![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There is a general rule of thumb that says "Don't read the comments." It's up there with "Someone is wrong on the internet!" and "Oh, internet drama" for generally pushing the idea that discussion that takes place online, as opposed to in person (or, I guess, newspaper opinion columns and talk shows? I don't entirely know what it's being compared to) is meaningless furor.
And I'll grant that in some places it's true. I generally won't read the comments for a YouTube video. (But sometimes there are fun ones voted to the top, on fun videos.) I won't read the comments on a Cracked article. (Though skimming to see what's been heavily upvoted is interesting.) I've left various forums and stopped reading the comments on all sorts of blogs because the arguments were entirely circular or one-sided, and there didn't seem to be much point.
But I spend a lot of time on a forum these days where I've seen people say, "Oh, I get what you're saying, now. I think you're right and I was wrong." Or, "I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you meant; I take back what I said about it." Or, "Hey, I never knew that! Now I need to reconsider what I was saying earlier." It still has its cranks and a few people who can derail any conversation and people with their annoying political hobby-horses, and there were some distinct histrionics over the Microsoft vs. Sony console wars, but...by and large, it's a friendly place. And people will step up sometimes and say, "Hey, you shouldn't say that. That's over the line." And other people will often listen when they do.
I read the comments on blogs like Making Light, where there's good moderation and a sense of community, and when someone new flails in and starts making a mess, the locals are willing to say, "Look. Your behavior is out of line and unacceptable here. But here's how you can correct it; you can stay and argue your point if you're willing to do it by community standards." And I've seen people apologize to each other there, too.
That's probably my best signal for a healthy community, online or anywhere else. People being willing to apologize. People being willing to change their minds, given evidence that says they should. People willing to say, "I misunderstood. I misjudged you. I misspoke."
I'd like to be one of those people. God knows I can get frothy at times myself. Or try to make some clever jab, and realize after the fact that I have just invoked the failure state of clever. (Which is, as Scalzi says, asshole.) And I want to be the sort of person who is willing to apologize, and step back, and rephrase, and clarify, or just plain say, "Hey, I was wrong. That was over the line. I'm sorry. I won't do it again."
If I take a stand and won't back down on everything, then it's meaningless. The more I'm willing to back down when I was wrong, the more it means something when I actually hold my ground.
Anyway. Arguing on the internet! Sometimes it's a good thing! (But seriously, don't read the comments on most news articles posted online. Or on most any blog that doesn't practice some form of moderation.)
And I'll grant that in some places it's true. I generally won't read the comments for a YouTube video. (But sometimes there are fun ones voted to the top, on fun videos.) I won't read the comments on a Cracked article. (Though skimming to see what's been heavily upvoted is interesting.) I've left various forums and stopped reading the comments on all sorts of blogs because the arguments were entirely circular or one-sided, and there didn't seem to be much point.
But I spend a lot of time on a forum these days where I've seen people say, "Oh, I get what you're saying, now. I think you're right and I was wrong." Or, "I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you meant; I take back what I said about it." Or, "Hey, I never knew that! Now I need to reconsider what I was saying earlier." It still has its cranks and a few people who can derail any conversation and people with their annoying political hobby-horses, and there were some distinct histrionics over the Microsoft vs. Sony console wars, but...by and large, it's a friendly place. And people will step up sometimes and say, "Hey, you shouldn't say that. That's over the line." And other people will often listen when they do.
I read the comments on blogs like Making Light, where there's good moderation and a sense of community, and when someone new flails in and starts making a mess, the locals are willing to say, "Look. Your behavior is out of line and unacceptable here. But here's how you can correct it; you can stay and argue your point if you're willing to do it by community standards." And I've seen people apologize to each other there, too.
That's probably my best signal for a healthy community, online or anywhere else. People being willing to apologize. People being willing to change their minds, given evidence that says they should. People willing to say, "I misunderstood. I misjudged you. I misspoke."
I'd like to be one of those people. God knows I can get frothy at times myself. Or try to make some clever jab, and realize after the fact that I have just invoked the failure state of clever. (Which is, as Scalzi says, asshole.) And I want to be the sort of person who is willing to apologize, and step back, and rephrase, and clarify, or just plain say, "Hey, I was wrong. That was over the line. I'm sorry. I won't do it again."
If I take a stand and won't back down on everything, then it's meaningless. The more I'm willing to back down when I was wrong, the more it means something when I actually hold my ground.
Anyway. Arguing on the internet! Sometimes it's a good thing! (But seriously, don't read the comments on most news articles posted online. Or on most any blog that doesn't practice some form of moderation.)
