Letter to the Editor

[cdhawke]

I have made stupid, or just silly posts late at night or early morning in an altered-state. The next morning, once fully awake, after remembering my post - have scrambled to delete it - only to discover the most merciful & understanding BoingBoing moderators have already discretely done me the favor.

Much like a friend who gives you a nice nudge or kick whilst at the dinner table when you’re about to put your foot somewhere, or the friend who hustles you out of the bar where you’re a regular - preserving your reputation and ‘Regular’ status.

Cheers!!!

(P.S. Antinous – an adept Mod - hope he’s still enjoying Palm Springs.)

[NickyG]

I’ve been banned from the bb forums twice, and have had entire threads worth of my comments eaten by the luck dragon. A few I understand, a number I think were a bit overboard.

With that said, I’ve never liked or agreed with the “no victim-blaming” “rule,” for a number of reasons.

Labelling people who have been fucked-over as “victims” is, in my opinion, totally dis-empowering to the individuals and/or groups who have been, yes, victimized. I know this sounds nonsensical, and hell, maybe it is. But I personally see a difference between a system that victimizes, and labelling individuals and groups as “victims.” Something about it sounds inhuman. It labels people as being weak. It’s one of those phrases that to me, seems appropriate to label acts with, but not people. An act can have a victim, but the person is a human. If someone has been victimized by an act, a system, etc., to me it empowers and humanizes that person more of we allow a dialogue to occur about whether the act that occurred was justified, if not why did it occur, etc.

Maybe I’m an idiot, but I still happen to believe in “teaching moments.” If a poster said that Brown had it coming to him because he robbed a store, I personally would have contributed to the conversation by making a larger point about how racism works. Maybe I would have reached that poster, maybe I wouldn’t have, maybe another reader would have found my point interesting or moving – that it’s not about whether a series of actions led to the death and could have been avoided, rather, if the same series of actions had occurred and it had been a white guy who stole the cigarillos, would he be alive or dead? Probably alive, and that’s what makes the event that occurred one that was rooted in racism. And maybe that perspective would have resonated with the original poster, and again, a “teaching moment.” But that moment, even if unlikely, wasn’t allowed to occur. A deeper dialogue wasn’t allowed to occur.

I dunno… Sometimes I feel bb can be an echo chamber, and perspectives a bit outside of the comfort zone should be allowed to be reflected in comments. I think more “nuance” should be applied when deciding to ban or not ban, remove posts or not remove posts. If I were a mod, frankly, a post with the tone “he robbed the store, go into a confrontation with police, and got shot and killed, and none of this would have happened had he not robbed the store” would be allowed, even if it’s patently untrue on multiple levels. But that’s me. I’m not a mod, I’m a dude who gets banned by the mods… sometimes. And at least through today, has always been allowed to come back!

[exorcyze]

I feel like this is a bit of a difficult situation - from my perspective, publicly shaming someone without transparency ( IE, posting their offending content ) along with it is inviting criticism. If it was simply a statement of one of the groups of “known” facts, then it seems difficult to justify as “victim-blaming”. If it was of a more derogatory, then it would feel more justified - especially on a site that tends to be much more open to all view-points.

Sadly there is nothing about the situation that is simple, and considering how different the viewpoints can be, then it almost seems to me that if you were in agreement with the officer’s testimony, then the argument could be made that that person is not a “victim” from a traditional legal standpoint. To deem otherwise is to dictate that everyone should be able to do freely as they please without regard for the well-being or prosperity of their fellow humans, and to be forced to accept all potential consequences of your actions is truly the more reprehensible matter.

And that perspective feels more wrong to me than all of the absolute opinions regarding a matter that none of us actually have every detail on.

Regardless, thank you for chiming in! =)

[daneel]

@atl

We need cameras on every uniformed police officer in the United States, every time. I’m not sure it will vindicate as many of the causes celebe as some folks think it will, but it certainly will get us closer to the truth.

As shown here, cameras don’t make a fucking bit of difference on their own. Evidence, schmevidence. Prosecutor’s not gonna prosecute because it’s not in their interests. The system is rotten to the core. Probably because it’s full of bad apples.

Best the cameras will do is vindicate a cop on the vanishingly rare occasion one is telling the truth about one of these killings.

