6

[Proposal] Give admins a broad mandate to crack down on covert bigotry

Submitted by emma in meta (edited )

Before we stepped down, both ziq and I worked to make sure Raddle didn't become yet another breeding ground for white supremacy, queerphobia, and other attitudes that negatively affect marginalised people. The terms of service and the interview we did for Motherboard speak to this. As a result of our policy, a large chunk of the user base ended up being marginalised people, in particular queer & trans people, making Raddle a very special place that stood in contrast to the white/cis/straight/male dominated spaces that are so prevalent on the internet.

But with people fleeing in the wake of the alt drama, that special aspect feels lost. Some of the most vocal people who remain here embody the same negative attitudes that led us to leave Reddit and build our own space in the first place. Here are some recent examples:

/u/Tequila_Wolf recognised some of these incidents for what they are: covert white supremacy and queerphobia. They rightfully handed out bans, and are now getting shit for it.

To avoid Raddle becoming a carbon copy of every other echo chamber on the internet, here's what I propose:

  • Lower the threshold for what is considered to be oppressive speech to include #AllLivesMatter-esque victimisation of socio-economically well-standing groups, and the framing of homosexual acts as something to be ashamed of. Fuck this noise.
  • Give current and future admins a mandate to aggressively remove posts that contain such oppressive speech, and ban those who made them.
  • Hand out permanent bans to repeat offenders.

On a side note, I'm disappointed in /u/Fossidarity for posting the homophobic meme. I hope this was a one-time lapse of judgement, because the only person who can de-admin them no longer participates here

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

10

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

edited

I have assumed I have this capacity throughout, and was dealing with dellitsni differently as a special case. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

I appreciate you coming round and putting this together emma.

Lots of people here have terrible intersectional politics. Every last one of you people downvoting this needs to check yourselves and go read some intersectional feminist work at the very least.

This site isn't one where you can vote away our politics. Just because half of the people here don't know how to recognise shit politics, I'm not going to change how this place has been run from the start. I'll keep making the best decision I can with the information I have.

The w/terms_of_service are the terms of service.

5

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Agreed. Too many people conflate intersectionality with 'idpol' and it's usually done by class reductionists.

3

Fossidarity wrote

Can you make a posts out of this article? It's really nice.

4

amongstclouds wrote

I'm thinking of putting together a forum for educating people on intersectionality and offering REAL critiques as well, and not these reactionary attempts at dismissing the struggles of others.

5

buzz wrote (edited )

unpacking oppressive behaviours requires environments of understanding and empathy. straight up banning users who misspeak might improve raddle on the surface level, but doesnt help the users who engage in covert bigotry. on a platform that has a majority of those who are "woke", it is best that the community engages with these issues.

lowkey it is problematic to systematically punish and alientate people for 'covert bigotry' due do differences in environment and socialising factors that have lead to disparities of understanding and information. edit: this being said however; many of the people that produce oppressive behaviours (whitey) are priviledged enough to unlearn and have a fuckton of resources to stop being a shit person.

4

Dumai wrote

some of this stuff is really easy though

  1. do not take white genocide seriously
  2. str8s are boring

neither of these things are hard

0

mofongo wrote

Additionally, we give the benefit of the doubt of to those that have proven themselves better than this. If someone here only complains about how anti cishetwhite we are, the ban is swift and merciless.

7

Pop wrote (edited )

manarchists and brocialists are regularly able to talk the talk about politics and 'prove themselves' to people before opening their mouth about intersectional stuff

they will also say that they aren't being shitty, e.g. sexist or whatever

that doesn't make them any less shitty, and the fact that they've 'proven themselves' just makes their shittiness harder to manage because some people can be confused into thinking that getting some things right in full is the same as getting all the minimum basics right

death to class reductionist politics

2

mofongo wrote (edited )

I agree with you and I would like to add that raddle's anti brocialist/manarchist culture prevent them to take hold. The only exception has been dellitsny, which should not have fly and why this thread exists.

4

Fossidarity wrote

I want to apologize for posting the homophobic meme, as you say it was a lapse of judgement. I was tired and found the meme yesterday and apparently the text didn't fully register in my head. I deleted the post now, next time I'll pay more attention to what I'm actually posting. I would never consciously post anything homophobic as I self-identify as queer.

Sorry again!

3

amongstclouds wrote

Disagree on this proposal as a ban means nothing when you can just hop IP's. Banning will just create the need for vengence, as we have seen from this community as of late.

1

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

it's not possible to deal with evil users; they'll always have a way to avenge themselves. If any non-evil user gets banned, they'll understand that their views are not to be expressed on this site.

2

md_ wrote

they'll understand that their views are not to be expressed on this site.

I don't get this part. For people that we can reasonably agree they are "non-evil" to use your terminology (ie they are not trolling, and they are not refusing to examine their ideas), why is it necessary to always remove their comments and their ability to post, if they are of the type of comments that are linked in the original post? (There is stuff that needs to be removed and types of users to be banned of course, I am not making an argument for freeze peach).

