A Note on Commenting
by Latoya Peterson
Dear readers, I have been on an informal banning hiatus. At this time, I am trying to come up with a Writer’s Guide for the site and a Guide to Good Conversation.
However, incidents pop up all the time. And the time to write is short.
Now, Carmen and I have been going around and around about what to do about the comments section. We’re growing in readership, and that’s good. But we are also not exactly pleased with some of the conversations as of late. Public banning tends to make people jittery, but what you all don’t see are all the conversations that take place offline.
There conversations are generally between Carmen and myself, but also occassionally include Wendi, Fatemeh, Nadra, and Thea. And we plot strategy. What should we do about this comment? Is this person a raging misogynist or a person advocating a different point of view? Is this person just being bigoted toward certain groups? Can we reach them? Or are they determined to force their viewpoint on everyone else? Is this person a troll, or just looking for understanding?
There things are hard to discern from behind screens. We can only (literally) take you at your word and this isn’t an exact science. But, when the comments become a place neither Carmen or I want to engage in or visit, something has gone horribly wrong.
We’ve batted solutions back and forth. Carmen thought about imposing Kai’s informal “No Assholes Rule” which is basically “if you consistently annoy us and disrupt the spirit of this
blog, you’re gone at our discretion.”
I was leaning toward Ragnell’s policy:
Notice to Commenters:
My comment section is not your blog. You want to take a tangent, be abusive, or write a book on how you agree/disagree with me?Get your own blog. They’re free.
But we are quite fond of writing books around here, and I like to read some of them, so that was out.
I was going to say something to the effect of “I support free speech - get your own fucking blog” but that’s a bit too simplistic and hostile.
But, luckily for me, on June 2nd, Kate Harding came to the rescue.
In a post titled “Meta:Why I’m Such a Bitch,” Kate captures our feelings exactly.
Kate writes (All emphasis mine):
You know, comments are simultaneously the best and the worst thing about blogging. The immediate feedback is gratifying, often educational, and (at least around here) usually fun. I love getting to “know” the regular readers of the blog who participate (though I don’t forget about you lurkers, either), and I’ve even developed a few real-life friendships out of comments and the Fatosphere community. Hell, when Sweet Machine and Fillyjonk started writing here, I’d never met either of them in person — I just assumed from their comments here, at Fatshionista, and at other blogs that I’d like them if I did, and I’d be proud to have them contributing to a blog with my name up top. Both hunches turned out to be very true.
But there’s a reason for the bitchy comments policy I wrote before they ever got here: Unmoderated or even lightly moderated comments can turn sour very fucking quickly. […]
it’s the same at most online versions of major newspapers and many blogs that don’t make comment moderation a top priority — I don’t even bother looking at the comments, because I know they’ll be full of argumentative assholes spoiling for a fight, better known as trolls. When those comments aren’t dispatched swiftly, they take over a thread like weeds.
And that sucks, because there are always some good comments in among the bullshit, but when a thread is overgrown with jerks, it’s not even worth trying to find those comments. Skimming through the troll comments to get to the good ones raises my blood pressure and makes me sputtery, so I just don’t do it. And that’s the number one reason why anyone who pisses me off here gets shown the door right quick (see rules 5 and 7). […]
The problem with this policy, insofar as there is one (and I don’t actually think there is), is twofold. 1) The definition of “troll” is open to interpretation. 2) People who get on my tits aren’t always trolls, per se, and I don’t necessarily care about the distinction anyway. If somebody’s comments are consistently giving me a stabbing pain behind the right eye, I feel no obligation to be patient with that person, regardless of whether he or she falls under the rubric of “troll” in most people’s estimation.
And that’s the thing I think I made abundantly clear in the comments policy, but which some people still seem to get hung up on occasionally: It’s my right eye — and Fillyjonk’s and Sweet Machine’s respective right eyes — that makes the determination as to whether certain commenters are causing more trouble than they’re worth. We don’t take a vote, we don’t check comments against a list of specific unsavory behaviors and score them on a scale from 1 to 10 — we just ask ourselves, “Is this commenter giving me a fucking headache?” And if the answer is yes, then we generally follow a three-step process. 1) Point out that the person is violating the standards of discourse around here in some way, and warn them that it needs to stop. 2) Get snarky. 3) Banninate. Sometimes, we skip straight to 2 or 3, depending on the size of our headaches, but usually, if you look back, you’ll see we did carry out point 1 somewhere in there. And in light of the clearly posted comments policy, bothering with step 1 is being generous. […]
What this means is, if you think we’re being unnecessarily bitchy, this is probably not the blog for you. And that means exactly what it says — it’s not a criticism, just a fact. We’re not trying to be exclusive for the sake of it, we’re just saying, the bloggers here all have strong personalities, zero patience for bullying and/or thread derailing, and high standards for communication. We’re actually pretty forgiving people in real life, but if we gave the benefit of the doubt to everyone here who gives us that stabby pain, A) we’d go crazy, and B) the comments threads here would be miserable reading for the vast majority of Shapelings. Everyone loves a little blog dramaz, but nobody loves a thread where one or two people keep yelling, “BUT YOU’RE WRONG AND I’M RIGHT I’M RIGHT I’M RIGHT WHY WON’T YOU JUST ADMIT I’M RIGHT?” (Hence rule 6, among others.) So we don’t put up with it. Period.
Realistically, this means that we have probably, on occasion, banned or berated a perfectly decent person who might have eventually blossomed into the kind of commenter we can’t wait to hear from. And you know what? We’re okay with that. We’re not proud of it, and we certainly don’t set out to exclude bright, interesting people from the conversation here. But if it happens every now and again, oh well — because overall, our being hardasses helps keep this blog readable and only rarely crazymaking.
Most of our moderation work goes on behind the scenes — every first-time comment has to be approved, which is why you almost never see a drive-by fat-hater here anymore — but when an approved commenter starts driving us batshit, it’s out there for everyone to see. And we’re okay with that, too. We think about our responses, and we own them. But they’re not up for negotiation. We only get bitchy after we’ve perceived a consistent pattern of disrespect for the comments policy and/or the spirit of the blog. If you don’t perceive the same pattern, then one of two things is happening: you haven’t read all the same comments we have, or you have different standards than we do. Either way, it’s our call, and arguing with us about those calls is far more likely to get you on the shit list than change our minds.
