Trayvon Martin coverage: Republicans, many whites say 'enough'

Like Tree1641Likes

I agree about the moderation but for me, this comment was blatant and not ambiguous. In the words of the mods, it was "inflammatory".
wild~hair, misspam and Jo Somebody like this.

I think the intention here is good but concepts like tolerance, racism, homophobia, etc are very subjective and interpreted individualy.

That is true, but that's why there are moderators (if we are going to have mods) and they are supposed to be the judge of that. Here, many feel that they have been failing to do so, and hence the problem. I also think we in the community bear responsibility in calling these things out (as many have done.)

Not everyone is going to have the same level of "tolerance." For some tolerance is detached acceptance. For others, validation. For still others, enthusiastic embrace. Some people do not accept certain concepts (e., White privilege), even if they have legitimatey studied the issues.

"Tolerance" is a negative word in human rights circles that I move in as it implies reluctant "putting up with" rather than true acceptance.

I see what you are saying, but I doubt that anyone who has seriously studied race and has read any reputable scholars could seriously "not accept" white privilege, since it is a fact. That's like saying some people have seriously studied science and don't accept evolution... oh, wait.

Some people's religions preclude their acceptance of concepts...other people's personal experiences render others untrue.

I don't know if religion precludes acceptance of concepts, but sometimes people use it as an excuse/reason not to.

Boardies should be able to respectfully discuss their honest views and experiences and thoughts...which may or may not lead to increased levels of understanding.

I agree 100% with this.

Saying someone Black is a thug is not an example of racism!!!! (Some Black people ~are~ thugs.) But appearently some people here think it's an example of racism. The racism is failing to acknowledge the unfounded assumptions our society makes about Black people that seek to justify an unprovoked murder.

As I said over on 4a, racism these days tends to be subtle and coded. Words like thug, ghetto, welfare, urban etc. while theoretically neutral words that can apply to anyone, have racially coded messages and are almost always used with racial intent. The "unfounded assumptions our society makes about Black people..." flow directly from peoples' beliefs about Blacks and welfare, Blacks and ghettos, Blacks and thugs, etc. It's a particularly insiduous form of racism that uses a word like thug and then tries to hide behind arguments that it's a racially neutral word or I didn't mean Black people or I didn't mean all Black people, and IMO, Black people should not give credence to this position.

Also, how are some of the comments people are taking issue with a respectful or courteous discussion?

Who would be abritrating this?

I'm afraid we're going to get to he point where anytime a discussion turns to the issue of race, everyone will feel compelled to spout off the same rhetoric (Black good. Asian good. Latino good. Native good. White privilege bad) under the threat of being banned or whatever.


ITA w/ the red, though.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
I would think and hope that most people who are not deliberately trying to give offence know the difference between an honest opinion or question and being inflammatory or offensive.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali












Last edited by Amneris; 04-17-2012 at 09:53 AM.
if we look at a poster's history it's fair to make assumptions.
Originally Posted by legends
This is true. I've tried to give WileE the benefit of the doubt and a part of me still believe she just doesn't get it but lately part of me is not sure. Also as far as some comments(messican), I know a lot of people that don't think that's a big deal(including people within the offended group). Thing is I throw around a lot of offensive terms too but I don't do it here, she just doesn't care. I disagree that certain terms should never be used even in a joking manner but in order not to offend people or cause something like this, I choose my audience appropriately. So I can kind of relate to her thinking people are oversensitive, because I do believe most of the posters here are to certain thjngs. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't think you can force someone to change (become less or more sensitive). I have noticed most posters here have a problem with difference of opinons and keep trying to change them over and over when it's obvious this is their belief. It's odd.

As far as a the thug comment, I am not sure how I feel about it. Overall I feel if anyone is that offended by a poster, ignore them.

ETA: I'm totally disappointed that the mods edited the siggy. I think that's ridiculous and would like an explanation as well.

Last edited by Josephine; 04-17-2012 at 10:04 AM.

I think the intention here is good but concepts like tolerance, racism, homophobia, etc are very subjective and interpreted individualy.

Not everyone is going to have the same level of "tolerance." For some tolerance is detached acceptance. For others, validation. For still others, enthusiastic embrace. Some people do not accept certain concepts (e., White privilege), even if they have legitimatey studied the issues.

Some people's religions preclude their acceptance of concepts...other people's personal experiences render others untrue.

Boardies should be able to respectfully discuss their honest views and experiences and thoughts...which may or may not lead to increased levels of understanding.

Saying someone Black is a thug is not an example of racism!!!! (Some Black people ~are~ thugs.) But appearently some people here think it's an example of racism. The racism is failing to acknowledge the unfounded assumptions our society makes about Black people that seek to justify an unprovoked murder.

