So do we even have any form of moderation here?
So after the amazing shit show that was Gabe and Michelle crapping all over the message board here I think it is a good time to ask this question.
What happened here is ridiculous, two people were allowed to run wild like a couple of monkeys flinging shit everywhere. Regardless of who you want to see as wrong or right there the fact remains that they were allowed to carry on completely unchecked.
Why? Light moderation is one thing but why should two defective people be allowed to run wild like that? Especially when others have been kicked off for doing the same?
Didn’t we kick off Beezodog for hijacking threads and not letting an argument die?
Of course that leads to another thing; we have some loose rules but they never seem to be enforced, why?
So what is it, do we have an enforce rules or can people just do whatever they like? Because it mostly looks like people can just act however they want…
Views: 9025
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on
-
I mean it seems like it's already covered here but doowhutchyalike:
First and most important rule: IF you can’t be polite, don’t say it. We recognize that many topics will be controversial and the nature of a discussion or online posting is that people will bring to it their own opinions, ideas and background. The general idea is that you can disagree with someone without being disagreeable. The rules of debate help the site function better, and will help keep discussions from deteriorating into attacks. Focus your topics on cycling, and your comments on the topic and position, not on the people making them. This means no personal attacks, name calling, hate speech, aspersions about someone’s mother or background, comparisons to notorious dictators… you get the idea. Under no circumstance should a member post anything that might be considered threatening, harassing, bullying, obscene, pornographic, sexist or racist.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
It amazes me that nobody has noticed that in all the defences and justifications of what went down pretty much everybody agrees that Gabe antagonized her and that doxxing her was crossing a line. In spite of that nobody seems able to make the connection that his behavior drive hers.
Didn't we all learn in like grade school that it. 'takes two to tango?'
I did not defend Michelle's behavior, I do not disagree that something had to be done about her. My issue is that he behaved as poorly if not worse and nothing happened to him.
-
-
So I can't help but notice that Julie's voice seems to be missing from this conversation beyond a non-specific promise to do something about it all sometime in the future.
Julie, this is your site and, in the end, you are responsible for what happens here so let me ask you this:
How do YOU feel about the use of the word 'retard?'
How do YOU feel about how Gabe acted? About how Michelle acted?
Are YOU OK with her being doxxed?
Are YOU OK with people using speech others find offensive here? Can I start calling women 'broads' because I don't give a shit if you or anyone else thinks it is offensive?
This is YOUR playground which means it runs by your rules. Right now your rules and how you run your playground is being questioned; don't you think you should weigh in on this at some point?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Phearson on
-
Gotta love this.
Davis, I never dismissed, diminished, or devalued Michelle's complaints, and I think the only ones who did were those who wanted to continue using the word "retard." I don't defend them or their desire to do so; the only way in which my position differed from Michelle's was that I didn't think it was productive to try to shout them into submission. They weren't going to be (and in fact they weren't) convinced by Michelle's attention-grabbing "advocacy," and I don't see the point in punishing the rest of us (or demeaning us, as you're doing here) for recognizing the limits of what's possible here.
I accused Michelle, specifically, of classism, which was clear in her use of jargon from feminist, etc. theory in order to browbeat people who evidently didn't share her educational background or exposure. I tried to show how her methods, in order to be effective, required a certain shared set of normative beliefs drawn from that kind of educational background or exposure, but the subtlety of that point was apparently lost on her (and you). You (as she) can call that "mansplaining," if you like, but that would only show how poorly you (as she) understand the concept - at a certain point that judgment becomes a crutch.
It's interesting to me that you should go on about the structural problems in this community while openly espousing the expectation that cyclists should share some sense of progressive values, particularly when it comes to the use of so-called "hateful slurs." Now what, I wonder, could possibly justify that expectation, or lead you to believe that it's not an inherently classist thing to say? If cyclists are drawn from all walks of life (as they are), and they don't all come from progressive backgrounds that send them through the sorts of liberal-arts programs in which they learn to be sensitive to microaggressions directed towards marginalized groups (as they do not), isn't bemoaning the non-unanimity of belief on this issue, in this community, really just a way of saying that there are certain classes of cyclists you don't think should be welcome here?
Davis Moore said:I believe this is actually the second, maybe third thread in which "retard" was used and objected to by Michelle, and in which Simon and others attempted to dismiss, diminish and devalue her complaints, mostly by mansplaining to her how language works or how freedom of speech works or how she should feel about things or what someone's "intent" was, or (my personal favorite) how she should stop being a college educated liberal elitist. I mean shit, someone posted a cartoon implying she needed something that involved "dick". And then had the audacity to play dumb about why that is problematic. Anyone who would do that and not realize how incredibly mysoginistic that is is either completely out of touch or totally full of shit.
Michelle may have lost her mind and become an even crazier person than she maybe already was, but a lot of people basically antagonized her to that state and very few people stood up for her. Probably in large part because there aren't many of the types who would stick up for her on this issue on this forum because it is so hostile to anyone who speaks out about topics that are disruptive to the norm here. (It's also real convenient for people who want to keep using "retard" as a casual slur and pejorative that there are probably no actual people with intellectual disabilities on this forum to stick up for themselves. Much in the same way it was really easy to use "Gay" for anything you thought was "stupid" back when all the actual gays were in the closet.)
It's pretty clear what kind of community you have here, and it's pretty reflective of mainstream society at large: male dominated, sexist, ableist, hetero-normative, often times borderline mysoginistic and and certainly hostile and petty.
It's a shame because people often assume some sort of alignment between bicycling and progressive values, and that this would be a welcoming place for people with progressive views on something as complex and nuanced as calling people "retard", but sadly that apparently is not the case. It says a lot about the joint that Gabe et al are just your "lovable scamps" who always get a pass for being shitty because "Awwwwww, they love bikes though...".
I just can't imagine why more people wouldn't want to join your "community", where Gabe and the like can just antagonize someone by using hateful slurs until they've become a crazy person, then dox them, while the rest post "guy eating popcorn in a movie theater" memes, and at the end of it the victim of the feeding frenzy is jettisoned and your mascot/attack dogs are still where they always are. Seems like a recipe for stagnation to me but whatever, it's your sandbox.
-
-
-
It's kind of neat how the ideas developed by predominantly lower-income women of color who worked to get academic stature so they could elucidate these ideas from a position where they would get credibility, are now too ivory-tower.
Simon Phearson said:Gotta love this.
I accused Michelle, specifically, of classism, which was clear in her use of jargon from feminist, etc. theory in order to browbeat people who evidently didn't share her educational background or exposure. I tried to show how her methods, in order to be effective, required a certain shared set of normative beliefs drawn from that kind of educational background or exposure, but the subtlety of that point was apparently lost on her (and you). You (as she) can call that "mansplaining," if you like, but that would only show how poorly you (as she) understand the concept - at a certain point that judgment becomes a crutch.
-
-
Irony.
Haddon said:
-
-
Ok who are the trolls in this exchange though
Haddon said:
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
