said that comments here get very nasty and very personal. I did not mean that you, or even one particular person, was The Problem. I meant that the culture of this blog has been too nasty for too long, and that regulars contribute heavily to that and therefore choosing monitors from the regulars is not a good idea (especially if they are anonymous.) I could point out particular run-ins I’ve had with regulars (some of whom have been recommended for monitors in this thread), but what use is that? The conversation shouldn’t be targeted at specific people, but address group behavior.
Caine @ 364
Here is another example of what I mean:
That isn’t what Nepos said. He said that Gilliel @ 339 said:
Nepos said that comparing his advice for the comment thread to childhood abuse was gross. I think he’s right. But, beyond that, you’ve taken what he’s said and stripped out the context, so that it looks like
he was criticizing Gilliel for merely bringing up their abuse. That isn’t what happened. So, you’ve objectified Nepos in precisely the way I said happens here–you are using him to be a Bad Guy you can fight against, rather than honestly engaging with him as a person.
Again, my purpose isn’t to call you out specifically, but rather to point out trends that occur and reoccur on this blog. This uncharitable behavior must stop if you want people like me to contribute.
Finally, I will say this: I would also like this blog to be a safe space. But it has to be a safe space for newbies and people that aren’t in the in-crowd as well. This means that, in additional to a strict “no tolerance for -isms” policy, there also should be some rules that protect against what I’m showing here–because I do not relish having to post this at all. I’ve bee an victim of the very wagon-circling I’m describing (and, ironically, was told that this blog wasn’t a safe space for victims), and it isn’t pleasant or right.
@Tony! The Queer Shoop
It’s context-dependent.
Agreed – but that’s not the point – You are self policing yourself and you need not add were I in someone else’s house I would be much more polite. Its up to you to decide what your standards are -Like I said works for me. – ymmv.
For me, there are issues I respond more strongly to
Which is fine – No one is saying you should not be passionate or should not be emotionally invested.
That’s not a helpful suggestion, IMO.
For a lot of people agreed. But not everyone. Do you think every slymepitter who uses a ‘nym does so because of the repercussions of being found out as a non-believer? Speaking for myself the fact that these words are associated with me does make me check what I say (or if I say something stupid , I do know that those words can always be found against my name)
but you’ve reached your limit?
In the usual controversial threads , a lot of times people are just saying what has already been said. And I think it should be self policied. If you reached your limit , and you really really have something important to say to someone – go ahead – if you find yourself doing this more often than not – you really need to see why.
@Caine
A much better one is ethically.
Care to elaborate on what you mean? I agree civility is a loaded term – Im using it broadly in the sense as dont direct profanities / insults towards people .(use as many fucks as you want)
Correct me if I’m wrong but what it sounds like we’re heading towards is Lounge-type rules and assumption of moderation for all threads.
I’ve seen the (extremely) few trolls we’ve gotten in the Lounge shot down hard and quick, while still having somewhat more restraint(? Is that the right word) than we have been seeing elsewhere so as not to upset the feel of the Lounge any further than it already has been by the aforementioned troll.
I know we all like to keep our metaphorical claws and teeth sniny and bright, but we do jump the gun with when the claws need to be brought out. I know I’ve done it, especially on topics that make my reaction very easily hit the, “oh, fuck no, you did not just say that” level and I’ll post a “fuck off” almost without thinking.
I wouldn’t do that in the Lounge because the culture there already discourages that kind of off the cuff reaction, while still (I hope/it seems to me) allowing those who are affected by the asshat du joir to speak up and know that the rest of us do have their backs.
The flaw I see with this is that currently if it looks like the Lounge is going to get heated, the debate can be moved to the Thunderdome, and I don’t know how not having that ability of “you can stay here (pharyngula) but not here (the Lounge)” would translate.
—–
*sigh* I can’t even tell if I’m adding anything to the conversation at this point. This thread is long enough that PZ is gonna have a lot to think about as it is.
From what I can gather, I’m almost certainly part of the “problem” because I don’t have any interest in giving MRA #10000002 the benefit of the doubt because it’s a first post from that ‘nym.
I learned a lot about what was and was not acceptable behavior based on people calling out gendered/abilist slurs *every time.* I learned that in jokes that are harmful can be and should be retired. I’ve learned how to argue and to a lesser extent debate.
But again. Ultimately this is PZ’s online living room and I will abide by any rules laid down to the best of my ability.
(please forgive any html or other text weirdness, my phone isn’t playing nice with preview)
cyranothe2nd
That’s what the use of the determinate article “the” usually implies. There is one problem. There is not a problem, which may be part of a group of problems, or part of the problem.
But since you’re one of the people who think that me talking about my abuse is “gross”, I’m done with you as well. That shit IS abusive.
I am fascinated by all the comments on this thread. At bottom, we are trying to improve and to preserve a culture that has proven itself to be very educational and beneficial to many, many people. I want the commentariat to be inclusive and to thrive. I will do whatever is required to help that happen.