Is this attitude of ours despotic? Draconian? Bitcherrific? Sure. It’s also what makes the comments here pleasant, entertaining, informative reading 99 days out of 100. For all the times I’ve been accused of hating free speech, banning “anyone who disagrees with me,” constructing an echo chamber, denying fat people the opportunity to read important information about their health risks (SRSLY), et fucking cetera, the discussions around here still somehow manage to be lively and loaded with polite disagreement, constructive criticism, and differing perspectives. We wouldn’t have it any other way. […]
And as I’ve said before, if our readership were dropping, our comments threads were getting shorter, or any of the many Shapelings we’ve come to trust let us know they think our iron fists have gotten a little too big for their velvet gloves, we’d take a long, hard look at the way we run things around here. As it is, though, the numbers keep going up — and for my money, our unrepentant bitchery is one of the reasons for that. Like I said, I love comments — writing them, reading them, responding to them — but when blog owners lose control of their comment sections, it can turn me off on a whole damn blog, even if I’m crazy about the posters there. If the discussion sucks, I go where it doesn’t, and I can’t believe I’m alone in that. Every time a public banning happens here, I get grief about how I’m alienating people who might want to learn — emphasis on the might — as if the entire fat rights movement will dissolve tomorrow if I don’t award every jerk who drops by his or her own special soapbox. But alienating the people who cause trouble makes this space safer and more welcoming for those who don’t. It makes it the kind of blog I love to read — and until somebody starts paying me a shit ton to do this, the fact that I love reading this blog as much as writing a third of it is the only thing making it worthwhile.
So that, my dears, is why I’m a snarky bitch with an itchy banning finger, and why I encourage Fillyjonk and Sweet Machine to be the same (not that they need my help, frankly). It’s because I love this blog, I want to keep loving it, and I want people who are turned off by thread-derailing bullies to keep finding their way here and falling in love with it, too. So far, it’s working.
And there we are. Now, I am going to write a bit of a prettier thing for the site for all to see, something about discourse and knowing when to agree to disagree. But that’s the sentiment, right there.
If we are evil, angry despots, so be it - but no one has the “right” to wreak havoc. And we aren’t going to deal with thread-jacking, blog bullying, or general asinine behavior.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Abu Sinan wrote:
I have a blog. Of course I dont have the readership that you do. I dont ban anyone unless they insult, curse or threaten others.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:14 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Abu - Awesome. Do what you do. We’ll do what we do. And there we have it!
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:15 pm ¶
kerrita k. wrote:
why not let us peek into the comments that get banned? it would help me understand what kind of crazy (or crazies) never make it to the comments section at all…
and i totally appreciate you attempts to make this community work through moderation…
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:25 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
I don’t bow before the totem of free speech as much as most Americans; it mainly hurts women and people of color. And I fully agree with Kate’s rant above.
But if you decide to ban Abu Sinan I will miss his thoughtful and critical perspectives on this blog.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:27 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
LOL, well -
From the “fuck you, banned on principle” file:
jonny |
Frankly I think it is the author and owner who is racist. My guess is that she has a large vagina and is projecting through media and information as a defence mechanism as compensation.
Ridiculous blog, site or whatever this is.!
Jul 7, 8:56 PM — [ Edit | Delete | Unapprove | Approve | Spam ] — Longform Links - Black Hair, Feminism, The Lives of Women of Color
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:27 pm ¶
Monie wrote:
Not having comment moderation is like leaving home having left the front door wide open! Lol
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:31 pm ¶
Natalie wrote:
I absolutely love what Kate has to say! Latoya, I sure as heck don’t envy you or Carmen. Being a moderator is hard. I’ve done My fair share of blogging… never banned from commenting but definitely banned from sites for being “a little too outspoken”. Sometimes folks don’t like to stir the pot yanno? More of the same gets old real fast.
At least the rules are written plain as day… no excuses from here on out. Blog bullying.. lol man… e-thugs are taking over… damn shame
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:31 pm ¶
ceecee wrote:
Some people do forget that you can respectfully/ politely disagree with a differing point of view.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:34 pm ¶
Thea wrote:
I agree that comments are the best and worst thing about blogging!
I don’t think there’s any real, perfect solution. On the one hand I totally agree with Kate in that, when your job daily is reading comments that can sometimes be hurtful and hateful, it drives you crazy at best and at worst, demoralises you to the point that you don’t know why you do what you do anymore.
On the other hand, I tend to surround myself with like-minded people (come on now, everyone does), and sometimes blog convos are the only place where I get a different perspective. The majority of the time this different perspective is one I don’t expose myself to for good reasons. But every now and then a commenter who disagrees with me changes my mind. Or makes me realise something I didn’t see.
To me that’s when blogging really works - when either someone changes your mind (ie you truly learn something new) or when someone says, wow I didn’t think you were right, but now that I’ve thought about it, I’m changing my mind. Like really, that moment - that’s why I blog! It’s a strange miracle not often witnessed on the internet.
But on the other other hand (the third one), comments threads that turn hostile and bullying don’t tend to be conducive spaces to to mind/heart changing.
In short? (too late) Considering what a thorny issue this is, I support the decisions of any moderator who knows what they believe, has a clear idea of what’s f-ed up and what isn’t, but is also open to others, ie is smart and generous enough to know that their own opinions aren’t always gonna be The Truth. That’s to say, I support you Latoya!
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:39 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Amen to comments being both the best and the worst thing about blogging.
Luckily I keep a spare laptop in my large vagina so I can moderate comments on the go.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:47 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Carmen,
From the deleted comments, you certainly have a busy vadge CVK. It’s got to be huge and sideways at the same time. I wonder what tomorrow will bring…
And what did that one guy say about interracial vaginas? The asian ones were like soy sauce and the white ones were feral or some shit? I should have saved that one…
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 12:51 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
lol
YEAH to being bitchy! (fist pumping)
Too bad my vagina isn’t big enough to keep my laptop in. Bwahaahahahaha! Carmen, are there some exercises I can do or something?