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I don't think 'evil' offers any substantial critique on these folks, but I do agree with your point. A place like Raddle will always attract less than favorable people.

3

kore wrote (edited )

Oppose.

mediation (and /f/mediation) is very important. As /u/leftous said in the /u/dellitsni mediation thread, I am not a fan of the "ban first, ask later" mentality.

There are a lot of people here (including you) that are extremely knowledgable and well-equipped to handle this sort of shit from people and I would much rather try to engage them and show them what's wrong with their ways to gain new comrades than make them hate us and sink further into their bigotry. As a side note to that, I will try to engage people more.

Edit: /u/dellitsni and /u/Fossidarity are clearly invested in our community in other ways (the Konsent project is really something). I for one would be upset if I were swiftly banned for posting offensive content out of ignorance. I would much rather receive criticism and be given the opportunity to change.

Radical movements should have love at the center. It's the only choice in this world of hate.

7

jadedctrl wrote

/u/emma didn't propose “ban first, ask later”-- she proposed the opposite,

bans to repeat offenders

To repeat offenders. That implies both a duration of time between making several bigoted posts, and having discussion & time to reflect before being banned or allowed to say.

1

kore wrote

Give current and future admins a mandate to aggressively remove posts that contain such oppressive speech, and ban those who made them.

Admins are mandated to ban anyone who posts "such oppressive speech". Absolutely no discussion involved.

I agree that, if after discussing with them and giving a warning ban, they continue to post oppressive speech, they should get permabanned.

She did not propose the opposite. She proposed that admins are required to give temp bans to any oppressive speech. I am against that.

5

Tequila_Wolf wrote

kore, are you really following what has been happening?

I agree that, if after discussing with them and giving a warning ban, they continue to post oppressive speech, they should get permabanned.

This is exactly what happened with dellitsni. I gave them a forum ban and directed them to mediation for discussion. They continued to do what they were being accused of even in their attempt at an apology. Then they continued to post oppressive speech, now with regards to race. At this stage I didn't permaban them, I still sent it to mediation, again.

What aren't you or I understanding?

2

kore wrote

I think I may have just misunderstood what emma meant by her post. Her post doesn't really advocate for mediation at all, and I think that's all I really had a problem with. Your position (and one I advocate) seems to be "temp ban offensive posters immediately and send them to /f/mediation instead of engaging them on the original post." "Broad mandate to crack down" seems very far from this, at least to me.

What you did was the right thing to do and yeah, dellitsni is saying some offensive shit and should probably be banned.

2

Pop wrote

I am not a fan of the "ban first, ask later"

but if its just a temporary forum ban for a blatant offense, and the discussion is moved to mediation to save people from having to deal with racism or whatever, what is the problem

1

kore wrote

no problem, i was just confused because the OP doesn't mention this approach explicitly at all.

3

md_ wrote

Disagree with the proposal.

Pretty much agree with the analysis, those comments were clearly motivated by unchecked internalisations of white supremacy and queerphobia. But /f/mediation is the better approach for the specific cases. It's frustrating, but worth it.

There's of course a line in the sand, and eg /u/Rum_Rabbit is clearly in the wrong side of it, but I am willing to keep engaging cases like /u/dellitsni in good faith unless it becomes apparent that they do not act in good faith.

Generally, I truly feel that Raddle needs less moderation, not more. That doesn't mean let trolls and bots run free, but it means spending a lot of time trying to explain pretty basic systematic injustices over and over again to people you'd expect to know better, but don't.

-8

Rum_Rabbit wrote (edited )

There's of course a line in the sand, and eg /u/Rum_Rabbit is clearly in the wrong side of it

Why is that? I'm a communist against all forms of discrimination and I could be considered as "belonging" to many marginalized groups. I'm not bourgeois, white, straight, or cis and I have a disability. I just happen to consider identity-based politics, "punching up" at fellow proletarians, and call-out-culture, to be counter-revolutionary poison to the left. If this site is meant to be a hivemind where everybody has the same liberal positions it should be rebranded to reflect that instead of claiming to be a leftist alternative to reddit.

Suggestion: Rebrand to "Radlib"

8

Dumai wrote

liberal

you keep using this word, i do not think you know what it means

3

mofongo wrote

There are communist critiques of identity politics, yours just sound reactionary. None of the valuable critiques I've read consider calling out or having an identity based politic counter revolutionary.

3

md_ wrote

Why is that?

Because in all your posts around the issue of T_W's mediation requests, all you did was to superficially antagonise people through little more than name-calling.

I could be considered as "belonging" to many marginalized groups. I'm not bourgeois, white, straight, or cis and I have a disability.

I really don't see how your personal identities have anything to do with the topic. The quality of an argument is not a function of their identities... and that doesn't even apply here, because you didn't even present an argument, you just spewed buzzwords like " toxic privilege politics" and " totalitarian thought police".

I just happen to consider identity-based politics, "punching up" at fellow proletarians, and call-out-culture, to be counter-revolutionary poison to the left.

