Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

Summary:

I had a complaint by at least one user on this issue and was allowed to make a thread on it.

page 1 of 212next »

Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

SoullessSingularity 08 Jan 2015 00:20

I have received a complaint from at least one user/one or more users of this issue, the most prominent one being the following complaint by a user who wishes to be kept anonymous.

Jan 07 18:56:42 <USER> Essentially, I am /really/ iffy on what you did with Smapti. Yes, Smapti is a horrible, obnoxious, odious and offensive person. Won't deny that. But I cannot help but feel some rather unpleasant vibes from this ie: those who share Smapti's position on certain topics are shoved in the "Oh look at the primitives" boat, because of course, they're all like Smapti, eh? Now, I am mostly okay with…
Jan 07 18:56:43 <USER> …keeping my mouth shut about my opinions on the matter (save that last time), but this in turn becomes an issue - I withhold my opinion because were I to actually speak it, I would effectively be blackmailed, mothballed, and shamed into submission by everyone and their counsin all screaming "well you're just transphobic!" This is not a comfortable thing, especially as the topic crops up…
Jan 07 18:56:45 <USER> …annoyingly often. TLDR I feel that your action in this instance, and the general site culture at large, is shifting towards a setup where it's obey the party line, or be shamed. And I ain't cool with that.
Jan 07 18:57:24 <USER> TLDR x2 I think gender identity politics is bullshit, but can't actually express it without you and moose jumping down my throat
Jan 07 18:57:37 <USER> which is 9 times more trouble than it's worth
Jan 07 18:58:51 <Soulless> Okay
Jan 07 18:58:57 <USER> and to be completely honest, I've been waffling on bringing this topic up for some time now
Jan 07 18:59:36 <USER> Tried ignoring it and trundling along as best as I could for a while
Jan 07 18:59:43 * Soulless nods
Jan 07 19:00:20 <USER> but it really feels that the increased politicization of the site in this manner makes it more difficult to ignore

I personally find it disconcerting that users feel they are being considered primitive, mocked, or otherwise disrespected for having opinions against "the party line" and believe this is at least worthy enough to have an open discussion about it. The Smapti issue referenced can be seen here.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

AdminBright 08 Jan 2015 00:28

I find it disconcerting that people feel they have the right to…

Naw, I'm just gonna play it straight. Y'know what? I'm not the most forward thinking person when it comes to genderisms. I have my own view points on thing. But I don't want to hurt any of my friends, so I keep it to myself. It's not because I fear being considered primitive, mocked, or otherwise disrespected, which is not being done, it's because I don't want to hurt peoples feelings/don't feel it's my place to tell other people how to live. It's like how I'm an atheist, but I don't go around telling people they need to stop believing in god, that science is the only way, and that only a moron would believe ina higher power… you do your thing, I'll do mine, and let's keep it out of areas it might upset people.

I'm not saying you can't have/express your own opinions… but you don't walk into a place where you know there are jewish people and start saying "Man, you know who had good ideas? Hitler."

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Last edited on 08 Jan 2015 00:30 by AdminBright Show more

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

ProcyonLotor 08 Jan 2015 00:42

More or less my opinions on the matter.

Decibelle has a message related to this discussion.

SoullessSingularity 08 Jan 2015 01:09

User Decibelle has PM'd me with her opinion on this issue. I feel it is relevant to the discussion here.

Many of the complaints listed by the anonymous user in the 05 thread is the kind of stuff that I'm told in real life whenever I try to speak up about transphobia I experience. I usually perceive it as ways of shutting down any complaints of people feeling uncomfortable enough to not want to participate in stuff because of this. This is why I don't like speaking up about this kind of stuff when I feel uncomfortable, especially with comments "I think gender identity politics is bullshit". Whether it's meant to or not, it feels like a reinforcement of the idea that people shouldn't be speaking up about them being uncomfortable, or that trans people can't express their views without being shut down. Even if I have to talk with people who hate the very idea of someone being trans or are transphobic themselves, it'd at least be respectful and nice and courteous of them not to be awful about it like Smapti was. There's no shifting site culture of "obey the party line or B&"; people just want to be treated with respect and feel like their opinions and voices matter. It's just about being a decent human being. I'm speaking as both a trans person who has to hear this stuff near constantly on the internet and offline, and as a site member.