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 1:28 pm ¶
Vodalus wrote:
Ah, vagina insults. They’re like a litmus test for idiocy.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 1:49 pm ¶
A. Scalia wrote:
As someone who posted once, but is generally a lurker, I think your policy is completely fair, sound and reasonable. I don’t share the fundamental views the writers & commenters have towards things like white privilege, so I don’t comment - that’s just common sense, good manners, basic graciousness. But I’m curious, so I enjoy reading this blog.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 2:01 pm ¶
kerrita k. wrote:
well. i’m glad you get to be in charge of the sewer plant that is moderation (not all fertilizer is bad), not me! :0)
but carmen, how would you type? that would really be interesting…
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶
Lauren wrote:
Slush: I see where you’re coming from on free speech, but I think that as problematic as it is, it’s a vital tool for getting anything changed. Anyway, if there were restrictions on free speech, who do you think it would serve- the downtrodden or the wealthy/white/het/male power structure?
Geez, good thing I’m not about to get banned for this tangent.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 2:30 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
::sashays through the door after a period of HTML editing her own blog, Facebooking, and salsa/yoga at a mountain retreat::
Headdesk @ the banned comment (@ kerrita–friend, be careful what you wish for…:-D)
LOL @ Carmen’s amazing vag!
Co-sign with A. Scalia. And, if I may add to A’s comment, in more, ahem, scatological terms:
As my ex-husband used to say, every place isn’t your living room. Though folks may participate in online communities from their living room (or the privacy of their home, at least), their opinions are seen by hundreds, if not thousands or even millions of people. And, as I’ve said before, the comments stick around in the online world for a good long time. So, getting your asshole on at another person’s blog is the equivalent of taking a crap in the middle of someone’s living room and acting as if it should be acceptable because you’re the guest. Like A. Scalia says, it lacks “common sense, good manners, basic graciousness”–or, as some Black folks like to say, home-training.
Carmen and Latoya (and Wendi, Fatemeh, Nadra, and Thea)–all I can say is handle your business. At the end of the day, this is the home you built. And we as commenters have to abide by your guidelines. To me, that’s crystal clear. It’s really unfortunate for those who love what you’ve created for us that it’s clear as mud to others. And they need to fling mud around. SMH
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 2:42 pm ¶
Afroamerica Writer wrote:
I’ve been part of commenting on various blogs. And what I find frustrating is those folks I’ll say in real life “like to hear themselves talk.” Only in this case, it’s on a blog.
I’ve said a number of times, you don’t have to agree with my views but by God, treat me (and the rest of the readers) with respect even though you don’t see me. I’ve only had to delete “one” comment for lack of decency.
Not that there haven’t been other comments that gave me a pause but for the most part, I have a high level of tolerance. And the way I see it, somebody else will see such commenter’s level of ignorance.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 3:24 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
@Lauren
Well, there are already many legal restrictions on free speech in operation — and to support your point, those restrictions tend to allow violent misogynist pornography and hate speech, but limit threats or false advertising or harms that are more likely to affect white heterosexual men.
Thus I think we could extend some of those protections from dangerous speech to address other possible victims. Like civil liability for hate speech, which is not the state punishing speech so much as the victim being compensated for injury.
Sorry, I agree this is all tangential. It’s a pet subject of mine not really related to this post. I’ll drop it.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 3:37 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Slush -
No, keep going. I’m interested.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 3:43 pm ¶
Ismone wrote:
Do what you gotta do.
I do have to say that this blog has some of the best-written, most thought-provoking comments. In part, I think this has to do with the quality of writing on the blogs. (Seriously, much fangirlness and all that, but I feel that the posts here are more like essays or op-eds than standard blog posts, and I LIKE it.)
I don’t want that to change!
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 3:45 pm ¶
Yashieka wrote:
I absolutely agree with you 100%. Sometimes we have to do what we must to keep the unwanted trolls away. After today, this has become my favortite blog (next time mine of course)! LOL…
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 3:45 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
Co-sign on A. Scalia’s and TCS’s comments. I have come to view Racialicious as an on-line home, and I love the insight and perspectives I find here. Occasionally I’ve had beef with other commenters, but always tried to be respectful and stay on topic. If I don’t, I expect to be schooled. I may view this space as a home, but I didn’t build it or pay for it, and I must defer to those who did.
@Abu Sinan,
You stated that you don’t ban anyone from your blog unless they “insult, curse or threaten others”. Insult operates in many different spheres, and derailing discussions, dismissing the perspectives and foundational beliefs of the blog owner, editor, and majority of the commenters, or isolating the minutiae of a post and concentrating on that rather than the substantive issues raised in the post may be considered insulting to the other readers and commenters on that post. Engaging in tit-for-tat disagreement with an eye toward convincing people in a POC space that you should be allowed to frame the discussion or that you understand oppression and marginalization better than they do: that may well be perceived as a threat to the safety of that space. Here, Carmen, Latoya and their selected allies get to determine what is insulting and what is threatening. That’s their right, just as it is yours to run your blog as you see fit.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 3:47 pm ¶
Erin wrote:
however you do it, it’s workin’. your blog is one of the few that I regularly read the comments on and in fact, look forward to reading the comments. it doesn’t make for a diluted debate at all - there’s definitely some heated disagreement, but it’s almost always smart and interesting and respectful.
it’s part of why i keep comin’ back. keep up the awesome work, folks!
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 3:50 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:
The Cruel Secretary, that is the best analogy I’ve ever read!
I think this is one of those areas where your instincts are generally right. I own my own website too (not a blog but with writers who are pretty free to write what they want to) and have had several occasions to vacillate between banning/not banning. But not banning seems to give these people license to escalate, and they always got banned in the end because they finally crossed that line. The longer I’ve had the website, the better I’ve gotten at spotting these people, and the less willing I am to give them extra chances. I imagine you are all the same way, and I don’t think you should feel bad about it one bit.
And, er, now I should probably go read the posting guidelines…
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 3:55 pm ¶
Marge Twain wrote:
My favorite part of any good blog is most definately a lively community of smart and curious commenters. I award bonus points for author participation.
I don’t even read comments on most news sites and blogs that are not strictly moderated. There are always good, smart comments in there, but always outnumbered by hateful bigots. It makes me too sad for the state of humanity.