You might very well believe that, and if you start expressing those positions without the witch-hunt and the name-calling, I would show more good faith and make an effort to engage and disagree with you.

10

emma wrote (edited )

I really don't see how your personal identities have anything to do with the topic.

Really gets me when loudmouthed anti-identitarians like these (/u/Rum_Rabbit) turn out to be the biggest identitarians of them all.

Edit: clarify who I'm talking about.

1

md_ wrote (edited )

I resisted the urge of explicitly pointing it out, but yes. They actually did every single "liberal" thing they accused others of doing. That's one of the reasons I don't trust them to be sincere in their disagreement/objections, or whatever their name-calling is supposed to be.

2

____deleted____ wrote (edited )

The user removed their posts after I called them out, but I'm sure someone can testify I'm not fabricating shit here

I deleted the original post because I said I "entirely agree", which was inaccurate. The following ones I deleted after thinking about it and realizing y'all were right.

Note I have not deleted the mediation responses as I continue to stand by the majority of those. I only deleted those I have found inaccurate.

Oppose. Admins need power limited, not to be vanguards.

3

emma wrote

I'm not sure what to make of you yet, but I do appreciate you being able to admit you were in the wrong.

2

dele_ted wrote

Since I keep coming up in this context, let me say this:

The shit about being bland is long gone. I made a serious mistake, i have apologised for it numerous times. We all make mistakes, we should all be allowed to make mistakes, as long as we are able to recognize them and make an effort to change.

The drama yesterday about racism was nothing but a disagreement on definitions, and a misunderstanding on whether it was a joke or not. We cleared the air and got in on the same frequency again.

Calling me a white supremacist and queerphobe for that is way too much.

To get back on topic, the admins don't need more power, they need less. I oppose.

5

emma wrote (edited )

Calling me a white supremacist and queerphobe for that is way too much.

No where did I explicitly call you 'a white supremacist and queerphobe', but you've certainly said questionable stuff pertaining to white supremacy and queerphobia. Your continuing insistence that the argument about racism amounts to a 'disagreement on definitions' makes me very sceptical of you, because it shows that you really haven't understood the core of the issue at all. Please consider the possibility that even self-described leftists like yourself are largely products of your environments, and so attitudes pertaining to white supremacy and patriarchy must be unlearnt.

4

dele_ted wrote

What is the core of the issue then? I thought we reached an agreement yesterday - I learned from it, and will make a serious effort to educate myself more on the topic before i speak in the future (please remember that I didn't think c0mrade was joking - somehow you and others keep insisting that I was reacting to a joke, which is a lie).

1

Pop wrote

that you don't realise that the following shows that you are just going about your day not bothering to try to learn as many people are pointing out your messed up behaviour:

  • the straights thing and the racism thing are different cases the same problem
    you also don't get to decide when something is 'long gone', as the person who did it

  • this is not just a matter of definitions for the race thing

  • because of the first point, if you really understood what was wrong about the straights thing (as you say), you wouldn't have said that this is just a matter of definitions for the race thing
    so it casts doubt on your having understood what you did wrong with the straights thing

2

dele_ted wrote

just going about your day not bothering to try to learn

That's not at all true. I've been reading up on the topic, I've been discussing again and again with other people here, I have listened to what they have to say and learned from it. Apparently, what was true yesterday is not true today, though.

this is not just a matter of definitions for the race thing

We talked about this in the thread yesterday, and that seemed to be the conclusion we reached. My definition of racism was the one written in the dictionary, and I hadn't realized that so many people here have a vastly different understanding of that word. I'm more than willing to learn where and why I am wrong, though, if you want to explain it.

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Hand out permanent bans to repeat offenders.

I think that's an important phrase. It's not like people'll be banned over nothing at all, or over a single mistake. Only repeat offenders will be banned.

The whole thing sounds excellent to me. Support.

EDIT: You know what? The "repeat offenders" bit could be dropped, and I'd still be in support. Let's not become reddit, please...

-2

uglytruth wrote

Now now, the Drama Queen has returned to spread misery and discord again. You peasants are not worthy of her forgiveness, how dare thee speak your mind in disagreement. Stupid thoughts are not accepted ever, fear the creator of this land or be exiled forever.


[Queen] Mirror Mirror on the wall why they seem the same all?

[Mirror Mirror] Because my dear, you've banned the rest for saying some shit they had in their chest.


On a side note, didn't you forgive one of the peons a little bit too easy even after asking for punishment, while the other fool is being dragged to hell even after begging for mercy, sup with that agenda?

6

emma wrote (edited )

On a side note, didn't you forgive one of the peons a little bit too easy even after asking for punishment, while the other fool is being dragged to hell even after begging for mercy, sup with that agenda?

I have no agenda. I saw a big influx in racist & queerphobic attitudes in a small period of time, and decided to call it out after individual conversations proved fruitless. One person admitted fault, the other has continued to double down on their problematic behaviour.