Comment moderation is back on

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

I’ve shut down comments to a few recent posts and turned comment moderation back on. So when you post a comment, it will no longer be automatically be posted to the blog. It will be held in a queue until I approve or reject it.

The last thing I want to do is be a heavy-handed moderator, but the last week has been absolutely fucking ridiculous.

At some point I’ll draft an official policy but in the meantime, please follow these common-sense guidelines:

1. Don’t make threats of violence, ever.

2. Don’t address people using racial slurs. And yes, that includes anti-white racial slurs or even belittling/condescending remarks like “white boy.”

3. Don’t make personal attacks. If you’re not smart enough to win an argument without resorting to calling someone fat, stupid, crazy, or whatever, maybe you should work on your rhetorical skills.

4. Don’t respond to trolls. If someone is clearly posting a comment with the intention of starting a fight, or posting completely wrong, racist-ass pseudoscientific crap like “all white people are albinos, science proved it”, JUST IGNORE THEM. And since I’ve turned moderation on, I’ll probably end up deleting their comment anyway because I don’t have time to deal with the fall-out.

5. In general, let’s stay away from long, drawn-out arguments and fights. Once a thread descends into point-by-point refutations and denials, it has (not always, but a lot of the time) turned to crap.

I’m sure I’ll come up with more guidelines, but I’m exhausted and fed up with this shit.

Excuse the profanity.

6. One more. Let’s stay away from oppression olympics please. I’m not saying it’s never something to be discussed, but generally speaking, bickering over who has it worse off, or who’s more racist, is really kind of useless.

7. And another one. Try not to speak in generalizations, don’t attribute characteristics to entire ethnic or racial groups. Adding modifiers like “some” or talking specifically about your personal experiences help reduce the likelihood that you’re stereotyping entire communities.

3/19/2007 update – two more to add

8. Don’t respond to a post or comment by saying “why don’t you focus on some REAL issues like the war/starving children in Africa/police brutality/etc.” Newsflash: this is a blog about race and pop culture. If you’re not interested in discussing the intersection of those two things, please go elsewhere.

9. Don’t respond to critiques about racism by telling the person making the critique that they’re just too sensitive. Coffeeandink said it best in the brilliant How to Suppress Discussions of Racism: “If you can accuse your opponent of “paranoia,” “white guilt,” “internalized racism,” “whining,” “overreacting,” “paternalism,” “condescension,” “being obsessed with race,” “bitching about racism at the drop of a hat,” or “taking things too personally,” you don’t need to bother addressing the content of their remarks.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Announcement: two more commenting guidelines at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 19 Mar 2007 at 1:09 pm

    [...] decided to add two more points to the Racialicious commenting guidelines I posted when I turned comment moderation on. From now on, if you use either of these tactics in [...]

Comments

  1. eric daniels wrote:

    I am sorry Carmen for starting the “flame war” on this one and a few others. I will try not to generalize about “white americans”, but if some whites sterotypes Afro- American culture I won’t use racial epthiets or curse words but I will challenge anyone who should know better (if you are posting on this site you should know better) and claim that people don’t know what they do when after a certain age you know right from wrong. I started this flame war and racial war of words so I do apologize.

  2. ren wrote:

    Some minor points I’d like to make… considering what happened that lead to this post in particular. These are general comments and not directed at anyone in particular:

    Amen with number 7. Generalizations kill debate. It’s probably the one accusation you can make to an academic debater that will gravely insult them. It’s a roundabout way of saying they don’t know the issue they’re arguing and people, even in the forum of the internet, should see generalizations in this manner. So we can have less of it. People who don’t really comprehend the issue are especially scared of specificity. You don’t have to actually defend a generalization, it’s so dense and easily interpretable in so many ways, the ambiguity alone works in your favor. It reeks of intellectual cowardice far more then refusing to answer. Elaborating requires you know specifically what the f–k you’re talking about. And this can be a bit of a detriment to those fueled by a personal sense of injustice. Equally worthless is the rebuttal to generalizations, otherwise known as the “holy exception” argument, which points out:

    “Well not everyone _________”

    Yes, I think we realize this. You mean a thorough nationwide poll of every human being’s opinion wasn’t undertaken prior to formulating my assertion? That’s not a good point.