Posting with a female name is a guarantee of vagina-hate plus topic-derailing speculation on what a bad job I’m doing appealing to men and how shrill and unpleasant I surely am IRL. It’s happened at Racialicious a little bit, too, but always with more allies present.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 3:59 pm ¶
Marge Twain wrote:
Also I’m grateful not to have to read a litany of comments after every post complaining about the very relevancy of discussing the topic. Why so may trolls are moved to write that someone else wrote something they deem unimportant and should therefore shut up is beyond me.
I want to add that the dominant culture here IS encouraging of lively and diverse thought and that’s due to the tremendous sewage handling of the mods(credit to kerrita k) I know lots of folks with good insight would remain silent/go away if that wasn’t the case.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 4:11 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
Thanks Latoya. It’s really very different than moderating a blog, but here’s my thoughts about speech harms. Sorry it is long in order to express it clearly.
I like to caution people about ‘free speech’ because it is held up by so many of us as this beacon of democracy - which it absolutely is - but it also has some weaknesses that I don’t think get addressed in mainstream discussion.
The crux of it is that our civil legal system is about compensating victims for injuries that they suffered from another person - injuries that the law has seen fit to recognize as legal injuries. And, as most folks here can probably appreciate, the legal system was designed and developed by heterosexual (or at least fronting) white men, and thus the harms that are recognized in the law are primarily harms that those men could see as legitimate and worth the trouble of going to court over.
The best comparison is defamation. Defamation is damage to someone’s reputation by speech, and it is not protected speech under the 1st Amendment, with some exceptions. Which means that you can be liable for defamation under tort law - i.e. punished in court for things you said or wrote. Meanwhile, racial epithets are protected speech, which prevents anyone from being accountable for them (unless they amount to threats, which are not protected - but it’s interesting who gets to decide what is a threat and what is just a mean thing)
This is because the crafters of the legal system were concerned about their reputations, and about legitimate threats to their person, but were pretty rarely the victims of hate speech. Pretty much, they were/are of the mentality that people are too sensitive about such things, and it’s not a legitimate injury — “What I do not experience is therefore not real.” You can find similar history in the evolving definition of rape.
There’s some good academic literature on this, although it’s pretty theoretical, but Mari Matsuda, a professor at Georgetown, has written some great stuff about it. “Words that Wound” appears to be on Google books. Matsuda focuses less on why it is that the legal system doesn’t acknowledge those harms, and more on why they are in fact legitimate and should be recognized. It is not about ending or denying the value and importance of free speech, it’s about accounting for those who are victims. I think most folks on Racialicious don’t need to have it explained to them that speech injury can be pretty palpable.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶
Rounder wrote:
Right on, LaToya and Carmen. I’m sick of the whole “If you truly believe in free speech you’ll let me verbally abuse you” thing. I look forward to future jerk-free discussions.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 4:19 pm ¶
Fransky wrote:
Thanks for bringing up this topic. I myself have felt a little frustrated with reading some of the comments on this blog. Especially in the last 6 months or so and especially around topics of mixed race or interracial dating. In fact I’ve been in a long process over if I’d feel “safe” writing posts for Racialicious because I didn’t want to get torn to shreds by the painful things some folks take the time & effort to write.
This blog stands out among the majority of blogs out there & I continue to be amazed & grateful for Racialicious. And I now really appreciate the willingness you’re taking to look at the comments issue, which all of us bloggers & blog readers deal with. There is no perfect answer. But I like the headache criteria. Keep up the good work!
~F
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 4:54 pm ¶
Big Man wrote:
Is nobody else wondering if A. Scalia is Judge Scalia? Or do i have the name wrong?
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 4:56 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
re: Commenting policy
Right on.
PS:
Is it too late to vote for “Carmen’s Large Vagina” as the title of the Racialicious book?
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 5:14 pm ¶
Sarah J wrote:
I’m a serious hard-ass about free speech, but I also don’t put up with hateful shit around me, to me, or on my blog. Or even general asshattery. Because as was said above, get your own blog, they’re free.
Cruel Secretary is right: it’s like your living room. I threw a friend out of my car once because he insulted me repeatedly while we were driving home. It wasn’t my job to schlep him around and give him space to berate me. Neither is it my job to give commenters space to insult me.
Disagree with me–awesome. Point out when I’m wrong–awesome. Insult me personally or people I care about, or use hate speech? Deleted. Banned. Spam queue of doom.
I appropriated Bitch, Ph.D.’s comments policy: “Comments are great, obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal.”
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 5:18 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@A. Scalia - Yes, great point. There are a lot of blogs I read but don’t necessarily agree with. However, I do try to stay respectful and remember that it’s *their* space,not mine. I got a blog and they are free to start if I want to do a whole counter opinion.
@TCS - Salsa and yoga? And you didn’t tell me? Sacrilege!
@waxghost - Yeah, but what makes it hard is the nature of what we discuss. Someone could be an all star commenter on one issue, then pop up as a semi-bigot as another. Then, it’s the back and forth - can I reach them? Do they really think this way? Is it privilege? Have they just never been exposed to this kind of debate before? It’s tough. And while I am allowing one person to learn through mistakes, trolls seem to bum rush the door. It’s tough.
@Fran - I know, and I completely understand. As much as it pains me. A few of the other people I approached said similar things, and it saddens me deeply. We don’t quite run a safe space, but I want everyone to feel respected. And people of mixed race backgrounds have said time and time again that they don’t. It is serious. And I am working on it. And I hope you - and all the other mixed folks - hang for a bit.
@Big Man- lol! That would be interesting. Now if we could only get C. Thomas to read…
@Slush - Fascinating. I will probably email you to discuss more offline and to pick your brain for more resources. I find this absolutely fascinating.
@All -
Oh, and what I forgot to mention in the post - the comments situation also makes it tough to attract writers, particularly those coming from an unpopular POV. I’ve got a post scheduled for tomorrow that I think is awesome, but I would be lying if I wasn’t concerned for how it will be received. And if I can’t guarantee a writer that they won’t be shredded, it’s hard to convince them to come. Hopefully, it will work out.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 5:23 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Joseph -
I vote for “Vagilicious! Notes on race and pop culture from the most uppity vaginas in the blogosphere!”