My only useful suggestion regards the potential monitors. I believe that while actively monitoring, these people should be anonymous. And I suggest that the amount of time each monitor is allowed to contribute to the monitoring effort be closely regulated. Being a good monitor is very hard work and can create burnout very quickly. Be kind to our monitors. They will serve us well.
In my opinion, having posters dismiss my, or *anyone’s* history of being abused, or call us on our “tone”, (for being angry about surviving abuse) is far, far more offensive than any troll with slut-shaming and vulgar insults.
Long time lurker who has been honestly too nervous to comment until now. I’d like to think PZ is laying the groundwork here for some changes that really need to be made, but like some others I’m worried it’s a doomed effort unless some underlying attitudes can be changed. PZ’s statement about any concession to the argument of a horrible person, or as he put it, comment that deviates from the group norms, being “accommodations with evil” illustrates the problem we have here. We’re skeptics, the association fallacy is one of the first things we learned. Reductio ad Hitlerum shouldn’t be an issue, and yet it is. I don’t want to comment here because I know I’ll be walking on eggshells, and if I say something that deviates from the group norms, it won’t just be my ideas that get attacked, it will be me.
by mdorff @ 391
I think this is a salient point. Is it really giving up a safe space if we tell someone that their ideas are reprehensible, contemptible and used to condone violence done to women, for example, rather than say they’re a shitstain on the face of humanity (which is something I’ve said before, so I’m just alluding to myself here, not to anyone else)?
Gilliel @ 338
I most emphatically DO NOT think that you talking about your abuse is gross. I am also a victim of childhood abuse. I find it very therapeutic to talk about it and to work through it with the help (or listening ears) of others. But you didn’t just mention that you were a victim–you compared proposed comment rules to your childhood abuse. I think comparing a call for ethical discussion in a comment thread to childhood abuse is gross. It poisons the well and makes it impossible to talk about whatever rules we want to implement here, if your response is “These rules feel like my childhood abuse.” And worse, it lays the groundwork for people like Anna Elizabeth @ 390 to take what you’ve said at face value and think people are trying to dismiss victims.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. You made a comparison and I said that I thought it was gross and unfair. Not that you shouldn’t discuss it. But you, as a victim, must still engage ethically, just as I must.
Finally, I am not going to argue about the meaning of the word “the” except to say that a more ethical reading could have been “This is a problem” or even “This is the primary problem” rather than “This is the only problem.”
@ Caine:
As usual, you’ve managed to sum up the entirety of my thinking in one short paragraph. I hate it when you do that. :)
Quoted for awesome-sauce.
Cyranothe2nd
Because that’s what those particular rules sound like
Wrong. I compared a particular set of rules to that abuse. Did you read what the individual who made those suggestions further suggested? Is that what you want? People who are very affected having to shut up and go away because they’Re getting all emotional?
Did you read this thread? Did you read the suggestions and criticisms I made? Because this is most definitely NOT TRUE. I criticised a particular set, so if yo cannot discuss that and simply accuse me of trying to shut down the dicussion then you’Re not engaging with good faith. Or do I only get to criticised a particular set of rules to your liking? Or better not at all as the commenter suggested because they affect me. And now you’re accuing me of having caused Anna Elizabeth’S reaction when I am sure she was able to read the whole exchange and make her own judgement.
Yeah, using the most common interpretation of the English language. Grossly unethical. How about this: If you had meant “a problem” or “primarily the problem”, why didn’t you write that? “A” is even two letters shorter than “the”. You cannot even acknowledge that your own words are at best unclear but I’m the one who’s behaviour is gross.
Cyranothe2nd, I feel like you are misrepresenting Gilliel’s comment about her abuse. There is a wider context that she was talking about, which is more than just “a call for ethical discussion in a comment thread”. Gilliel didn’t compare “a call for ethical discussion in a comment thread” to her childhood abuse. Here’s exactly what she said, copied and pasted from her comment at 339:
She is saying that
a.) there is passive aggressive sniping going on on this thread
b.) this passive aggressive (and, I’ll add, sometimes overt) sniping is coming from the people who claim the climate here is too nasty and hostile.
c.) It seems the current feeling is that if you react to this, you become the nasty one.
d.) This scenario, where you can’t react to something nasty someone is doing to you because then it makes YOU the problem, reminds her of how she was abused as a child, in a similar manner I assume.
e.) I’m assuming here, but I presume that that means that this sniping and potshotting and then hiding behind “why are you so mean and hostile in reacting to me” can be seen as abusive.
I also suffered that kind of abuse, and I think she was right on the money.
Given this explanation, do you honestly still think the comparison was “gross” and “inappropriate”? Do you honestly think she exaggerated? And are you willing to apologize for misrepresenting her?
That’s not a helpful suggestion, IMO.
