@jasonekratz Agree about "bloody revolution" being politics too, except I was hoping we wouldn't get there. I don't think Andreessen-Horowitz just got this, but in light of DHH's proclamations, at least we got them to explicitly and openly state that politics is essential to getting your way. Now they may have been already doing that in the shadows via PACs.

Re: my quote about Ben, I still don't understand your point. It's clear I was talking about him being a privileged (legacy/social capital) rich white man. I didn't even think about his religion but yes, I would put an American privileged straight white rich Christian man at the top of the food chain. But unless Ben tells us more about how he is being misrepresented in this world, you and I can only guess. I don't know about his family history and his Wikipedia entry is scant on details.

Re: NY resolutions, of course, people should do what's best for their mental health, but some of us don't have that privilege or the choice so I was just pointing it out. If they feel guilty about me pointing that out, well, I can't dictate how they should feel.

@rcrackley Huh? cc-ing @manton and @jean to verify about violating Micro.blog community guidelines

@rcrackley @humdrum

pejorative comments about people based on your chosen categories (not coincindentally, all explicitly mentioned in the community guidelines)

Please explicitly state the categories

repeated, generalized, pejorative comments

Citations needed.

Since you brought up Micro.blog Community Guidelines, please cc @manton and @jean. They can discuss with me if I’m violating guidelines. If you don’t agree with what and how I blog, Micro.blog offers mute & block features. Use them.

@rcrackley, I hope you had a good night's sleep. I don't want to argue needlessly, but I need to push back on your rhetoric.

"privileged straight white rich Christian man" is clearly the group you are attacking in this post necause [sic] you see them as being "at the top of the food chain"

I was pointing out the fact that this group (not separately) has the highest privilege in the US. Yes, it's a fact. I mentioned this group to admit Ben H's Jewish faith. I would adjust that group if I were talking about Indian society. I find it interesting that you perceive me pointing out privilege as an attack. It literally proves the adage "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

To state the obvious, your attacks do not come close to representing all of the people you've chosen to tag.

So #NotAllMen?

repeated, generalized, pejorative comments.

Once again, I'm asking for citations for repeated. If I am pointing out how the dominant (not majority, although they are) class enjoys certain privileges that the historically oppressed classes don't is considered "pejorative," "attacking," or "denigration," you are proving the point I made in my original post.

Also, I might point out that invoking the community guidelines right away instead of directly engaging with me was akin to how the dominant class uses the system to silence people who tend to speak up. I saved you the trouble of "calling the cops on me" by calling them myself.

@pratik @rcrackley I'm late to the conversation but want to echo Pratik's points, particularly where they intersect with the Micro.blog community guidelines.

Building a resilient, thoughtful community includes agreeing that stress and discomfort will inevitably arise, particularly around the topics of systemic racism and white privilege, and the manner with which we address this stress and discomfort matters. Immediately invoking the community guidelines about perceived violations is not in this spirit.

There are skills we can practice to fortify our community instead: We can sit with our discomfort, asking ourselves what exactly about the statement is upsetting to us. We can consider the lived experience of the person speaking, especially if they have an identity that has been historically targeted and marginalized. We can ask each other clarifying questions, if we think words have been misused — staying curious rather than getting defensive.

@cygnoir @rcrackley Thanks for chiming in.

@jasonekratz Last thing I will say also. My point about Ben H's example was about how techies now openly embrace politics after giving us the impression that we shouldn't distract ourselves by discussing politics. He felt that the cause he talked about (not his Jewish faith) would be best advocated through politics than any other means.

BTW everyone works to get where they are. But it does matter where you start from.

@pratik @rcrackley To take a step back, we as a community have to be careful of debates turning into personal attacks. This is the risk of any generalizations of race, religion, etc. If I see myself in that group that is being talked about, I might take offense, even if the point was fair. That can't be avoided but we can work to lower the temperature. (We're not talking about Nazis here! We shouldn't be that far apart.)

@bix Thank you.

@manton Any update on this? Has Micro.blog decided whether I violated Community Guidelines or not? If not, what are the consequences for publicly weaponizing, as opposed to privately reporting, for filing a false report?

@pratik We are still sorting through what we can learn from this and what to post publicly vs. keeping it in private channels. As for further consequences, that doesn't seem appropriate to me at the moment. The guidelines should be a fairly loose framework to set expectations and handle problems, but they can't really resolve every disagreement, and I think that's okay. (Of course we're imperfect too and can always do more to improve things.)

@pratik lol I wish while ppl would just thank bipoc for imparting some free education on privilege that they really should've learned from their parents

@wrenman @pratik white obviously

@manton Once again, I’m not expecting you or anyone at Micro.blog to resolve any differences of opinion. But if the Community Guidelines have been invoked (not by me) then a decision must be made. Otherwise let’s not have them.

@wrenman Now you know how a majority of white people voted for Trump. I’m thinking we haven’t seen that high mark hit yet.

@pratik I'm more hopeful. dumb fucks will be dumb fucks

@pratik Usually the process goes like this: when someone's account is reported, we review the posts and if necessary reach out privately or take some other action. If no action seems warranted, that's the end of it, there's no extra "your post was actually fine" report. I honestly think private is better. @jean may want to say more later, but my goal is mostly to listen and deescalate.