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 5:29 pm ¶
Radfem wrote:
I love reading the posts and the comments here. This is a great site. But moderation is really hard at times for a blogger.
I think you have to do what you got to do, to keep your space the way you want it to be because it’s your space. We’re all visitors and you’re right, blogging’s free.
And the first amendment, censorship and all that applies to the government not to private space including blogs. But the same people who write racist, misogynist posts and call you slurs will protest that this is their right to do so and you’re censoring them. Nope, sorry it’s not and you’re not. And reading the comments that are hateful, scary and bigoted, is draining and it might sound silly to some but they do take a lot out of you including over time.
I used to allow comments but went to moderation and then shut them off last year. Several years ago, I had a crew of unknown people who found my site, started writing about the police department and next thing I knew is that while I was conversing with them, an internal affairs investigation had been launched of my site and they were monitoring it. And did I get punished for that through retaliation! That’s another thing you have to think about some times when you have a blog when it comes to comment moderation.
I did have one anonymous person ranting that I was forcing the police chief to kidnap women to force them to be police officers because I wrote a piece about how female officers were less likely to be sued for excessive force. That one kind of made me laugh.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 5:41 pm ¶
jmn wrote:
*jaw drops from the jonny comment*
The only retort I can think of is that jonny is compensating for the small size of his … um, I’ll let you fill in the blanks. LOL! :p
I’m so glad the comments are moderated here, unlike on some websites like youtube. It’s at times like that that I’m glad I don’t have many views on my videos.
Horay for intelligent discussion. Boo to threadjacking, condescending comments, and general assholery. And if you disagree with me, then you’re a doo doo head. :p
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 5:42 pm ¶
Brian wrote:
Yup - ya’ll should do what you see fit as best. This is your blog, so when someone comes to post/comment on it - they are agreeing to your rules. They have made a decision to come to this blog, and they have commented presumably with some sort of knowledge of your rules - or at least with the knowledge that they are here under their own free will. Making rules for your blog/home is not despotism, and when people willfully come to your blog/home/whatever they are under your rules. There is no power dynamic because they are free to come and go as they please, and as you stated, blogs are free and they can start their own. Of course, this all goes out the window if anyone is being forced to sit at a computer screen and read all of this and comment it via threat of violence or coercion, but somehow I doubt that.
Oh, plus, free speech does not equal hate speech.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 5:53 pm ¶
red wrote:
@ Latoya (no.35) Lol!
I think the living room thing is a good way to think about it. It’s your blog, so it’s your comment policy. You should do what feels right to you.
Also, I think you do a great moderation job, given that the topics on here are things people feel very strongly about.
That’s not to say don’t tweak it, but don’t knock yourself either - the blogosphere is not immune to all the shit that happens in real life so sometimes things are going to happen or be said in ways you (or others) wouldn’t want. Not your fault.
There is also a bit of a duty on those of us who come trampling through your living room to be nice and not give you a headache. Makes the sofa comfy for everyone.
*imagines all racialicious commentators sharing a sofa…*
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 5:59 pm ¶
Jorge wrote:
@ Slush
Sorry, but I just had this knee-jerk reaction to your comment about free speech.
I would disagree with you about creating a cause of action out of hate speech. Although I agree with some of what you said about the legal system (it does reflect who set it up), I just don’t see how making people liable for hate speech will make things better.
With defamation you at least have some connection with the speech and actual economic damage (to your reputation as a professional, etc.). But with hate speech, it just comes down to hurting someone’s feelings. And that is where it gets dangerous. Some people are more sensible than others, etc. etc.
Who gets to determine what is hate speech? All those wonderful people in the state legislature? No thank you.
I do worship at the totem pole of free speech and I very much like my right to call people whatever I like and use other expressive speech to show my like or dislike of them (and in all fairness I have to take people calling me things…as long as its not defaming, of course =P )
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 6:04 pm ¶
TierList E wrote:
I’ve noted some of this site’s flip floppers from ‘totally okay’ into ‘whoa!’ categories depending on the topic. It’s funny how quickly a switch can be thrown on/off as soon as you change an ‘ism’- I am also guilty of such things.
I totally support all of your mod rules and I always hope I’ll never mess up and cross any of you, because I’ve become very fond of this blog. Hah you’re better people than I am, because as a very emotional/sensitive person I would more than likely ban anyone that hurts my feelings, end of story, possibility of what they could offer be damned. The Internetz is mean enough by itself; I don’t need to welcome it on my homefront.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 6:28 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Well, you know, I would sign up to be a member of Racialicious, if requiring that would curb audacious, random asshats who like to leave horrible comments.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 6:41 pm ¶
HighJive wrote:
i would not be so quick to completely discard these offensive comments. i’ll bet you could fill an entire blog with the comments, and traffic would rival that of the most popular ones out there. or maybe the comments could be compiled for a companion to your upcoming book, a racialicious rejects edition. there’s money to be made here, ladies.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 7:11 pm ¶
Mickey wrote:
I’m stealing the name “Uppity Vaginas” for my Back rocker chick punk band. We will do covers of Chaka Kahn , Tina Turner and The Bangles.
I’m all about moderation and banning trolls. I think it’s the only way to have a useful discussion on the topic of race.
I’m always careful to frame my comments and try not to generalize too much. Plus the people who comment here are great and I always learn something.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 7:25 pm ¶
lxy wrote:
This might have been mentioned already, but you could have people register in order to post comments on Racialious. That would probably cut down on the random troll or insult post.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 7:38 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
@Tierlist- The flip floppers freak me out, too. But that shows the complexity of people. I, too try not to put on a halo and then change it up and show my entire ass a few days later. Can’t we just be consistent, people!
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 7:46 pm ¶
Kai wrote:
Latoya and Carmen, you guys do a heroic job with the threads here, and I think the mildly-more-unilaterally-discretionary guidelines you’ve excerpted from Kate are more than forebearing and reasonable. I think my simplistic “No Assholes” policy works for me because I myself am kind of an asshole, but you folks are more kind and encouraging of educational exchanges and I think that’s a big part of what makes this blog great. Though I might add that I’m actually not as concerned with politeness and civility as I am with honest intellectual engagement. I delete/ban seemingly polite people whose points do not genuinely interact with the points being raised and addressed in a thread; and I allow rude people to cuss and scream and attack if they’re also making important points which advance discussion.