[ reply]
For a lot of people agreed. But not everyone. Do you think every slymepitter who uses a ‘nym does so because of the repercussions of being found out as a non-believer? Speaking for myself the fact that these words are associated with me does make me check what I say (or if I say something stupid , I do know that those words can always be found against my name)
Let me just point out that anonymity is especially important for trans men and trans women who are at much, much higher risk than cis people of being fired, thrown out of their homes, harrassed, beaten and killed. I understand that these risks might not float to the forefront of ones mind if they aren’t part of ones own daily life, but they are part of reality and make absence of anonymity a real issue.
In some states and countries faces fairly similar harsh repercussions if outed as atheists.
The hardest thing for me to remember on the internet is that not everyone is just like me. I know we have to simplify sometimes to have a discussion of reasonable length, but these subtleties and complexities should not be just waved away. Please take them into consideration.
Sorry, Gilliel, I cross posted with you. I didn’t mean to speak on your behalf, hope I didn’t step on your toes.
deepak shetty @ 386:
A quick illustration: it would be unethical to see someone at your door and punch them before finding out why they are at your doorstep, right? A lot of people show up on Pharyngula’s doorstep, and are punched immediately a/o have the door slammed on them so fast it hits them in the face.
Gen @ 392:
I agree that it’s a salient point, and thanks to mdorff for bringing it up. And no, that wouldn’t be giving up safe space, nor is it giving quarter to someone with truly reprehensible ideas and attitudes. It’s much simpler to bite without aiming, but that doesn’t mean that’s the best way – it isn’t. A safe space can quickly become exclusionary, if people maintaining said space aren’t careful and considerate. Consistently going after ideas is a matter of habit, and it’s one we could all quickly get into – it’s a matter of doing it in the first place. And yes, I’m guilty of the ‘shitstain on the face of humanity’ comments, too. I am capable, however, of committing myself to going after attitudes and ideas. I think most of the horde is capable in that regard.
PatrickG @ 394:
Love you, too. :D I’m grateful some people understand, and are willing to see things in a different light.
@smhll
I completely agree that people who could face any sort of repercussions (for disclosing they are non believers, trans , gay etc) , should remain anonymous – and if in doubt , remain anonymous.
but these subtleties and complexities should not be just waved away.
Didn’t mean to wave them away – didnt mention it because I do agree that there are good , valid , important reasons to be anonymous.
Bring in monitors that don’t currently post here and don’t allow them to act as monitor in discussions they’re involved in (conflict of interest)
All posts would have to be pre-approved before posted (like on Richard Carriers blog) at least until you have the situation under control.
Ban the bullies. That’s what they are, if this were a work or school environment that’s what they’d be called.
Gen
No worries, I think you summed it up very well.
Yeah, thanx for the characterization, I did indeed read the discussion and called it as I saw it, and: if I tend to side with women who are saying they are being abused, it is *because* I’ve been on the receiving end of enough dismissal and tone-trolling from SkepAth *men* to make the complaints believable.
I honestly think I’m too angry and too quick to lash back to be of much use in these discussions.
Old grudges and hurts are boiling up again – it might be a good time for us all to take a break. I’ll add that most people commenting now are not discussing actual, current commenting rules, they are making suggestions for possible rules or behaviour changes, and those are two different things.
Before I get back to work, I also want to say that while I think it’s very important for people to be able to bring up abuse they have suffered, along with behaviour which makes them feel as though that’s happening again, it’s also very important to realize that sometimes, bringing up abuse can act as a way to silence someone else, even when that’s not intended. Now, before anyone shoots me, I absolutely include myself in this, because looking back, I can now recognize times I have used my own situation to shut someone down, and that sure as hell isn’t ethical. And, I don’t think Giliell is doing that, but that is my personal point of view. I just think it’s something for people to be aware of.
Cyranothe2nd #385
Except I don’t see how your treatment (in this thread) was hostile. I’ve reread your response and the response it got as well as the the response to Chas/Sven (not too difficult since I responded to him) and don’t see the hostility you’re talking about.
Please, just quote the line that shows that either of you were greeted with hostility in this thread, and explain why do you find that quote hostile. Maybe I missed the offending comment (I reread some comments, but not the entire thread) or maybe I’ve become too desensitized, but I want to know what you’re objecting too.
As for me cherry-picking one line, that’s not entirely true. I replied to three separate arguments that Nepos raised in several comments. I quoted one line as an anchor-point of sorts, but my reply was far from being centered on that line alone. If you mean that I should have quoted all three of the sentences I was replying to, then i accept your criticism. I’ve been lazy and I’ll try to do better.
Didn’t mean to wave them away – didnt mention it because I do agree that there are good , valid , important reasons to be anonymous.
OK, thanks. (I had thought your mention of slymepitters implied a desire for open naming as a desirable way to rein in behavior.)
A suggestion for when a brouhaha happens and things are way too hostile.
Back in the message board days we called this a flame war. The moderator would jump in and say this thread is way to hot I am shutting it down for today, and may not open it back up depending on whether it is time consuming to monitor it.
You can shut an individual, confirmed troll down easy. But a nasty snarl in a discussion with flames going everywhere is different. A monitor could alert PZ to a snarl without posting anything, so they don’t get flamed. Then PZ checks it out and considers whether it is worth the time and effort to leave it open. He already did this to thunderdome apparently but it can be used across the board.