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Last edited on 08 Jan 2015 01:29 by SoullessSingularity Show more

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

(account deleted) 08 Jan 2015 01:13

I would have been more sympathetic to Smapti's case if he was able to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between gender and sex. No, those aren't the same thing, and he (as well as other subsequent users) was using the terms interchangeably. Putting him in a situation where it's less about the right to an opinion, and more about legit ignorance. He also seems to conflate gender identity with sexual preference. Add all of that to an overly aggressive, personal attitude about the whole thing, as well as an apparent history of ops dealing with this, and you get what you got.

Is Smapti legitimately anti-trans? I couldn't tell you, and I wouldn't necessarily make that assertion. But when you get hostile with other users and say things that are legitmately, demonstrably untrue, you leave yourself open to that accusation. In the end, it was a warning, not being exiled to Siberia. If this is what's considered to be the site being "overly politicized" and repressing its political enemies, all I can say is that the rest of the entire internet might not be for you.

On to the rest of the complaint:

Yes, Smapti is a horrible, obnoxious, odious and offensive person. Won't deny that.

Are we going to allow users to say shit like this about other users while hiding behind the protection of anonymity? Because I have no interest in O5 being any more of a clearinghouse for drama horseshit than it already is on occasion. Not okay.

I withhold my opinion because were I to actually speak it, I would effectively be blackmailed, mothballed, and shamed into submission by everyone and their counsin all screaming "well you're just transphobic!" This is not a comfortable thing

I like how, without a trace of irony, this person complains about being unable to have an unpopular opinion, when in fact what started this was a person with an unpopular opinion being made to feel silenced and unable to have that opinion by a well-known user attacking them with inaccurate information and overt hostility. I would like to see evidence of the anonymous complainant's viewpoint (which is apparently delineated below) being oppressed and "blackmailed" by something other than the horror of some people disagreeing.

I feel that your action in this instance, and the general site culture at large, is shifting towards a setup where it's obey the party line, or be shamed

The party line is apparently "maybe gender identity is an issue for some people," because…

I think gender identity politics is bullshit, but can't actually express it without you and moose jumping down my throat

Gender is, by definition, a societal construct. As society defines what it means to be a man, woman, or other, the topic is by its very nature political. The above statement is not only stupid, but also factually incorrect. Now, if you feel otherwise, by all means, feel free to express your reasons for doing so. But you're not owed the right to spout nonsense and then be protected from responses. This is like when people mistake the First Amendment to mean "freedom from criticism" and "freedom from being subjected to the standards of a private community in any way."

If you'd like to know more about why saying "gender identity politics is bullshit" is legit ignorant, I hang out in #neutralzone most evenings. So I guess you can add me to the list of people who will oppress the shit out of you by disagreeing with nonsense.

but it really feels that the increased politicization of the site in this manner makes it more difficult to ignore

The site's always been "politicized" in some way, if you take "politicization" to mean that staff have certain views on things. I do wonder if you had similar feelings about politicization of the site when openly racist and openly anti-transgendered people were part of the site and chat leadership structure. In any event, this was not a case of enforcement of a particular viewpoint; it was enforcement of the "don't act like an ignorant dick" principle. If that rustles your jimmies, all I can say is consult an alchemist.

Another Message

SoullessSingularity 08 Jan 2015 01:28

VAElynx has also messaged me with his opinions pertient to this situation.

Yo, Soul.
Although I'm not a chat person for over two years, the recently popped up issue bothers me, especially given your response to $USER.

Let's put it this way. If Smapti quit the chat after droc has complained about Wikidot only having two genders citing he can't take going through all this again, would droc be punished? After all, he'd have made a person leave the chat.
Given the argumentation above, my money is strongly on no. And therein lays the problem.

Smapti did nothing but peacefully and firmly express his opinion, and to boot, he reacted on someone else pressing the topic. You might consider it wrong, but that's not much of a grounds for disciplinary action on the grounds of civility, especially since a lot of such topics are *disputed*.

The honest solutions are either ban the debate about genders/sexes/whatever outright from #site19, or allow people to civilly express their opinions on either ends of the spectrum.