    I would also add number 8. Try and have a sense of humor. I realize the topics can be harsh at times, but don’t take it so seriously that you FLIPOUT and leave everyone in the room listening to crickets chirping. Arguing that someone’s idiotic point is asinine is unnecessary for those of us with a functioning mind, we’re fully capable of dismissing it ourselves. People need to realize that posting an assertion doesn’t prove a point or make a point. If they make an inflammatory comment, let them… saying it doesn’t make it valid, in fact it’s most likely so idiotically wrong that it doesn’t require the effort to confront. It’s not easy to antagonize someone if they take what’s said as self-deprecating humor. It’s ok to laugh off a troll and render their comments harmless, you don’t have to hide from them. If Voltaire proved anything, it was that confronting issues with satire was far more effective than straight forward reasoning.

    People are a bit too concerned with the Truth (uppercase T) than with enlightenment. It’s a lot like primary school mathematics. If you flipped to the back of the book, all the answers to the questions were there. Many of my classmates at the time thought this was stupid, but really it wasn’t. Math doesn’t give a damn about the “answer”… it’s the logical process, it’s the “show your work” mantra (we’ve all heard it), it’s the method you undertake in solving the problem to PROVE that the answer is indeed correct. That’s what matters. And ideologues of which there have been many lately, come with conclusions but nothing to prove those conclusions are correct.

    People need to stop commenting with the impression that they are giving the right answer. It’s just AN answer. And if, under scrutiny it holds, we might see it as a more valid than others. Don’t turn into an ideologue who’s reasoning functions only in their closed-ended system of thought. The best debaters out there don’t stay ignorant of their opponents stance simply because they don’t agree. You have to understand where your opposition is coming from, you don’t have to accept their ideas, but you have to be willing to EMPATHIZE. And ideologues can’t possibly conceive of holding a contrary opinion or empathizing with the person giving it. Thus they tend to exhibit an over-reliance on generalizations. Proclaiming that the view you hold is right, simply because you hold it, and choosing to stay ignorant of the ideas of your opponent makes you a weak debater no matter how boldly you state your ideas.

  3. merq wrote:

    Damn, Carmen. I could almost see you pulling your hair out on this one.

  4. LM wrote:

    Ren,

    Thank you for the welcome stretch of cogency. Not that it’s your first time, mind you. :-)

  5. kim wrote:

    Are you guys in detention again?

    Considering that only every other answer was in the back of the math books, there was always real work to be done on the problems which, to me, often seemed much harder than the ones for which any assistance was available.

    Woman, you. are. so.

  6. Brad wrote:

    Hey this is my first time posting ever on any website. Actually last-night would have been my first time but my question didn’t get through moderation. Anyway my question was how do you all feel about the sentences given given to the four black girls who were charged with the beatings of the white girls? Keep in mind I’am a cuacasian man and niether liberal nor conservative. I feel Bill was understandebly
    upset but was very over the top in how he presented himself. I mean if those were my sisters or girlfriend I would be very upset over those sentences given. I just want to know how you all feel about it? Appropriate or not?

  7. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Brad, I haven’t had time to read the latest developments in detail, which is why I’ve linked to the articles on this blog but haven’t written a post about it yet. So for now I don’t have an opinion yet.

  8. ren wrote:

    I agree with you Brad,

    This is (and going to become) a major issue and yes I agree that Bill was understandably upset. This isn’t the place to discuss the matter in-depth, so I’ll hold off going into detail until Carmen makes a post, but I wanted to quickly address some general issues:

    In terms of how I feel about it and whether I find it appropriate or not?

    I would feel the same way anyone would if it were their sister, daughter, girlfriend… outraged. In terms of appropriateness, that’s a tricky matter. Based on a personal sense of justice, what is appropriate to me doesn’t matter a thing to what is considered appropriate to the legal system. Not from you, but I’ve been hearing a lot of talk about how the “legal system” has failed. No it hasn’t, it worked exactly like how it was constructed. Now if you want to say it’s inherently broken/corrupt and the rulings that are made reflect this, that is a worthy point to discuss.