Monitors could help identify who repeatedly has a flamethrower or a particularly horrible tantrum, meltdown intending to hurl abuse. Then that person gets a warning with a quote of what they said.
Or you could move the quotes to an intervention thread and allow people to explain to the offender where they went wrong without abuse and the intent to help. There is a popular game platform that does this. A large percentage of flamers are under some sort of temporary stress , and can be reformed by social intervention. They go and sin no more so to speak. Then after intervention thread is finished set it on private. This person then reforms or gets the ban hammer.
Definitely, close hot thread temp or permanently. Less time consuming for PZ.
Sorry for the derail.
I’m out
I made my suggestions, I voiced my concerns, I’ll see what happens.
lilandra @407: Closing hot threads is a good idea, but I suspect that the flaming might move over to TZT instead of dying down if regulars are involved.
PZ, one simple suggestion to allow monitors to do their work without personal pushback: allow them separate anonymous logins they can use to add their monitoring comments., e.g monitor1 and so on.
Giliell @ 339
You’ve got that mixed up.
Your refusal to call out certain other commenters when they fuck up is exactly what makes this a hostile place. Your silence in that situation is an indicator that you approve of the behaviors.
I didn’t think this was ever about how the regulars treat one another. I thought it was about how the regulars behave towards non-regulars.
If regulars want to work out amongst themselves how they treat one another that’s fine but its a separate issue from the unfortunate trend of extreme hostility towards non-regulars who express anything but complete agreement with the popular opinion here. I thought that was the issue being tackled: cliquishness and quickness to hostility towards anyone outside the circle of regulars, even when they’re behaving reasonably.
I’m sure there are non-regulars whose concerns differ from mine but, speaking as a non-regular who tries less and less because participating here hasnt been worth the hassle and thinks less and less of the comments section on this blog, MY primary concern is how closed-minded many of the regulars here tend to be towards anyone but themselves expressing reasonable disagreement on non-fundamental matters and how venomous they often are towards noobs who haven’t done anything wrong.
This has been twisted into “Youre asking us to tolerate bigotry!” No, I am not. I just don’t think when I calmly express “X makes me uncomfortable and I’m not entirely sure why” I should be responded to with “I bet you’re the kind of person who thinks its appropriate to hit on someone in an elevator at 4am”. No, I fucking don’t.
marinerachel @ 412:
I wrote out a long reply to you yesterday, addressing your concerns, and I’ve been trying to continue to do so. Other people have also been trying to address and focus on how to change things to specifically make it better for new people and non-regular / irregular commenters. I don’t understand why you’re acting as though no one has paid any attention to the issues you have brought up.
As for:
No, it hasn’t. One person has had (to me, mislaid) concerns about being put into a position where tolerance of bigotry could happen. Other people haven’t picked this up and turned it into a chorus. Rather, a lot of people have been refuting that idea. I apologize if this seems to come off negatively to you, but I’m not sure why some of us are bothering, if people are going to act as though absolutely no one has been addressing the concerns of people in this thread.
Again, I do understand the need to yell and vent, but I think you’re being a bit unfair here. Some of us who are actively trying to help, and owning up to bad behaviour, committing to doing better, and trying to find a better way are starting to get depressed and frustrated, because doing this is being ignored in favour of continued yelling about what awful people we are. Please, tell me what more I can do.
Echoing what Marinerachel said at 412–I don’t want to comment here further because I feel like the conversation has become unproductive and hurtful. It feels very much like a regular is getting away with being pretty nasty towards me without receiving any criticism for it. At this point, I feel that my concerns about commenting on Pharyngula were valid and I don’t really want or need to engage further.
PZ–I wish you luck in trying to get this worked out. I am not confident that much will change, but I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
@ Caine 413
For what it’s worth, I very much appreciate the responses and, for the most part, can really see genuine attempts to address the issues on all sides. I hadn’t mentioned it earlier, but the last comment of yours made it seem appropriate: thsnk you.
In my opinion, one of the contributing factor to the problems here are lack of understanding of, or respect for, other peoples personal boundaries.
@ lessismore #416
As someone who appreciated your initial comment to PZ, I’d like it if you could say just a bit more about that because I’m not sure what you mean by “personal boundaries” here.
⁂
As one unrelated observation, which is related to abb32’s excellent comment I think there is a tendency in this group towards a sort of unconscious escalation where someone says “x” (where x is susceptible to different interpretations), someone else says “Saying x is wrong” (without understanding, rightly or wrongly, the interpretation of the initial statement that the first person intended); possibly, then, the first person gets offended, rightly or wrongly, at that statement; the second either takes offense at the offense, again, rightly or wrongly, or, in essence, says the other person is wrong to be offended and the whole conversation spirals out of control. There isn’t a strong group norm of de-escalation, which, I think, might be viewed, incorrectly I think, as close to “backing down” or maybe an admission that that one was “wrong.”