@manton I understand that’s a correct way if that reporting was private. However, this accusation was made publicly. Basically, similar to calling 911 on that guy in the park photographing birds. When such a report is made publicly, it behoves Micro.blog to also adjudicate publicly and issue guidance on how to report violations of community guidelines. If nothing, this will prevent others from weaponizing it this way. I’m allowing myself to be a learning experience in spite of the self-doubt and chilling effect I am made to endure.

@pratik btw turns out I had muted the original poster a long time ago lol

@pratik My gut feeling is that it's really difficult to cover with any nuance in short replies, so I'd rather say less than cause confusion by trying to say "this is good", "this is bad"... Dunno, I might be wrong. For reporting, we always say send email or use the report button. Definitely thinking of how we can underscore this in the future.

@wrenman You were more prescient than I was but in this case, I had hoped he would’ve blocked me much earlier (he mentioned my “repeated” transgressions but never provided evidence) so my post didn’t trigger him. But it sure explains the anti-CRT backlash.

@manton “Your post [did not] violate(d) community guidelines. We will be in touch via email with more details.”

Ninety-six characters. Less if I did violate the guidelines. This is for public reporting of violations, as it happened in my case. Otherwise I agree with the handling.

@pratik @manton I've been holding my tongue for fear of speaking out of turn before moderation could happen but I find the fact that a user had to explain this to an admin to be unconscionable. As someone who has moderated communities in the past, I honestly think that this is the bare minimum when egregrious public callouts are made, especially if they are made using community rules to back it up.

I also have to question why "reverse-isms" are not a violation of community guidelines, apparently, since I was almost certain the person doing the callout would receive a warning about that. Maybe they did, privately, and I did not see it?

@pratik the good news is I'm finding a lot of good ppl to follow from this thread

@manton @jean I haven’t read, or rather remember, many of @pratik’s posts to say anything about if I think he violated the Community Guidelines or not. But I did want to chime in say that I agree that if the accusation was made publicly, the decision should be public too. I’m sure either Pratik or @rcrackley would be willing to course correct as needed, or use their free will to act in ways best for them while being compliant with the community.

@wrenman Glad you’re finding people to follow. This community has more good people than not. It’s always the few ignorant one who will lash out when made aware of their privilege.

@moonmehta Thanks, Jatan. We have been talking about related issues over the last few days but it’s never over.

@pratik @cygnoir I can't say anything better than @cygnoir said it. But I can say: What @cygnoir said.

@manton @jean One option for handling a situation like this would be to say: We have designated channels for reporting violations of community guidelines. Replies are not one of these channels. A comment made in replies but not reported is not a good faith use of community guidelines, but rather an appeal to them that seems designed to have a chilling effect on debate.

And then in addition to that, share any determination you have made in this particular instance.

I am sad to say I don't have the bandwidth for extensive debate and I do recognize that having the option to withdraw is an effect of my privilege.

But to me, as others have said, this seems like a prime opportunity for @rcrackley to mute @pratik and for Micro.blog to articulate values related to the community guidelines.

@KimberlyHirsh @cygnoir @pratik @jean Thanks. Yeah, reflecting on this now, not being more clear about public vs. private channels seems to have blown up more than the actual original reply. I should've called this out a few days ago.

@moonmehta @manton @jean @pratik and probably more who would be interested: perhaps there’s a way to meet in the middle when ruling on violations.

Instead of making rulings public when accusations are public, an admin could message and rule on a private thread involving all parties, then interject on the main thread that they have done so while linking to guidelines. If the parties wish to state publicly what the ruling was, they can, but hopefully the discussion can continue without further violations, regardless. It would be analogous to an authority figure calling the parties over to a corner, having a quick private chat, then publicly saying they’ve chatted with the people and expect everyone to stick to the rules before walking away. Admins can archive these private chats as evidence against repeat offenders who need more attention and/or harsher methods.

This isn’t perfect, but it think it combines the best of what both sides are expressing: handling violations sensitively while also making authorities present and involved in violations. I’m listening to what others think of this, and am prepared to be shown a flaw I haven’t considered.

@splinter @moonmehta @pratik @jean Interesting idea. That could be appropriate especially when there are two members of the community who disagree on what should be allowed.

@splinter @manton @jean This sounds fair. The admin only talks about whether the post violated the guidelines or not and not comment on the substance of the debate. That way the admin doesn't have to be a hall monitor on the tone or substance of the debate. Ideally, no individual person should be accusing the other person of violating community guidelines and instead should report it private to the admin. This can be done by any person in the community whether they are part of the conversation on not. This also applies to any subsequent replies but are applicable only to that particular reply.

@jasonekratz Mind if I spin off a reply to this in a separate thread? The best way would be to embed your reply above in a post, but I want you to know I'm not calling you out on it specifically. This thread has already become too unwieldy to know who's talking about what.

@jasonekratz Cool. After I'm done with work today.

@splinter Personally, I think its a good compromise, and might be a good way to handle things going forward.

@cygnoir Oh, yes, this. This.

@jasonekratz As promised, posted my response