Of course ,as owners of a private chat, you also have the options of doing ideologic censorship, but then, don't be surprised when people such as $USER call you out on doing ideologic censorship.

Have a nice day.

-VAE

_{I'll post my own opinion soon guys I swear}

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Re: Another Message

Adam Smascher 08 Jan 2015 01:39

Let's put it this way. If Smapti quit the chat after droc has complained about Wikidot only having two genders citing he can't take going through all this again, would droc be punished? After all, he'd have made a person leave the chat. Given the argumentation above, my money is strongly on no. And therein lays the problem.

I would laugh derisively for a good long while at anyone who quit the chat for such a reason, and twice as hard at anyone arguing for retribution in such a scenario. That's fucking absurd.

Re: Another Message

MisterFlames 08 Jan 2015 01:52

Reductio ad absurdum pretty much by definition.

There is a difference between driving a person from a place via abusive behavior, and voluntarily leaving because the topic discussed is not to your liking.

My reaction to this would match yours, AS. I suspect there would even be pointing.

Last edited on 08 Jan 2015 01:53 by MisterFlames Show more

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

weizhong 08 Jan 2015 01:57

Okay, I agree with many different points made in the conversation so far, but I agree with different points made by different people.

First of all, I have to say that I made an aside during discussion in Super Secret Op Chat on the issue that Smapti was warned for, and it had a lot of relevance to the discussion here.

I'm going to state on a personal level that I don't agree with a transphobic perspective, nor do I agree with any kind of dislike for LGBTQI individuals in general. However, that doesn't mean that it's something that I would necessarily discipline for. This also goes for racist/sexist perspectives (both things brought up in opchat). However, I only mean this in the sense of ideology, and not action.

To explain what I mean, let's use an example. If a racist person entered chat, they would not be disciplined simply because they have racist tendencies….they would only be disciplined if they actively caused harm or discomfort to other chat members. This is why the Smapti issue came up, and the reason why I pushed for a warning in this particular instance. Whatever Smapti believes or thinks about transgendered people is not the point, nor should it be. The point is, Smapti made a member of chat uncomfortable with his language and attitude on a clearly charged/sensitive issue. What he actually said means little to nothing for me, because the effect of his words were that they offended someone and made them feel excluded in the chat, something that we do not tolerate in 19. This also applies to the statement made by the anonymous user.

I can certainly see why the anonymous user felt possibly silenced in their opinion. And I do agree that politicization of staff is a Bad Thing that should be avoided where possible, and I also see how they would've felt, especially given the composition of staff (which, face it, is largely homogeneous in their opinion regarding this particular case). However, the main point of distinction is that simply having a contrary opinion is fine; it's when you actually make people uncomfortable that is the matter.

This comes up on a daily basis as an operator. Everyone has limits on their sensitivity in chat, which is why we call op orders when people complain that they feel uncomfortable with the current discussion. Regardless of whether or not you agree with this policy, it's how it's currently being done. I may feel more comfortable talking about an issue such as, say, immigration rights than someone else, and if they feel that 19 is making them uncomfortable, they're well within their means to ask an op to stop this conversation, even if I personally was okay with the discussion.

I will say that people should not feel bullied in having opinions (and not speaking on this issue, but just generally). If a different controversial topic were up for debate, ALL sides should be policed with the same level of attention, and not merely the side that the operator agrees with, otherwise we're being colossal hypocrites. As long as all people are civil, respectful, and rational in their opinion, there's no reason why someone should not be able to voice an opinion that the majority of people would not agree with.

Finally, I have to say that I don't agree with VAE's point. People ARE allowed to civilly discuss opinions in chat (and I've watched several controversial discussions in 19 where everyone was respectful and debated points rationally and reasonably-there's no problem with that), but not when multiple people in chat express discomfort, or when ops make the call that it's an unhealthy discussion. Similarly, we're not going to discipline droc for making Smapti feel uncomfortable, because that's like saying that an operator who kicks a spammer in chat should be disciplined for rude interruption-you're missing the point entirely.