I don’t view that dynamic as the same as the “regular/newcomer” issue that people are mentioning, although it might be there differences between how individuals in either group see, handle or are subject to the dynamic. Second, I am not sure “good faith” or “charity” covers it—it’s more like “reflection,” sort of like pausing to consider “what’s the other person saying from their point of view” (even if you disagree or if they’re saying it badly, and what the response to that is going to be—there’s an openness and a provisional quality to the conversation, rather than a closed, certainty about it. That doesn’t mean that not doing that (i.e., reacting) is “bad”—it means that there are ways that members of the group have, as a shared understanding, to recognize the dynamic when it occurs and then have some behavioral flexibility in dealing with it. (I wouldn’t view this thread as being “about” proposals for new commenting rules as much as it is about developing some awareness of what’s going on that’s giving rise to the feeling that there is a need for new rules) Third, I don’t think any amount of “monitoring” or “moderation” is as effective as having people be self-aware about what is going on and helping to “step back,” if the situation warrants it. I would not frame that as an issue of “personal responsibility” which can become a finger-pointing exercise in blame (i.e., if you’re “responsible” then you and only you “should” de-escalate)—to me, it’s more about tamping down the flames in those situations, no matter “who started it.” It’s about how the group defuses “unconscious” escalations—it’s not about how one person is “wrong” if he or she doesn’t do it. (I say “unconscious” because some conflicts, such as those with trolls, the group might be very happy to escalate.)
Related to what Jeff W has said, I think there are a few questions we need to ask ourselves when we engage someone else:
1. Is it certain that my interpretation of this person’s words is accurate and it would not be reasonable to have an alternate interpretation? (Could I be wrong? Could they be right?)
2. Is the strength of opposition to this person’s words, in quantity and attitude, at all proportional to the severity of their alleged error? (Are they wrong enough to deserve this kind of criticism? Is this proportionate? Is this escalation?)
3. Is there any response possible from this person that would be accepted as a way to stop the criticism? (Is there a possible route where they can convince you that they are actually right? Is an apology really required here? At what point do you decide to agree to disagree?)
I know that I have forgotten to ask each of these questions of myself at least once. Hyperparsing someone else’s words. Responding vehemently to someone for seeming stubborn in a debate over something of very little actual import (i.e. not actually related to bigotry). Continuing to debate someone when they had essentially conceded, but hadn’t conceded their point “completely”. Each of which is a different example of failing to grant charity.
Jeff W @417:
Thank you. Your comment has given me a lot to chew on.
Jeff W:
“As someone who appreciated your initial comment to PZ, I’d like it if you could say just a bit more about that because I’m not sure what you mean by “personal boundaries” here.”
Personal boundaries are like a line in the sand that determines what behaviors and actions we find acceptable and unacceptable in ourselves and in others.
There are Physical, emotional, mental, sexual, material and spiritual boundaries.
Not allowing people to kiss you without permission is a boundary. Not allowing people to borrow your car when you don’t want to lend it is a boundary. Not allowing people to talk to you disrespectfully is a boundary.
An example of my boundaries is that I try to treat all people with respect regardless of whether or not I agree with them on any given topic and I expect the same in return. If the person is unwilling to respect that boundary I don’t associate with them.
Here’s a link for more info if interested.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/what-are-personal-boundaries-how-do-i-get-some/
” If the person is unwilling to respect that boundary I don’t associate with them. ”
“Not associate” would be extreme imo, if it’s a friend I’d stop the discussion and suggest we continue when they’ve cooled down or agree to disagree and end the conversation there.
lessismore
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
anteprepro #418
Those are some excellent guidelines (and something I failed at quite recently). I’ll try to keep them in mind, and (PZ are you still with us?) something that should go into the new rules/guidelines for this place.
To be more on point, as it pertains to this blog.
I think some if not many people that have left here did so because of the way they or others were being treated. They decide that some of the behavior here crossed a line that they were not willing to accept.
I think an important key about setting boundaries is to balance what you expect of yourself with what you expect from others and don’t expect perfection, we’re all human.
Cyranothe2nd
I feel very frustrated with this comment at this point. You were misrepresenting what someone said, and both me and the person you misrepresented explained what she meant, and yet you still insist that she is “getting away with being pretty nasty”? What specifically was done to make you feel that a regular was getting too nasty? Because I honestly don’t see it, and I’m trying.
Marinerachel, we are trying to work something out. Many of us commenting on this thread don’t want new commenters or people who consider themselves non-regulars to feel the way you describe, and I know I certainly don’t think it’s fair to be accused of being someone who would think it appropriate to hit on someone in an elevator at 4am.
lessismore
Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate it.
Actually, your additional comment clarified what I was going to ask.
My interpretation of what you’re saying is that, in the context of this commenting community, people are not inclined to “disengage”— which I was viewing as part of the pattern of not “de-escalating” and which you’re framing as an issue of personal boundaries. Obviously, it can be both. (If my interpretation is not correct, please feel free to clarify.)