Also, I agree with Slush about free speech. In my experience, lots of folks who talk about free speech haven’t thought it through, and many don’t actually care about it beyond pushing for their own right to be verbally irresponsible without repercussions. I actually regard the “free speech” refrain in US mainstream political culture as something of a canard, feeding the propaganda of US exceptionalism while actually trivializing the power of the word. When the Supreme Court ruled that the extortion/bribery of politicians by corporations was protected under “free speech”, I kinda realized that this was a shell game. Defenders of free speech would never defend the right to walk up to an airport check-in counter and crack a joke about hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. Obviously the terrorism in recent history makes such speech completely unacceptable, period. So to draw an imperfect parallel, certainly the history of racism is littered with far more terrorism than the history of airports and airplanes. Words have power and consequences. They are never “free”.
Peace.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 8:26 pm ¶
Torontonian wrote:
I still feel sorry for you guys. You can banninate at will, but you still have to read the racist and sexist comments when you moderate, which is still draining.
When the comments are important to the site, such as this one, yeah, you need to moderate to keep the quality up, or else many people will not want to comment because of the trolls.
Related: Help Academia Understand This Whole “Flame War” Thing
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶
Yuri wrote:
@Racialicious: Do what you want. You guys are reasonable enough to know what’s best =D
@Jorge:
But with hate speech, it just comes down to hurting someone’s feelings. And that is where it gets dangerous. Some people are more sensible than others, etc. etc.
So it’s more dangerous to have hate speech be interpreted differently than to have it actually directed at you? …..OK.
I also like how you simplify hate speech just to “people’s feelings getting hurt,” an intentionally loaded phrase designed to trivialize it and suggest that people who can’t handle it are weak and oversensitive. Sure, why don’t we ignore the the adverse developmental effects on youths who grow up with it, the huge psychological/emotional stress it puts on people, the adverse health effects that that stress creates, or the acknowledgement that it’s OK to be hateful in society. Perfectly legit and honestly thoughtful rationalization, made all the more poignant by a weak reason and a couple of “etc”’s. *sarcasm*
Who gets to determine what is hate speech? All those wonderful people in the state legislature? No thank you.
The old rhetoric that leaving anything in the hands of the state is unquestionably, unwaveringly, irrefutably Evil, is wearing thin, methinks.
I do worship at the totem pole of free speech and I very much like my right to call people whatever I like and use other expressive speech to show my like or dislike of them
Nobody’s taking that away, and if that’s your way of solving things in general, you’re welcome to it. But IF your way of dealing with others includes using hate words, then I’m really, really sorry.
For my part, I wouldn’t mind if some more people would actually have take the time and effort to actually question these pretty words inherent in free speech instead of blindly letting its assumptions go unquestioned. For me it’s best to know the good and bad of any ideal, instead of mindlessly shoving it in people’s faces. I’ve seen so many free speech arguments, and for all that talk, none have convinced me enough to throw myself onto its feet.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 8:56 pm ¶
CVT wrote:
I can’t keep myself away from this site today.
First, I’d like to speak as a mixed person on this site - although I agree that we get trampled a bit at times on this site, I don’t really put it on lack of moderation. For whatever reason, mono-racial people of all sides like to speak for us mongrel children as if we don’t have a distinct “experience.” That has nothing to do with you all running this blog - more a lack of understanding, in general.
As somebody who questioned (mildly) a previous banning - I’m all for it when you guys see fit. I work with kids, and I know how important it is to stop ish early before people get hurt and shut down out of a feeling of violated safety (or not being heard). It’s no different with adults.
I see commenting as visiting a foreign country - share your insights and opinions, but it’s not your freaking country, so you need to accede to the cultures who call the place home. If your world is very different from theirs, it’s probably due to a different experience, and that’s when you should tap out of the argument and acknowledge ignorance.
I think the reason so many people hate American tourists is due, largely, to our general inability to get that lesson. We are raised to want it “our way” (I blame Burger King), so when people don’t bend over to make us comfortable - we think it’s okay to act like jerks.
So if you want to revoke the visas of tourists violating the cultural norms of this land called “Vagilicious,” then so be it.
* I just realized that that last statement sounds like supporting anti-immigrant in the U.S., which I absolutely don’t (being first-generation, myself). I am referring to tourists, NOT residents, refugees, immigrants, etc.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 9:19 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
@Latoya - sure, email me I’d be happy to talk more about speech harms. I’ve probably downloaded some articles I could give you. And, I am definitely in favor of “Vagilicious.”
@Jorge - yes, it’s a complicated and even risky proposition. And it kind of goes against ideas we learn about our Constitution and also what the ACLU will tell you. But you see the point is that some speech harms are just as legitimate as physical or economic harms. Have you ever been called a racial epithet, and is that really less painful than something physical? Which do you remember longer or think more about? Let’s say I am your waitress and you are an African American male sitting at a cafe. If I spill your coffee on you and burn you, you can sue me, but if I yell: Get out of this cafe you filthy nigger! You have no recourse. To actually force you out is a violation of the Civil Rights Act, but to stand there and insult you is my ‘free speech’ right.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 10:09 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ waxghost–why, thank you!
::curtsies::
But I felt like I didn’t take my analogy far enough. If I may, here’s the addendum (and I promise I won’t get more scatological): not only is getting your asshole on at someone else’s blog like taking a crap in the middle of someone’s living room and acting as if the host/ess should be OK with it, it’s also like doing this act in front of the person’s other guests and family, then expecting the host/ess to open the door and invite the neighbors to come in and look at it. When the offended host/ess and/or guests decide to boot the offender out out for being so obnoxious and disgusting, the offender wants to start hollering, “I got my rights! I got my rights!”
Oh, really?
@ red–can we have a pillow fight while we’re all on the sofa?
::stacks up pillow arsenal::
@ Latoya–look, my bad, Madame Editrix. Like I knew…but you *know* it was fun, right? Like 200-people-at-the-Saturday-night-salsa/zouk/samba/merengue/soca-party fun? And did I mention most of them were yogis shaking their groove thangs? Again, my bad, friend…;-)
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 10:13 pm ¶
StuffBlackPeopleLike wrote:
Check Mate!
