Fugitivus Discussion Forum

EDIT (Tevarre): This topic has been split from this thread, per Quixotess' suggestion. The discussion refers to responses to this post. I've tried to maintain the flow of conversation; if you want me to return your post to the original conversation, please let me know.

I am generally a logic bomber. Am I right in assuming this is a response to what happened on the fatphobia thread? If not, sorry for being so narcissistic.

I am usually pretty calm and will go through the whole rational argument thing. But, if the person is extremely condescending in zir BS argument, it tends to trigger me into nuke mode. I am totally cool with logical discourse and debate. I don't think that anger is usually a good tactic. But, I also think that people can be really rude when they insult people's intelligence as part of their arguments, and it is especially bad when they, themselves, are wrongity wrong.

I don't take being talked down to well. It has always been a trigger for me. I am intelligent and I know health topics really, really well. When someone is privileged, rude, and wrong on a topic like fatphobia, anti-breastfeeding, pregnancy and birth, reproductive rights, etc., I tend to respond harshly. If someone is questioning and admits they aren't fully informed, that is much different.

It's not a response as such, though it did draw my attention to the fact that we on this forum seem to have a slightly greater vocal majority of nukers, something I've noticed before but didn't have the words to express at the time. I know it's old ground to tread, and it can come off as a definite silencing technique to point it out, but I'm really scared of the possibility of alienating potential allies - I liked what the article writer said about starting with the nuke, and then appeasing, sometimes with different people who have different styles getting involved, because it's not fair to expect any individual to be able to pull out the appeasing tactics when their emotional experience has made them more of a nuker in general style and desire.

I think context is important. In an explicitly progressive space like this board, I'd hope that everyone here would at least be an ally. When one of us fucks up in a hurtful way, whether through some explicit expression of -isms or through condescending or otherwise hurtful and/or dismissive language, the rest of us should not be required to soothe and appease. Someone who is actually committed to being an ally may be hurt, but will think about it and come to a realization that the behavior was inappropriate. A cookie monster, on the other hand, may be alienated, but wasn't much of an "ally" in the first place. And I'm saying this as someone who has received righteous smackdowns in the past, had my feelings hurt, but thought about what prompted the anger. Eventually, in each case, I realized that yeah, I was being a privileged douche and resolved to fix that. An ally is someone who is engaged in the struggle because it is the right thing to do, not because they want to be seen and lauded as someone who does the right thing.

Man, I hope that didn't come off as nukey.

Um how dare you


Cookie Monster is pretty much the biggest Fat Acceptance/HAAS ally out there.

In all seriousness, though, you are bringing up some very good points. This forum, and the blog that spawned it, are not Feminist 101 sites. They're environments meant only for people who have made a commitment to social justice and everything that entails - which usually includes being on the receiving end of righteous anger after a privileged fuck-up.

Just going off-topic to say: LOL Karalyn. XD <3

I haven't seen a problem with excessive nukers on here, but it's a subjective opinion, I guess.

I am not worried about alienating concern trolls. Potential allies, yes. I am definitely up to discussing this on this thread or via IM, and I am not sure where to go with this discussion from here, because it sort of is skirting around the topic of a specific incident with me and another specific member. I am afraid further discussion of this, at least where I want to go with it, will get pretty specific. If anyone has an issue with it, please feel free to let me know. I can also move my post or this whole thread to High Noon. However, I am the mod for High Noon. So, there it is. I may be setting the tone for this by default.

I think there is plenty of room elsewhere in the interwebs for people who do not get the fundamental issues we seem to want a safe space for on here. If someone can't get it that a thread on fatphobia shouldn't involve "but it's just so unhealthy! diabetes!!" (especially with major condescending fail), or that a thread about relationships on this board probably shouldn't include a statement that says all relationships are somewhat abusive so we can't define what is abusive, or that a post about a woman condemned to be stoned to death in Iran probably shouldn't contain the theory that she may have been involved in her husband's murder even if she was never really convicted for that, then is this really the board for appeasing them? If the members seem to think so, then fine. I just don't think a board with a CoC like ours is the place to appease that behavior. If all of those behaviors had been done by different members, that would be one thing. All by the same member? Not someone I would call a potential ally.