@Tony! The Queer Shoop
Thank you. I appreciate that you took the time to say so.
anteprepro
I appreciate your comment. I had in mind Question 1 but, really, any question that causes someone to pause and evaluate his or her own response is probably a good one.
Erratum: There should be a closing parentheses after if they’re saying it badly in the earlier comment. I regret the error.
In hopeful vein, that’s two-plus-a-maybe relatively simple and hopefully feasible practical measures I’ve seen mooted:
a visible distinction automatically applied (by software) to the first Xnumber of comments by any new person, so that we can all see and remember that they are still new;
and temporary suspensions (e.g. for X days), at PZ’s discretion, probably after a red-letter WARNING, of anyone who is going OTT.
Plus the possible idea of having a separate Monitor log-in, for monitors to issue bad-behaviour reminders/admonitions mid-thread.
I hope some or all of these prove possible to implement, and that they help. For my own part I’m going to try to speak up if/when I think stomping might be premature, though I am notoriously crap at doing anything like that. I do sometimes stick a toe in to stomping, and I think I only ever do so in the case of very very clear-cut MRAs/forced-birthers/libertarians in which cases I think stomping is actually beneficial and makes this place safer, but obviously I totally accept that if I were deemed OTT I’d be suspended.
So I finally caught up and I will mention rules I think would be usefull and what contributed (and contributes) to me being reluctant to comment.
First i would like to adress this:
@ PZ Myers # 335
I disagree. All there is needed for adequate humility is recognizing, that no matter how trivial and obvious some problem is, every single one of us was ignorant and/or wrong about it at least once in their life. Obligatory xkcd. That realisation should suffice to deflate overblown ego of any rational person.
______________
Now generally:
I know that there have been an awfull lot of people JAQing and sea lioning over the years. There also have regularly been people who asked in honest effort to get answers and got jumped at relentlessly just the same (me being one of them, albeit briefly because I withdrew from the conversation as soon as my honesty was being questioned). We are social creatures and asking people whom we trust about issues we find confusing or difficult to figure out is normal behaviour and its usefullness is not invalidated by the fact, that it is abused by some people to be pasive-agressive. PZ only needs to decide about the ratio false positive/false negative when idetntifying bad faith quastions versus honest ones and he (and horde) need act accordingly, but an ideal solution does not exist.
Answers “look it up for yourself” or “google it” might be appropriate for some really, really trivial things, but for more nuanced social justice or philosophical issues they are just dead ends. Google results depend on the exact phrase used, the ratings of the sites adressing the issue, regional and language settings of your browser and your IP.
In last days I found it really frustrating when one regular commited a blatant logical fallacy by requesting someone proving negative. Another regular called them out on this. Third regular chided the second one for calling the first one out. That is NOT right and is an excellent example of in-group thinking whereas someone on the right side of the issue uses eggregiously bad argumentation and gets reflectivelly defended just for being on the right side of the issue. I did not engage, because I do not have the stomach for discussions that can become laden with insults.
Insults. Even after eight years of reading Pharyngula I do not think that vanton use of insults is a good thing. Most comunities disallow insults, not only bigoted ones, but all, and I think it is a good thing. I agree with this being a rude blog and I understand the principle of tone trolling as a silencing tactics, but this is what I think most of the time too, when I consider commenting:
mdorff #391
QFT.
Also. Intent is not magic and everyone has different triggers. When some regular regularly called people “pathetic loser” it felt like a jab to me, because “being loser” is an insult that gets thrown a lot at men who do not conform to patriarchal expectations of masculinity. Most personal insults can carry such connotations for some people/contexts and there will always be some splash damage when they are used on such frequently visited blog like this.
_______________
I think mostly actual rules are OK, but I think a few changes and additions would not go amis, in case the commenters fail to police themselves:
– This is a rude blog. Attack ideas ruthlessly with any language you deem fit and expect the same rough handling from others.
– This is a safe place. Try as much as possible to refrain from attacking and insulting people and apply principle of charity. People trying to abuse this and solicit attacks from others by passive-aggressive behaviour and/or arguing in bad faith (see JAQuing Off, Sea Lioning) will be considered to be disruptive and will be banned by the host (PZ).
– This is a just place. Do not make value statements about whole person based on a few posts with very limited context and do not presume/question intent or honesty of other people unless you have evidence to back up such accusations.
– This is a rational place. Do not defend wrong argumenents just because they are currently used for the right conclusion. Do not presume that other people read everything you did just because they comment on the same issue.
– This is an internationally visited place with people from different cultural/lingual backgrounds. If someone says something that seems on the surface confused, stupid or outrageous, seek clarification first if it is not just poor wording on their part, before openning fire.
Charly, that is an excellent comment with a lot of insight and ideas for rules changes to it. I hope that it will be one of the comments that PZ pays special attention to when considering how to move forward.