Last edited on 08 Jan 2015 02:15 by weizhong Show more

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

Photosynthetic 08 Jan 2015 18:05

Well, I was going to write a well-organized and thorough discussion of the issues, but you guys beat me to it. TL:DR — My opinions are much the same as Wei's, Moose's, and Vince's.

Last edited on 08 Jan 2015 18:06 by Photosynthetic Show more

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

Vincent_Redgrave 08 Jan 2015 02:11

Honestly, from what I'm seeing, one side is saying that they want to have autonomy over their identity and aren't causing any issues beyond requesting that we enforce that people respect that choice and identity, and the other side is "nah, you're a delusional idiot and here's uncited 'scientific' fuckery 'proving' it based on a highschool bio textbook I read a decade ago." It's the latter that's causing several users (and staff, as I understand it) extreme amounts of distress.

The anon upthread is somewhere in the middle of it, but I find their concern (that us asking them to respect people and not be an ass if they're going to disagree with someone to be some kind of draconian censorship policy), as I read it, is kinda ridiculous. Yeah, you can dis|agree with the prevailing opinion on sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, whether ketchup is an acceptable condiment for hotdogs, the merits and demerits of the superwholock triad of shows, or any number of other controversial subjects. That's perfectly acceptable, and a healthy discussion and amount of disagreement can be educational and beneficial for all of us. But by our rules, you have to be respectful in your opinion, not be all "lol y'all crazy as shit, shut the hell up". The party line isn't "go with the flow OR ELSE" it's "be respectful of others opinions and beliefs, and if you disagree with them on something, don't stick your head in the sand and ass in the air." I hope the people believing that they're being shut down or censored are realizing they're asking us to shut down and censor the people they disagree with, and that that's not going to fly for me.

And no, being told that you're wrong and need to educate yourself before you cause more people emotional distress is not an attempt at censoring you. Censorship doesn't even apply here, as we're not a governing body, we just play (an obviously fictional) one on the internet. Again, if you disagree with them, fine. But don't expect people with either knowledge or an emotional investment in that field to sit there and quietly take it if you start being disrespectful/cruel about it, and try to keep an open mind and be willing to be educated. If anyone is disrespectful or cruel about expressing their opinions/beliefs on a subject, they shouldn't be surprised if someone calls them out for being a dick.

I'm siding with the people who aren't saying things that hurts others. Like, if you don't agree with someone's gender or sexual identity, fine. But the biggest rule we have is "don't be a dick", and denying someone the right to express or define themselves in a way that they find comfortable and doesn't harm others is a dick move, IMO.

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

Drewbear 08 Jan 2015 02:24

Pretty much what Vince says here.

---

Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

thedeadlymoose 08 Jan 2015 02:49

Most points are already covered. A few things:

The honest solutions are either ban the debate about genders/sexes/whatever outright from #site19, or allow people to civilly express their opinions on either ends of the spectrum.

We effectively have already done the former, though I see no need for a hard ban. But we do not (and will not) consider it "debate" for someone to talk about their gender.

Also, on the question of fairness. Take a theoretical example: creationists vs scientists (of any creed or religion).

If someone critiques someone's SCP with "you need to change this detail because God created the world 10,000 years ago and that's what's accurate, and it's a stated fact in the Bible that you're going to Hell if you disagree with this" we're not going to "teach the controversy", we're going to tell them to stop giving bad feedback, and warn them for being an asshole (we don't care if they feel that we just can't handle the truth that we're going to hell), and we'll boot them if they don't.

That person will feel it's unfair that they can't promote their beliefs without the scientist types jumping down their throat. That person will also feel it's unfair when we constantly give scientifically-based feedback to SCPs, and everyone in chat agrees with them.

They would be correct, in fact. This is unfair.

But not all beliefs are created equal.

If Smapti quit the chat after droc has complained about Wikidot only having two genders citing he can't take going through all this again, would droc be punished? After all, he'd have made a person leave the chat.

No. Because of the above, but more importantly because droc wasn't telling Smapti that droc got to decide Smapti's gender and experience of life. Smapti was telling droc (and everyone else in chat) that.

I should point out, also, that social shame is a key factor in how any non-anonymous community operates. And many anon communities too.