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 10:26 pm ¶
tekanji wrote:
If it’s helpful, here are the comment policies I use for the sites I run:
Shrub.com’s Discussion Rules
Rules for Iris’ forums
My style tends towards the strict enforcement of a safe space. While this does undoubtedly scare some people off, I feel that it’s more important to ensure that people from non-privileged groups have a chance to be heard and a space in which they can feel comfortable expressing themselves.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 11:01 pm ¶
Jorge wrote:
@ Yuri
1) My point wasn’t to trivialize hate speech. It does a lot of bad. No doubt. Nor am I saying that we should ignore it. No sir/m’am.
So it’s more dangerous to have hate speech be interpreted differently than to have it actually directed at you? …..OK.
I don’t exactly understand what you think I meant when you said that…
My point went to the idea of creating a legal remedy for it. From the problem of classifying exactly what hate speech should encompass to measuring damages for it ($1,000 for every time I hear wetback? or do we leave it up to the jury?). It is very difficult to measure damages of this sort, especially for something so subjective as speech. Yes, it is subjective. It hurts some more than others.
Should I just get a right to sue you because you called me something I didn’t like? What if I wasn’t even offended? What exactly would one be vindicating there?
Also keep in mind that it cut both ways. If someone argues that you should use the law to stamp out hate speech, well, why not stamp out other things that offend? This is what I’m more afraid of.
That and being sued for opening my mouth because someone was offended.
There are better ways to deal with this situation than bringing in the legal system and lawyers. Education, I think, works well. Places like this blog where one can discuss issues such as this. Etc etc (and the etc etc is just laziness).
2) I just think there are some things that the Legislature shouldn’t mess with, and one of them is individual speech. Where do you draw the line? You start with hate speech, and then you just open up the area for more restrictions. Find a piece of art offensive? Lobby your congressman.
It would just open up a “pandora’s box full of trojan horses.” (can’t remember who said that one)
Again, no thank you.
3) No, using hate speech is not the way I deal with people. But I like to have the option to be able to say what I want and not worry about getting sued. It is simply one of the good / bad things about this country.
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 11:13 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:
Latoya, way back at #34, absolutely! I guess the short version of what I was trying to say is: I have a fraction of an idea of what it must be like for you guys, and I have faith in you guys to do the right thing.
Mickey, I want to hear your band!
Posted 08 Jul 2008 at 11:24 pm ¶
db11 wrote:
Whatever you’re doing behind the scenes in comment modding is working… at least on the front end.
This is consistently the best moderated blog I read regularly: without shutting out diverse opinions, the discussions are lively, respectful (mostly) and thought-provoking.
Do whatever you need to do to maintain that feel – and your own sanity.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 12:12 am ¶
Lea wrote:
As someone who frequently reads and rarely comments, I appreciate this policy. It can sometimes be hard to set down fast, strict rules for what’s an abusive or unnecessary comment, so going on pure instinct seems reasonable. I’ve read plenty of blogs and forums that had what seemed to be very strict policies, which nonetheless teemed with abusive asshats.
I do object to the name Vagalicious, though, on grounds that you don’t have enough lesbian content to merit such a name.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 3:24 am ¶
Renee wrote:
I have a very small blog and so far have managed to just give a verbal smack when someone steps out of line but with the size of Racalicious I can see why that would not work. The bottom line is that this is your space and if someone cannot respect that they need to go. You’d throw someone out for spitting on your floor so why tolerate troll behavior on your blog? This is the first blog that I ever read and it gets better daily all due to your diligence and hard work. Thanks for everything that you do.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 3:47 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Hey Worthy Admins, I’ve been holding back (for, like, once?) and reading, and I agree with most people here that a clear comment policy and warnings before banning are totally the way to go on a site like this (so, pretty much what you’re doing now).
Seems like there are 3 levels going on: 1. outright trollish/spammish comments (the ones we never see, and I’m sorry you have to), 2. poorly worded/phrased comments from people who otherwise might be OK, in which case you post the name but not the content, with some kind of explanation, and 3. the flamers, possibly well-intentioned, that slip in and wreck a thread before breakfast, or the ones that have no clue but may still be teachable.
In the effort to save you saga and time, I wonder if you couldn’t put together a little blanket paragraph to be used for any #2 or #3 type comment? Like, “This comment violates #, #, # of the comment policy. Please try again.”
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 8:21 am ¶
Slush wrote:
@Jorge - the law is remarkably adept at assessing damages and fault in all kinds of otherwise completely indeterminate situations.
Most criminal law and some tort law requires the state to prove that someone specifically intended to commit the crime that they committed, otherwise they are guilty of a lesser offense or none at all. That is a requirement of proof of the actor’s subjective state of mind, and it happens in court every day.
Mari Matsuda thinks hate speech should be a crime, not a tort (which means that the state prosecutes you for it, rather than the victim suing you.) I think this treads closer to murky First Amendment waters, but she proposes a test such that only serious speech would be criminal:
“All ideas about differences between races are not banned. The definitive elements are discrimination, connection to violence, and messages of inferiority, hatred, or persecution. Thus the entire spectrum of what could be called racist speech is not prohibited. A belief in intellectual differences between the races, for instance, is not subject to sanctions unless it is coupled with an element of hatred or persecution.
In order to distinguish the worst, paradigm example of racist hate messages from other forms of racist and nonracist speech, three identifying characteristics are suggested here:
1. The message is of racial inferiority;
2. The message is directed against a historically oppressed group; and
3. The message is persecutorial, hateful, and degrading.”
In tort law, in any case, it almost never matters who sensitive the victim is. That’s not the measure of injury. The threshhold question is whether a ‘reasonable person’ would have been affected. Yes, the famous mythical ‘reasonable person’ is still a straight white male, but even ‘reasonable’ straight white males these days might be likely to know that many forms of hate speech are quite hurtful.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 8:53 am ¶
Mickey wrote:
@ waxghost:
LOL!
Our first single will be a cover of “Hazy Shade of Winter” by The Bangles.
I’m bringin’ it back.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 9:15 am ¶
Persia wrote:
Also keep in mind that it cut both ways. If someone argues that you should use the law to stamp out hate speech, well, why not stamp out other things that offend? This is what I’m more afraid of.