(Gen 427)
I am too, for another reason. This criticism of “getting away with” being nasty has come up a lot, so maybe there also needs to be a definition of what NOT “getting away with” it means. Is it one comment that pushes back on it? Two? Three? Maybe a monitor note? Does it have to be PZ slapping it down? Does the person have to directly apologize? Do they have to be tempa-banned? I think another aspect of the problem is knowing how much calling out it takes for everyone to be satisfied that it’s been appropriately noted as against policy, and the person who did it won’t do it again.
There’s only so much vengeance you can take out on someone, and at some point it does have to be over and done with, and hopefully permanent banning will not be necessary often, which means yeah, there will be people still full in the mix who you personally might not have forgiven yet. That’s what ignoring them is for. That’s what remembering you’re never going to like everyone in a large group is for. If you feel unsafe with a particular person around, that’s if you assume they will repeat the prior behavior, right? So what exactly would it take for people to be confident that whatever happens in response to bad behavior gets dealt with in a way that the person won’t do it again if they stick around, but doesn’t make them carry the albatross around their neck forever?
I really like this summary by opposablethumbs at 429 and guidelines by Charly at 430.
Also, I know I’ve said this at least 3 times, but we blockquote A LOT on this blog, so the automatic “read more at freethoughtblogs” insert that’s recently popped up has been hella annoying. Either we have to manually delete it every time, or every other comment on a thread is going to have a callback link to the exact same thread.
I will be posting a few more ideas and a bit of synthesis of what I’m seeing here later today.
@413ish, marinerachel
I’m afraid I disagree. Such hostility targets even those who are regular commenters, if they develop a dissenting viewpoint — or even merely raise questions about the philosophical foundations for a principle that most accept implicitly and have strong emotional attachment for. Regulars thus tend to be selected for (1) masochistic enjoyment of or thick-skinned stoic indifference to abusive hostility or (2) group conformity.
@430ish, Charly:
Inspired by this, I’d suggest something on the lines of “Attack the ideas, not the people; distinguish the former from the latter.”
I also think it might make for a more analytical and reflective environment if Hume’s is-ought distinction was similarly ingrained, but that’s more a bee in my bonnet where apparently neither PZ nor the commentariat share my obsession.
One more thing – I wrote this in Tdome last night:
I did have another idea. What do you all think about suspensions as a way to deal with people who don’t abide by the rules or commit other offenses? Say one to three day suspensions. PZ could simply put someone on moderation for the one to three days, and for every time the person does something to merit it, another suspension. PZ could also put a cap on suspensions, so many, and then you’re out. (It could be a large number.) Anyway, I was thinking that suspensions might be a good way to deal with people, especially the long-term regulars (and yes, I include myself in that), and it might be an effective way to get people into better posting habits.
@abb3w 435
I agree with the general idea that one should address ideas, not personalities. I think “tackle the ball, not the player” is a decent rule.
Could you please explain Hume’s Is/Ought distinction to me in simple language that doesn’t require prior background with the topic?
While logical analysis may be the best way to discuss certain issues, is logic divorced from emotion the best way to discuss the personal harms caused by injustice? If you think it is, how would you go about persuading me that your approach is suitable?
[How sincere/disingenuous am I being? Is there a reliable way to tell?]
For smhll, #437:
Hume’s Is/Ought distinction:
In the united states, 2.4 children per married heterosexual couple IS the norm.
THEREFORE 2.4 children per married heterosexual couple OUGHT TO BE the norm.
It’s a variation of the Naturalistic fallacy. Or, rather, the naturalistic fallacy is a subset of this.
“If humans were meant to fly, they’d be born with wings” doesn’t use “is” or “ought” but has this embedded.
Hume was noting how frequently people jump across this “gap,” and argued that there may in fact be no way to cross it without specific assumptions built into one’s thinking that, and here’s Hume’s crucial point, cannot be justified empirically or logically. At some point, you have to make some kind of assumption to cross the gap from “is” to “ought”.
I’d be in favour of suspensions, especially for commenters who’ve got fixated on an issue and aren’t either taking in what others are saying or letting it drop.
Another vote for suspensions.
I vote for suspensions as well.
+1 for suspensions.
Aye, in favour.
Thank you, Crip Dyke.
(And, darn it, I was hoping to make a tiny point about how it can be tiring to explain sociology or social justice basics over and over. But I honestly didn’t know squat about Hume and now I do.)
A timely explanation can prevent misunderstanding. But too much backing up and reviewing basics can bog down the conversation and try the patience of readers.
I am qualified to talk about “signal to noise” ratio in threads but it would be a pain to do so if the person in need of explanation also needed me to explain “ratio”.
PZ Myers @434
That would be very helpful.
I think that asking the commenters what we saw in terms of general patterns and dynamics, not in terms of specific individuals, would be helpful also. (For the purposes of that thread only, perhaps consider some basic guidelines, maybe one being something like “Give your interpretations while keeping in mind that they are your interpretations.” Those might avoid some of what you saw here and, in themselves, generate some change.) Again, I think that building awareness is more effective than any specific policy.