Who would be abritrating this?

I'm afraid we're going to get to he point where anytime a discussion turns to the issue of race, everyone will feel compelled to spout off the same rhetoric (Black good. Asian good. Latino good. Native good. White privilege bad) under the threat of being banned or whatever.

ITA w/ the red, though.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
I totally agree with this post, spider.

Interpretation of things is always an issue. I didn't see Wile's original post, but from what I understand, you are right in saying that it's not an example of racism. But...some have interpreted as such. So, then Wile should be banned, right? Since there is the "we will not tolerate any kind of racism..." comment mentioned above. Who gets to decide if something is racism?

As for the last paragraph, IMO, we are all ready there. There are comments in this thread that show that.
Originally Posted by M2LR

FYI, for me, it wasn't just what she said, it was how she said it and how she took it to another thread, basically laughing about it (in the Chris Brown thread)
Originally Posted by scrills
If that was intentionally inflammatory, then yes, I agree it was tacky (I alluded to as much in the Chris Brown thread).

But I would enjoy it more if boardies could just refute that stuff on the merits, rather than having mods interrupt the discussion and tell everyone to "calm down" or threaten to lock the thread...assuming it's just an occasional rock she needs to get off.

Repeated trolling, tho...yeah, ban that. That takes away from the board totally.
M2LR and scrills like this.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG


I totally agree with this post, spider.

Interpretation of things is always an issue. I didn't see Wile's original post, but from what I understand, you are right in saying that it's not an example of racism. But...some have interpreted as such. So, then Wile should be banned, right? Since there is the "we will not tolerate any kind of racism..." comment mentioned above. Who gets to decide if something is racism?

As for the last paragraph, IMO, we are all ready there. There are comments in this thread that show that.
Originally Posted by M2LR

FYI, for me, it wasn't just what she said, it was how she said it and how she took it to another thread, basically laughing about it (in the Chris Brown thread)
Originally Posted by scrills
If that was intentionally inflammatory, then yes, I agree it was tacky (I alluded to as much in the Chris Brown thread).

But I would enjoy it more if boardies could just refute that stuff on the merits, rather than having mods interrupt the discussion and tell everyone to "calm down" or threaten to lock the thread...assuming it's just an occasional rock she needs to get off.

Repeated trolling, tho...yeah, ban that. That takes away from the board totally.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
This I agree with.
I think people were fine with doing just that... till a mod said that it couldn't be refuted on the merits by being put in someone's sig. I think the issue isn't so much in and of itself that mods should be all over racist or borderline racist comments 100% of the time, but that they were all over a member's quote going in a sig within minutes and chose to focus on that over the original remark. I really think this distinction is being missed. The message that sends is that you can make racist comments (or ambiguously offensive ones, if you see it that way) with no consequence from the mods and members can only go so far in attacking your comment before they will be warned, BUT if you draw attention to the fact that someone made such comment, you are being a big bad bully. The sense of proportion and priorities are wrong. It's not about wanting more moderation.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











I actually think having a few more mods can't hurt, mostly because there are too few for a board this size. I think we've all seen threads that blew up and weren't dealt with in a timely fashion. I realize the mods are all volunteers, so having people who operate on slightly different schedules/time zones isn't a bad idea.

However, in this instance, it was a mod who started the trouble to begin with. I'm perplexed that the takeaway from all of this bruhaha is that quoting someone's statements in your siggy is bad. Really? It's like slapping a bandaid on a scraped knee when the person is bleeding out internally. Everything might look okay, but there's really damage happening under the surface.

For the record, I don't think anyone should be banned permanently; no one broke the rules, technically speaking. I do think we should be free to call someone out if they're making borderline racist/sexist/homophobic/religionst statements. As long as you're not being hostile (swearing, name-calling) in doing so, it's well withing the guidelines of the site. I surely don't want to feel that I have to turn a blind eye to it, whether it's asking for further clarification or just calling it out for what it is. My thinking is that if you are going to lob a grenade into a thread, don't be surprised if it blows up in your face.
"Maybe Lucy's right. Of all the Charlie Browns in the world, you're the Charlie Browniest."--Linus, A Charlie Brown Christmas
-----------------------------------------------
My fotki: http://public.fotki.com/nynaeve77/
Password: orphanannie

Last edited by nynaeve77; 04-17-2012 at 10:27 AM. Reason: Thought of a better analogy
Its a thin line between opinion and racist remarks. We're asking the mods human beings with innate biases to define that ambiguous line. Can't be done
Josephine, curlylaura and thelio like this.