That’s my concern with ‘hate speech’ issues too. I’m afraid I’m too cynical to rely on the all-benevolent government to decide who’s doing the insulting and how serious the damage is.
As for comment moderation, you guys do a great job as far as I can tell, and I appreciate deeply what you do here. I’m careful even identifying as female on blogs, and cling to my gender-neutral username.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 12:04 pm ¶
Jorge wrote:
@ Slush
I understand the legal process. I’ve just become a bit more skeptical about expanding torts. I think I should stop reading so many conservative law blogs.
As far the the criminalizing scheme, it kinda-sorta makes sense, but it still makes me a bit nervous to criminalize speech (other than inciteful speech). Does Matsuda propose jail time, fines, both? I’m assuming it would involve proving intent? Suggest anything to read about this?
I guess, for me, it just boils down to a fear of abuse of such a system and the chilling effect it could have on speech (although it would be a potential gold mine of attorney’s fees). I just don’t see this as something the law can fix.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶
livininphilly wrote:
I wanted to comment on this yesterday but didn’t get around to it. I absolutely love Racialicious and read every single day. As a person who rarely read blogs before discovering yours (and subsequently deciding to start my own also b/c of this blog!) I was dismayed when I first stumbled upon the world of “unmoderated comments” {curls into a ball whimpering}. I say right on and keep moderating. I agree with a previous comment that the rejected comments should be compiled. Perhaps the compendium can be called “USA: A Reality Tour.” LOL b/c I think the media wants us to believe that all the isms are no longer a serious problem…
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 12:30 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
@Jorge - if you have access to Westlaw, you can find Matsuda’s article that I was quoting at 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2320. (I didn’t mean to talk down to you about the law, but in case you or any other reader is not a lawyer, the multiple negatives of First Amendment law can get pretty confusing.) But no, I don’t think it’s about intent. Intent requirements are a whole other subject of where out legal system has failed women and minorities by focusing on blaming the actor, not compensating the victim. What does it matter if a person intends to hurt you or does it because they are insensitive and don’t realize they’re being racist? You’re still hurt. I still have to pay you if I accidentally smash into you in my car.
> “If someone argues that you should use the law to stamp out hate speech, well, why not stamp out other things that offend?”
Because hate speech perpetuates oppression and social injustice, while current speech laws protect the rights of the powerful to trample on vulnerable groups. How would liability for hate speech - speech intended to hurt and frighten other people - lead to stamping out other speech? Defamation and commercial speech are both limited by law, and that hasn’t caused a problem. That argument is just to pretend that all speech is the same and undistinguishable from other forms of speech. Which it simply isn’t. We already draw all kinds of categorizations in it, and plenty of those are legally binding.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 1:15 pm ¶
Sean wrote:
Don’t be too hard on yourselves folks. This is actually one of the better blogs out there -period, and I commend the moderators for doing a superlative job.
I read FAR MORE than I actually post, so these blogs have been very insightful. When I do post, it’s in the spirit of putting my idea forward for those to RESPECTFULLY agree OR disagree with. I’m not here to “tit-for-tat” with anyone, so I try my best to ignore infantile, ad-hominem, and non-constructive commentary. I’m not always sucessful, but my simple credo is this: I don’t type anything that I wouldn’t say to you if we were sitting face to face.
Sometimes the anonymity and lack of accountability that the internet provides brings out negative things in people that wouldn’t surface otherwise.
The way I see it is simple: freedom of speech does NOT equate to freedom from consequence.
You falsely shout fire in a crowded theater?
You’re free to do so, just understand why you’re being sent to central booking.
Keep up the good job….I’ll keep reading!
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 2:16 pm ¶
Marge Twain wrote:
About the current level of moderation: I want to second the mixed-race folks on how much further it can go. As a mono-racial, it also really bothers me to read some of the comments in the threads on interracial dating. Even in the last thread about that Tyra show, I stopped reading when a bunch of guys attacked black women based on tired stereotypes. The comments policy already says this:
“7. 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.”
Which may not be as strictly applied as the other rules(?) People here will sometimes use “some” but it’s clear from their context that they’re stereotyping or that they mean “most” I don’t like that any black woman has to come on here to refute the accusation that she and her whole group are self-hating if they don’t wear their hair a certain way.
I don’t know about needing a compilation/shadow blog of banned comments. That would just encourage them. Can’t we just head over to Salon Letters for that?
I would enjoy an occaisonal featured comment if it’s as hilariously, creatively offensive as jonny’s was. I’ve enjoyed all the large vagina riffing going on. My immediate thought when I read this:
“My guess is that she has a large vagina and is projecting through media and information as a defence mechanism as compensation.”
was to picture a vagina large enough to accomodate a movie projector with a pull down screen over the cervix and a few rows for the audience.
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 2:17 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ Marge Twain–friend, I don’t even know what to say to this…
My immediate thought when I read this:
“My guess is that she has a large vagina and is projecting through media and information as a defence mechanism as compensation.”
was to picture a vagina large enough to accomodate a movie projector with a pull down screen over the cervix and a few rows for the audience.
…so I’ll just do this: LMAO!
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 4:03 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
One of the things I love so much about this site is that people can disagree here without it dissolving into a bunch of hate wank, and that people who DO try to take it to that level are dealt with swiftly.
I feel really bad for you mods, especially since you have to wade through stuff like this:
And what did that one guy say about interracial vaginas? The asian ones were like soy sauce and the white ones were feral or some shit? I should have saved that one…
I admit I LOLed, but WTF is WRONG with people?
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 4:28 pm ¶
jen* wrote:
Uppity Vaginas has got to be the best band name I’ve ever heard. Somewhere somebody should be making a website or something!
Posted 09 Jul 2008 at 11:11 pm ¶
jed wrote:
The problem with moderation rules is getting everyone to read them.
Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 10:03 pm ¶
geekgirl99 wrote:
I just want to say I’ve been lurking for a few months, and I was first attracted to this blog because of the stunning quality of the conversation in the comments of the first post I read (of course, now I don’t remember which one it was.) So hurrah for an itchy banning finger, and keep up the good work!
Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 2:46 pm ¶