[Haystack]

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I tend to want to talk to these people (unless they’re just trolling) in hope of getting them to re-evaluate their opinions. On the other, I have to concede that this has always proved to be a maddening waste of time, and I can see why the mods have decided that it’s better to just not have them around. I particularly liked @EcholocateChoco’s comment about the “No Victim Blaming” rule as a way to invite discussion from groups who usually get shouted down in more open forums.

I think there’s a good case for strong moderation, as long as it’s not capricious. If I say something that someone interprets as racist or homophobic, I hope I’d be given a chance to clarify or apologize, rather than find myself banned or publicly shamed. It’s your sandbox, but you want others to play in it, right?

[marilove]

I know this sounds nonsensical, and hell, maybe it is.

Yeah, it is, in fact, nonsensical, as you fear, but continue to speak for the victims! That’s helpful.

Maybe I’m an idiot, but I still happen to believe in “teaching moments.”

Can you be any more condescending? Jesus. Victims don’t need this crap! Teachable fucking moments, my ass.

If I were a mod, frankly, a post with the tone “he robbed the store, go into a confrontation with police, and got shot and killed, and none of this would have happened had he not robbed the store” would be allowed,

Well, good thing you’re not a mod here and therefore aren’t going to leave blatantly ignorant and bigoted and racists comments rather than removing them, then, huh?

It’s odd and maybe a little ironic that someone is complaining about an echo chamber and yet is all “me me me me me, I I I I I, my opinion, maybe I” etc…but okay.

[JonS]

The penalty for being accused of theft is a day in court, not summary execution.

Regardless of whether or not Brown did steal a couple of cigars, blaming his death on that (and therefore on Brown) is victim blaming because the response is completely disproportionate to the supposed crime and the ongoing threat he posed.

[NickyG]

Wow is about all I can say to that! If picking blatant fights with (and being directly condescending to) people who fundamentally agree with your perspective is what you think is going to help things, I have to fundamentally disagree with your approach.

[marilove]

What bothers me most about your comment, I think is that you want to use victims for “teachable moments”. How fucked up is that? Victims don’t exist for YOU to use to teach others. Victims are real, live, human beings; not just theoretical ideas being thrown around a blog you don’t actually mod so that you can use their circumstances as a “teachable moment.”

This isn’t about you or your desire to “teach”.

I’ve
my
I
I
I’ve
my opinion
I know
I personally
to me
to me
I’m
I
I personally
to me
Maybe I
I still
I personally
Maybe I
Maybe I
I dunno
I think
If I were a mod
But that’s me
I’m not a mod
I’m a dude

That’s every reference to yourself, or at least most of them (there were a LOT and I bet I missed one or two) in this comment.

'Cuz…this is totally about you.

“Echo chamber.” Hmmmmmmmm.

It’s only okay if it’s YOUR “echo chamber”, clearly!

[NickyG]

Obviously this is true, but I don’t think it’s the argument that is going to get a lot of people to really “grok” how racism works – folks who are, let’s say, not as in touch with this stuff as you and I may be. To my mind, asking someone: “Well, let me ask you – if Brown had been white, do you think he’d be alive or dead now?” and letting the person you’re talking to make the realization for his or her self “well, uh, yeah… Brown would be alive now if he had been white and the exact same series of events had gone down” is more, well, enlightening.

IMO of course, but I’ve taken this approach when discussing these types of issues with people who just don’t seem to be getting it, and this line of thought always seems to get the lightbulb to turn on more than the more rational approach.

[beschizza]

@Brian_K_White

I haven’t seen any answers to their questions that hold water.

What questions?

…you do delete some things and ban some people. That means, to overcome that automatically damning behavior…

Welcome to BBS! Why is deleting some things and banning some people—according to a publicly-posted and explicit set of forum policies—“automatically damning behavior?” You’re written a lot of words here, but none of them seem to get past a kind of formless anger.

The “my playground” argument is particularly noxious.

But it’s an inescapable fact, all the same. Whatever rules or guidelines apply, they are ultimately ours to determine and enforce. Boing Boing cannot honestly be described as anyone’s playground but ours. Any other representation on our part would, literally, be a lie.