FYI, for me, it wasn't just what she said, it was how she said it and how she took it to another thread, basically laughing about it (in the Chris Brown thread)
Originally Posted by scrills
If that was intentionally inflammatory, then yes, I agree it was tacky (I alluded to as much in the Chris Brown thread).

But I would enjoy it more if boardies could just refute that stuff on the merits, rather than having mods interrupt the discussion and tell everyone to "calm down" or threaten to lock the thread...assuming it's just an occasional rock she needs to get off.

Repeated trolling, tho...yeah, ban that. That takes away from the board totally.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
This I agree with.
I think people were fine with doing just that... till a mod said that it couldn't be refuted on the merits by being put in someone's sig. I think the issue isn't so much in and of itself that mods should be all over racist or borderline racist comments 100% of the time, but that they were all over a member's quote going in a sig within minutes and chose to focus on that over the original remark. I really think this distinction is being missed. The message that sends is that you can make racist comments (or ambiguously offensive ones, if you see it that way) with no consequence from the mods and members can only go so far in attacking your comment before they will be warned, BUT if you draw attention to the fact that someone made such comment, you are being a big bad bully. The sense of proportion and priorities are wrong. It's not about wanting more moderation.
Originally Posted by Amneris

Yep. I agree.

I don't personally support the idea of the signature, etc., bc it makes the issues more personal than they need to be IMO.

But yeah, RCW was attempting to refute Wile's comment on her own w/o mod interference...and the mods policed her.

But they did not police Wile for making the original comment that was deemed bad enough that boardies felt the need to refute it.

The response cannot be more discipline-worthy than the original comment...if the same words were used! LOL

Maybe if the signature quoting policy had been widely known, RCW would have resorted to another tactic to refute Wile's comment. Or if not, then there woud have been no room for discussion when it suddenly disappeared. LOL

But for mods to have secret talks w/ RCW about the previous signature thing she did and only bc removal had been privately requested by someone else, and no one knew the circumstances or whatever, it's like a free for all. Maybe I can get away with this, this time...maybe not...do I dare?...what can they do to me...
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG


Last edited by spiderlashes5000; 04-17-2012 at 10:33 AM.
Just curious....but why was Ninja timed out? Because she fails to accept the notion of White privilege? Or bc she was becoming irrational in her conversation and accusing everyone (basically) of not liking her? Or bc she was bringing up old threads? Or did she do something concrete (that I failed to notice), like directly cursing someone out, etc?

I'm trying to understand the time out rule. Thnx
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
She did a hefty amount of name calling over on 4a after she hit that irrational point. Sort of like how she did in that thread that got locked a short time back.


Siri types my posts for me.
Originally Posted by redcelticcurls
Can you say which thread it was or cut/paste an excerpt? I'm not trying to be nosey but just trying to get an idea of how bad the meltdown needed to be to be considered time out worthy.

I read the stickies and they just say someone can be timed out if they continue to break board rules.

Ummm, they are broken all the time...so, where is the invisible line?
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG

Just curious....but why was Ninja timed out? Because she fails to accept the notion of White privilege? Or bc she was becoming irrational in her conversation and accusing everyone (basically) of not liking her? Or bc she was bringing up old threads? Or did she do something concrete (that I failed to notice), like directly cursing someone out, etc?

I'm trying to understand the time out rule. Thnx
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
She did a hefty amount of name calling over on 4a after she hit that irrational point. Sort of like how she did in that thread that got locked a short time back.


Siri types my posts for me.
Originally Posted by redcelticcurls
Can you say which thread it was or cut/paste an excerpt? I'm not trying to be nosey but just trying to get an idea of how bad the meltdown needed to be to be considered time out worthy.

I read the stickies and they just say someone can be timed out if they continue to break board rules.

Ummm, they are broken all the time...so, where is the invisible line?
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
It was in their Say It thread. You can read the pages from the weekend.


Siri types my posts for me.
Kiva! Microfinance works.

Med/Coarse, porous curly.
You all have raised many great points in this thread about the way various situations have been handled. Thank you for that.

We have, indeed, made mistakes, and we apologize. We should have handled Wile's inordinately insensitive comment differently. We blew it, and we offer a sincere apology to all of you; you should have had better moderation.

Through this process, we have learned a lot and I hope you'll continue to help us learn. We have several new guides who will help us keep things on track and we have implemented new guidelines that will also help all of us keep this place a more enjoyable one.

And, as always, hitting the "report this post" button is so very helpful to us; thanks to all of you who have been doing that with great gusto the past few days.

And now, it's time to close this thread and move on.

Your Guiding Team
Gretchen
NaturallyCurly.com co-founder
3A

You are beautiful!

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com