Social shame isn't a bad thing. When newbies insist on writing about Bright raping people, or ignoring every single piece of feedback, or demanding that we cater to their every whim and praise their holy names, we respond in part by shaming them. It's part of how the world works.

---

That said.

We have a channel to debate topics like this one: Eskobar's #neutralzone

If you wish to make a serious argument about any topic you like, feel free to do so there. It is an officially endorsed and frankly underused chatroom. Please feel free to avail yourselves of it. That is the right context to have this sort of discussion in.

Here are the rules of that chat room for anyone who is interested.

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

DrClef 08 Jan 2015 03:23

I'm throwing my hat behind moose on this one. Given a choice on where to fall on this subject, I'd prefer to side with the types of people who want to offer a more welcoming environment to non-binary gendered folks than the types of people who make a big deal about how other people choose to identify themselves.

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

djkaktus 08 Jan 2015 05:31

All of the best points have already been made, and I want to throw my support in behind them.

That being said, I feel like this is a solution that is easily simplified. We are a community of acceptance, and have proven that time and time again in the past. Whatever issues we have had with this, we've moved past and grown up as a result of.

Our #1 priority, as staff, is to create a comfortable environment for anybody who wants to be a part of our community. Yes, we have rules about who can be a part of that community, and disciplinary measures to punish those who break the trust of the community. But first and foremost, we are here to create a safe place to learn, create, express, and enjoy the written word (and other non-written artistic pursuits).

Should any user attempt to undermine that goal, we are required as part of our mantra to stand in opposition to them. There will be people who claim that we are holding firm on an aggressive ideology, and they are correct. Our ideology is one of acceptance, one from which we should not waver.

Ours is also a diverse community. We will see, and have seen, many users expressing many different opinions. There will be butted heads, and there has been, and we know how to handle these situations. Again, we will accept all manner of person, black, white, gay, straight, atheist, muslim, what-have-you. If you are a person who hates a certain race, you are welcome here. If you are a person who hold conflicting beliefs about the nature of human sexuality and gender, you are welcome here. But you are only welcome here if you are willing to participate in our community of understanding and acceptance, and are willing to help maintain that environment.

If you are not, you are also more than welcome to leave. If you do not leave, and you continue to create hostility, we will remove you.

This has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong, I think. It has everything to do with maintaining what we have worked so hard to create (although, hell, who am I to talk, right? This wiki account only 8 months old ya'll).

Anyway. That's my $00.02.

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

Riemann 08 Jan 2015 05:44

So you're saying we have an ideology of acceptance… and if someone doesn't accept it they are not accepted here? Has weizhong been coaching you on analogies?

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

LurkD 08 Jan 2015 05:58

But you are only welcome here if you are willing to participate in our community of understanding and acceptance, and are willing to help maintain that environment.

OR… just have the willpower to keep your opinions to yourself. Nothing wrong with speaking your mind, but tact and context goes a long ways, though rarely mastered.

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

djkaktus 08 Jan 2015 05:59

This is basically what I was intending to say. Your rights end at my nose etc etc.

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

Sophia Light 08 Jan 2015 07:19

General agreement, especially re: "don't be a dick", "if you have that opinion you can always keep it to yourself", and especially "someone talking about their gender is not starting a debate".

Not much else to add, you all are quite eloquent.

Re: Identity Politics and Treatment of Users - Complaint

Crayne 08 Jan 2015 09:28

[INSERT LONG DIATRIBE BASICALLY REPEATING EVERYTHING ANYONE SAID WITHOUT REACHING A LOGICAL CONCLUSION IN THE END]

Alternatively…

They would be correct, in fact. This is unfair.

But not all beliefs are created equal.

No, they really were. They're just not treated equally here because that's just the way the world and reality works. There is no true neutral territory on the internet, even if a community tries to be as inclusive as it can, and no one has the right to expect a community to be.

There's no harm in outright stating that this community has a certain slant towards LGBT-inclusive opinions and feelings. The problem here is, as moose says, mostly the fact that some people with opinions that do not match with the majority of the community feel entitled to voice those opinions too, and that they feel that no one extends them the same sympathy should they be offended by pro-LGBT statements. Which is true. Suck it up.

Last edited on 08 Jan 2015 09:29 by Crayne Show more

page 1 of 212next »