    Adult court system and a juvenile court system look at the issues of physical violence in a completely different manner depending on if a juvenile committed it or an adult committed it. People are angry about it, I’ve heard quite a few mutter aloud why they aren’t just thrown in prison. People need to make the distinction that THIS is the juvenile court system. They don’t just throw them in prison because that’s exactly what the Juvenile Court System was created to prevent, the punishment of an adult to be handed to an individual that is considered a minor (in the sense they are impressionable, young, deserving of a second chance, etc…). People make the assumption that “the system bowed to political correctness/pressure/minorities”… why? Because the sentence was lax? That’s the system… it’s meant to be lax. Juvenile court is an issue of rehabilitation and not necessarily penalty.

    People are angry… why doesn’t the punishment fit the crime they ask? Because this is not adult criminal court. Judges don’t look at this as “ok look at the crime and then apply a fitting punishment”. You have to view this how a Juvenile Court Judge has to see it, where the “crime” in a sense doesn’t become the issue in determining the terms of the punishment. Juvenile operates on a completely different view, “here is the crime BUT what should be done that is in the best interest of the child?” That becomes the primary consideration when applying punishment. So when you see this lax sentence, people sometimes automatically assume it’s a disregard for the victim when it’s really made in regard to the accused rights as a minor. Now should the system weigh the rights of the accused against or more than the rights of the victim… I don’t know, haven’t really thought about it. And that’s an issue that needs discussed.

    I, like many minorities, haven’t had the chance to really think about this issue. We’re equally confused. I’m not talking about you Brad, but my white friends confront me about this as if being a minority it’s required that I issue an official opinion for all things concerning race, in order to fully illustrate my stance on the matter. I have no problem with giving my opinion, but I’ll hold off until the story is posted and I’ve poured over the issue some more. So don’t think we’re avoiding your question.

  9. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    What this blog really needs is comment previews, not comment moderation. ;-)

  10. Andrew/Animelee wrote:

    Thank you!

    I show my friends this blog all the time, but sometimes I refrained from doing so because of the racist/dumbass/pseudo-scientific/lame/dumbass/mean/stereotyping/dumbass comments some people made.

    Now with you moderating the comments, I can link away. :) Thanks!

  11. Yori Kim wrote:

    Heh, I somehow thought this would happen.

    But’s its better now (due to people apologizing)
    and I apologize due to any curse words I’ve used in the past on this site.

    I just hope in the near future people will learn to discuss issues without starting a big cat-fight.

    This was not meant to offend anyone.

  12. eric daniels wrote:

    You know I wish I could be upset for those white girls but frankly what happens to folks of color everyday pales in comparison to what those girls suffered through. Those black kids were punished and sent to the Califronia Juvenile Authority, If they lived in the south they would have been ajudicated as Adults and would have done 25 years for beating up 4 white girls and with the hate crime would have done thirty years.

    But if you want to get mad ay anyone blame the D.A. of that case, not the NAACP or the parents. if he felt he had enough proof to get a conviction on federal charges he would have ajudicated those kids and tried them as adults and if you are pissed off they only got 9 months blame the D.A. not black people.

  13. ryanmffjm wrote:

    Thank you Carmen!

    I agree things were getting out of control.

  14. Brad wrote:

    Thanx Ren and Carmen for answering my question and not just writing me off. Real Class act.

  15. angela wrote:

    I agree that people should be civil on the blog. But am I the only one who noticed that the specific examples of “what not to do” all involved being nicer to white people? Just an observation. You might want to switch it up…

  16. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Angela, that’s because some of the worst offenses I’ve seen have been on threads where people were attacking white commenters. Not saying the white commenters in these cases were blameless, but I definitely expected better from some of our regulars here than the kinds of behavior I described above.

  17. Colin wrote:

    I do not wonder this with any sense of contempt nor malice; I am simply confused at the need for moderation. I wonder, is there, in a practical sense, a limit to how long a response can or should be? I think I had probably those responses you’d call “point-by-point” refutations, lol…

    In any case, I hope we can set a better example and get back to having no moderation in the future, because I like the discussions on this site, they are relevant and controversial and pretty smart.