The usual objection to this can be crudely summed up as “an automated registration process honors a generic social contract that confers a moral entitlement to be published and which cannot be superceded by local policy.” But this is a fantasy, and a dumb one: even if a site agreed to that, the underlying power distribution will never reflect that agreement and would eventually assert itself.

It’s better to be honest, which, in practical terms, means we just ban hostile, entitled, whiny assholes, especially the ones who hate women, gays, and blacks.

[exorcyze]

Absolutely true, I agree! And if the story were as simple as that then the whole world would likely be in agreement too. =)

Sadly, it appears that there is so much more to the tale than just “steal something, get killed”, and a ton of conflicting reports on what happened. By one of the most popular reports, I’m not sure that most people would expect to walk down the middle of the street after stealing and roughing up a shopkeeper trying to protest the violation of his livelihood, ignoring an officers request to not walk down the center of the street, assaulting and then charging an officer on solo patrol who had his gun drawn ( via training, when they don’t have backup they are apparently not supposed to use fallible means of stopping a threat like a taser or pepper spray - though i’m not an officer ) and not expect some serious repercussions. I guess logically speaking, if I were to charge anyone who had a gun drawn on me then I would expect the very real possibility of being shot.

And I am not trying to discount the tragedy of the situation or minimize all potential affecting factors, by any means. But I think it’s healthy to consider all possibilities, even if they may conflict with my personal sense of what is “right” because of biases that I may have one way or another. If I don’t do that, then I am allowing myself to become a victim of my own ( and quite possibly the media’s ) confirmation biases.

Just my opinion - appreciate your response!

[beschizza]

You really were not doing too badly, you know? Then you went and used the wrong font.

[NickyG]

OK, so please, tell me – how would you solve this fundamental problem, marilove? If not through dialog, if not through discussion with others, and yes, teaching people truth about how things work – what would you recommend? Anarchy? Civil war? Sticking your fingers in your ears and going “BAH BAH BAH” really loudly and shutting yourself off from the fact that, yes, we live in a world where your next door neighbor may harbor a perspective that you find despicable, but we have to find a way to live in the same world and at least harbor the dream that we can work toward a more civil world? I don’t think the greatest peaceful leaders of history would have shied away from the idea that teaching people who disagree with you is something to be rebuked so vehemently. When I listed to the speeches of King, I hear a man who is preaching and trying to teach, both blacks AND whites who might not have understood any or all of his ideas. Frankly, I find it odd that you find it so offensive that someone would want to take a horrible situation, and at least hope that the best that can come of it is that someone, through some sort of dialogue and inspection of the event, might learn from it. Is that really so bad, so offensive? Tell me, what is your answer? What is your approach?

[marilove]

“Teachable moments” as a concept is not okay. Please don’t use that as a starting point for discussion. Please. It’s condescending and NO victim wants to be made into a “teachable moment” from some dude who has no idea what it’s like to be a victim in that context. I promise you. So please. Don’t.

This isn’t freakn’ Avatar! Or Dances With Wolves, for that matter. Get it? “Teachable Moments” are … ugh. No, please. Don’t. The entire concept makes my skin crawl. As someone who has, in fact, been a victim of sexual assault and rape, even if not racism, I AM NOT YOUR TEACHABLE MOMENT! I’ve had others try to make me that, and I refuse. It’s my story, not yours, and you can leave me out of your lectures, k?

[Drew_G]

…did you just reply to your own post with a counterargument?

[popobawa4u]

What are your thoughts on more egalitarian BBS organization? Isn’t your “underlying power distribution” a choice that you people are actively making? Why do you indicate that this would preclude other sites who might choose and organize differently?

[marilove]

A bit of discussion never hurt anyone

Are you sure about that? This is bullocks.

[NickyG]

I would rather be victimized and have someone at some point learn from it, with the hope that they will then take that knowledge and approach the world in a more intelligent and enlightened fashion, than be a victim and have nothing come of it. I can’t possibly be more vehement in that belief. Rosa Parks was victimized by being asked to step out of her seat. You can be DAMN sure she stood her ground, hoping that her action would make people take notice, and yes, learn from the injustice she faced. I would argue that you disrespect people who have been victimized and have gone totally out of their way to educate others about their victimization, by saying no victim wants to be the focus of a teachable moment. That assertion is patently untrue and countless acts of heroism over many social movements are testament to that.