The only problem I see with suspensions is that PZ has a day job. It would be easier, fairer and I suspect, more effective for him to just freeze an entire thread that develops problems rather than try to sort out who did what. (Or as an alternative to freezing a thread, delete all the comments and reset the discussion to give it another chance).
@437, smhll
Crip Dyke does a half-decent job; so does Wikipedia.
Hume essentially notes that people go “the world is like this, the world is like this, the world is like this, therefore we ought….” — and says “Hey, that seems a different type of claim there; that seems to make where to pay attention for shenanigans.” (Ironically, his criticism can be applied to the very work he mentions this in.)
My own perspective seems too mathematical for most people to follow; however, if you don’t mind a little abstract background, you might look at the Wikipedia entry on posets, and then consider the observation that statements morality, value, and so on appear to involve partial orderings of “ought” (that is, “A better than B”, “A worse than B”, “A equivalent to B”, “A incomparable to B”) between possible “is” options. Showing the existence of a set of ordering relations over a set of options may be done constructively — but specifying which ordering (aside from relatively trivial) requires an additional axiom. Which options are ideal (badum-tish) then depend on which basis is axiomatically specified, and may change if a different basis is used instead.
Note that once one has an axiom or other initial premise, “is” statements may give rise to further “ought” implications.
@437, smhll
The word “best” implicitly involves a partial ordering over the set (or perhaps class) of possible ways to discuss; as such, you’re already slipping across. Both “harm” and “injustice” seem to involve similar foundational ambiguity as to which ordering preference over choices is being referred to.
Being precise in defining the starting axiomatic basis (EG, taking equitability and reciprocity as basis for morality) can help you recognize when you’re not going to be able to persuade due to a difference in moral foundations (EG, conservatives’ tendency to also include ingroup affiliance, purity, and authority as additional factors). It also seems to facilitate persuasion, in that it seems able to help highlight when objections about “is” inferences are instead rooted in objections to the eventual “ought” conclusions, such as how some denial of the existence of climate change seems rooted in objections to the policy measures proposed in response; and possibly facilitate at least partial incrememental persuasion — getting someone to accept that climate change is happening, even if they may still disagree about what if anything should be done. (“Social justice” examples also seem possible.)
However, as with most engineering, in the short run it’s more productive to getting shit done in a hurry to not worry about rigorous foundations; but in the long run, more solid work can be done by devising adamantine foundations. So, YMMV.
chris61,
I don’t think suspensions would happen that often, or certainly not on the scale where they would be less convenient than freezing the thread.
Although, that’s not a bad idea either, for some situations.
#437 smhll
People are capable of being logical and emotional simultaneously. If you’ve ever written about your feelings you’re doing both. If you’ve ever had a sick pet that is suffering and you make the heartbreaking decision to euthanize it because you don’t want it to suffer, you’re employing logic in the decision making process.
While it may be difficult to be logical when angry, upset or in fear, what about when you’re feeling happy, proud, love and hope?
There’s a great deal of room between being totally emotional and being totally logical. Thinking it’s either/or is black and white thinking.
I’m fine with suspensions. I’m not totally sure how I feel about it, but I think it’s definitely got some possible benefits and am more than willing to see how it works out.
@ 448 Beatrice
You may be right that suspensions wouldn’t happen that often but I suspect that when they did happen the person being suspended would often feel the suspension was unfair and would be inclined to argue the suspension. Moreover suspension singles out and punishes individual commenters. Freezing or reseting a discussion is an attempt to modify the tone of a discussion without putting the blame on any individual, be they regular or new comer.
The problem I forsee with just freezing threads is once again, it becomes a tool for the abusive. If people see that all they need to do is shit on the carpet for the whole party to be cleared out along with all the productive conversations that might have been going on, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would be people dedicated to doing just that.
Imagree it can be useful in some situations, I just think it’s an easy way foe people to force a shut-down of conversations they don’t like or don’t want to happen if it’s applied as a primary, first-line strategy.
Caine @ 436:
I like the idea of suspensions with the added rule that commenters who are under suspension aren’t talked about/responded to.
Some other suggestions:
• A three-response-max rule per comment to keep from lengthy derails/pile-ons. Maybe allowance of placeholder comments (“I’d like to respond to comment X”) so other commenters know that it will be addressed downthread, to help keep the response count to 3.
• Canned responses for clearly unacceptable behavior (e.g., gendered/ableist insults, arm-chair diagnoses). Something like “You have used a gendered insult, which is unacceptable here. Repeat offenses and/or doubling down will result in a suspension. More information at <linky>.”
• Removal of comments that result in suspension with a simple note explaining that the comment did not adhere to the comment policy (with possible tags, e.g., “sexism”).
• A no-response rule among commentariat for comments that result in a canned response or suspension.
You are just the last person suggesting something like that, so this doesn’t concern just your comment, LicoriceAllsort, but I don’t like suggestions of any kind of comment number limits.
We’re having conversations not formal debates, making such disruptions in the flow of a conversation seems nonsensical to me.
The discussion continues in a new thread.