From:
no subject
(This whole meta-conversation ongoing among fandom has been very frustrating to me, because I agree with the basic goals (People should treat each other decently. Don't be a jerk. A writer should be judged solely on the quality of their work. Etc.), but I disagree very strongly with the methods being widely proposed to get there and with what collateral damage is acceptable along the way.)
Mind you, I have some pretty high Do Not Engage stats. (I debated for hours whether to even make this comment.) But I can't think of a single moderated forum I know of that's achieved a copacetic atmosphere without shutting out some portion of the interested non-troll population. Even the one I was going to point to as a last bastion of open debate just today shut down comments over something that I'm still blinking at and saying, "Wha-? That?"
(It occurs to me this comment may seem kind of off-topic, but willingness to apologize and unwillingness to engage have gotten unpleasantly intertangled in my mind, due to Reasons.)
From:
no subject
Part of how I deal with that is by hanging out in multiple communities. The sort of personal attacks that go on over at Broken Forum would never be tolerated at Making Light, but they're often a friendly sort of "Stop being an asshole!" kind of attack that I'm willing to put up with. Other people are going to find that a lot more upsetting, and not want to hang out there. And as you point out above, I'm pretty happy at Making Light and the way it's moderated, but clearly it's not working very well for you.
And I'm pretty okay with the multiple communities thing. If one goes with the "This is a party in X's living room," metaphor, there are different parties, and what's appropriate someone's BDSM swingers party may not fly well at someone else's junior high graduation party. (And vice versa.) I can attend both, and try to remember to mind my manners appropriately in each venue, and still be okay at the twelve-year-old being firmly escorted out of the first party, and the naked man with a whip being un-invited from the second.
I admit, on a personal level, I'm also not hugely interested in open debate that's Completely Open. Because any open debate that allows everyone to make their point will include many people I find so upsetting that I leave--at which point it is tacitly excluding me. I'm glad that there are places that cater to the "everyone come in and have your say!" approach, but I'm unlikely to be found there. I really don't think any community can be an effective one while being open to everyone. It will always end up with a subset of "everyone", even if it claims otherwise.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Some topics are sufficiently upsetting that it doesn't matter how politely it's said, bringing it up in a community that believes strongly in one direction is always going to result in anger and hurt feelings
I get that; I really do. But at the same time... well, to borrow your own words from another forum, I'm sick of feeling like I have to pass some kind of ideological purity test to be permitted to join a conversation.
The sort of personal attacks that go on over at Broken Forum would never be tolerated at Making Light, but they're often a friendly sort of "Stop being an asshole!" kind of attack that I'm willing to put up with. Other people are going to find that a lot more upsetting, and not want to hang out there. And as you point out above, I'm pretty happy at Making Light and the way it's moderated, but clearly it's not working very well for you.
"Stop being an asshole!" sounds rather refreshing, actually. Forthright, at the very least. It's a shame I'm not into gaming.
The thing is, the definition of "personal attack" in any given instance seems to have an awful lot more to do with whether the moderator disagrees than the content or language used. (Going into examples here for the sake of clarity, not trying to dis anyone personally or start a fight about unrelated issues.) I figured out that Making Light wasn't the place for me a few years ago, when the health insurance bill was being debated, and the consensus in the comments was that anyone who didn't support universal government-paid health care was a monster who wanted poor people to die. Now, it's one thing if some commenters express that opinion (though that sure sounds like a personal attack to my ears), but when one of those commenters is also one of the moderators, it's pretty clear that those who disagree need not bother to fill out that little form at the bottom.
And, y'know, it's their blog; they can have that environment if they want to. But the way things play out whenever there's a sensitive topic under discussion sure is at odds with all those free-speech quotes they have in the sidebar.
Another example is the forum I referenced at the top of this comment. I definitely thought somebody in that conversation had sailed well over the line into personal attack -- but it wasn't the person whose comment was cited as the reason for the shut-down.
there are different parties, and what's appropriate someone's BDSM swingers party may not fly well at someone else's junior high graduation party. (And vice versa.)
It's a fine metaphor, and I'm fond of it myself. But there's a difference between that and saying, "This is a conversation about Issue X -- but only right-thinking people who think about Issue X this way and agree that we have to do this about it may participate!" And that's what I'm seeing everywhere I turn with the big sprawling meta-conversation that's ongoing currently.
I could try to find a forum of like-minded folk, but it's hard to find one that doesn't toe the party line but isn't just as bad in the opposite direction; it seems all the reasonable folks who disagree with the dominant paradigm are in hiding just like I usually am. And honestly, I don't want a forum where everyone agrees with me -- that would just be preaching to the choir with a different tune.
I'm also not hugely interested in open debate that's Completely Open.
Well, nor am I. It's a sad truism that any unmoderated forum on the internet will attract assholes who are only there to be assholes; they don't care what's being discussed, they just want to pee in other people's sandboxes. And there's some people who for whatever reason are incapable of discussing what may be a valid point in a non-hostile manner. But all too often lately, I'm seeing people making points I agree with, and making them in what I feel are courteous and reasonable ways, slotted into that same category, and flamed into oblivion or banned or told in no uncertain terms to shut up and go away. And that has a chilling effect, not only on that person, but on people like me who see that and think, "Wait, I thought that guy was fine. If they hated him, they'll hate me too. I'll just go away now."
And of course that's an invisible effect, so you get communities congratulating themselves on being open and welcoming to "reasonable people" and not even being aware of how many people, including people who are nominally in their subset of "everyone", are slinking away on the sidelines, or lurking but never, ever participating.
From:
no subject
Oh, totally understood. It's...mm.
The thing is, I have never yet found a community I could participate in that could not, at some point, be described in that way. It's just that the purity standards were different in different places, and broader or narrower.
For example, on Broken Forum, it has been said quite bluntly and explicitly that blatant racism and MRA-style sexism Will Not Be Tolerated. A polite racist and certain extremes of polite sexists will not be allowed there, or at least not to speak about those things in that way, no matter how politely they state it. You have to be At Least This Pure to post, or at least willing to pretend such. And that's one of the reasons I am willing to hang out there. The oh-so-polite MRA types on RPGnet drove me away, because they could politely and eloquently and without-making-personal-attacks express their horrible views such that the moderators let it pass as Lively Discussion, and I could not deal with participating in a forum where that might come up at any moment.
Another example is the forum I referenced at the top of this comment. I definitely thought somebody in that conversation had sailed well over the line into personal attack -- but it wasn't the person whose comment was cited as the reason for the shut-down.
And I agree on that. But that's a place where I don't post often because half the time the comments will enrage me, and people saying outrageous things will not be called on them. My standards are very different from the standards enforced there; I spoke up when it looked to me like a particular standard was being applied not just to conversation there, but to the conversations other people were having in their own spaces entirely separate from that place.
And honestly, I don't want a forum where everyone agrees with me -- that would just be preaching to the choir with a different tune.
That's part of our different approaches, I think. A forum where everyone agrees with me on every point would drive me batty; but a forum where the vast majority of people agree with me on certain topics that I find very upsetting to discuss attacks on, well, yes. I do want to go there. There's a long-running thread on Broken Forum that's mostly "Look at these assholes being assholes about sexism," and anyone who stands up and goes "But this bit of sexism is probably okay, because women can be bitches, am I right?" will be SMACKED DOWN with the unholy wrath of every poster there. And...yeah. I am in favor of that. I don't want to debate "Are women really people who deserve the rights of real people?" with anyone. I do not want to talk with people who think this is up for debate. I am fine with only hanging out in places that demand that purity line be upheld.
And of course that's an invisible effect, so you get communities congratulating themselves on being open and welcoming to "reasonable people" and not even being aware of how many people, including people who are nominally in their subset of "everyone", are slinking away on the sidelines, or lurking but never, ever participating.
Oh, totally. It's one of the reasons why I side-eye communities that claim they are all about Free Speech and Open To All Points Of View. Being open to "all" points of view will, by its nature, end up silencing a lot of people who are sick and tired of having their own right to exist questioned and considered up for debate. I would much rather hang out in places that wear their biases on their sleeve; if I want a conversation without those particular biases, I'll go looking for a community that has a different set on their respective sleeve.
From:
no subject
I think that "preaching to the choir" is an interesting metaphor to point at, because if you look at a church, the choir is part of the congregation. They're there to be preached at just as much as anyone else. I think there's actually a lot of value in that sometimes. In being able to stand up and say, "Look, we all agree on X, right?" Because if it's left as only to be spoken to people who disagree, the people who stay away from the screaming fights may assume that no one agrees with them, because it's not being stated where "Everyone knows" it's true.
I get a lot of relief and comfort at times from going to communities where what Everyone Knows is stated explicitly and repeatedly. "Yes, you are a person worthy of respect. You are just as valuable as anyone else. You deserve to be able to enforce your own boundaries." We all believe it, but stating it is still worthwhile, because of all the places where it's considered grounds for lively debate.