This is not my board. I happen to be a mod, but that was sort of by default. I do not necessarily want this to be a thread on a particular member's behavior, nor a thread about my behavior, but it seems to be.

I also am not sure what people seem to want out of me as a mod. I don't tend to do the whole mod voice thing, since the boards I was involved in as a mod didn't do that. I am more of a discusser, even if my discussion does end up being a nuke, occasionally.

What is more chilling to the type of space we want on here? My reaction or the (admittedly somewhat subjectively) troll-like behavior I reacted to? I promise not to nuke opposing viewpoints. Well, as long as the authors don't state that any mod worth hir salt would agree with them, not me. ;p

*Edited one spelling error*

For what it's worth, I think your response in the fatphobia thread would have been fine even were you an ordinary member rather than a mod. As you are a mod, I'm glad you called out the repeated and problematic condescension as well as responding to the immediate FA fail - I think that was more appropriate than letting it slide again would have been. I originally voiced my support of you via PM because I didn't want to start a big fuss in case I was the only one who felt condescended to/really aggravated by a number of the mansplainy posts, but since the topic is coming up publicly anyhow, screw it.

What I'd like from mods on this board is someone who looks out for maintaining the board as a space that is conducive to non-101 discussions of issues, and who remains aware that a lot of us members (maybe even the majority of us) are survivors of violence and abuse, including manipulation. This is not a place to do a lot of hand-holding for people who want to be seen as allies but have to be convinced and bribed with cookies into doing any actual *work*. I think it's OK to have the expectation that participants on this board will all already be committed to being anti-sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/fatphobic. We may screw up sometimes, and disagree with each other, even sharply, but here's the thing - those of us who are committed will not be alienated by being told "you done fucked up" and demanding that we be nice and sweet and appeasing to someone who is being hurtful is not appropriate here. I think it's fine if those of us with the inclination and energy to gently explain the error of someone's ways do that when they feel like it, but I don't think that should be the expected or required response to hurtful or problematic posts. Especially as this is a board where a lot of members have survived abusive situations. Speaking only for myself here, that kind of expectation of appeasement and beseeching them to change when they do something hurtful is something I have had enough of for one lifetime, thanks. Especially in this specific case, where the hurtful individual is one with a history of condescending, -splainy behavior that indicates a basic lack of respect for the intellectual capacities of the other members.

Damn, that got kind of rambly and emotional. Let me sum up: This is not a 101 space, and I'm glad the mods (in this case MomTFH) remember that the forum is not a 101 space and that the members are not required to placate those that hurt them, especially as many of us have already had a bellyful of that shit in other, previous contexts. Also, the "anti-nuke/alienation" concern thing sounds *really* close to concern trolling about tone - something that I find incredibly aggravating.

Thanks, Isabel Knight. That is what I thought was the sort of board I was supposed to be protecting. Again, I am not counting "votes" for me or anything, but based on the reaction on this thread and on the fatphobia thread, I think the members want a certain type of safe space.

And, I forgot to mention before - Karalyn LOL!

I do feel like there are a lot of nukers on this board, or at least from interactions that I've been part of/witnessed I have gotten an overwhelmingly nukey vibe, but I don't feel like that means there is anything problematic about that. I don't think there is any judgment call one way or another towards one end of the spectrum or the other being better or worse than the other, they're just different styles, and if we have a lot of people on here who express themselves that way that's an OK thing. The "problem" with Nuker behavior isn't in the behavior itself so much as that other people tend to get defensive about it and freak out like OMG YOU ARE SO ANGRY AND HOSTILE but I feel like (as has already been expressed in better words than mine) this is a space where we should be past knee-jerk defensiveness if people are called out on stuff.

As for me, I am not sure what I am because in interactions with friends and all I am pretty much quiet and laid back and Appeasey and I think I tend towards that online more often than not too; I am the sort who wants everything to always be peaceful and everyone to always be getting along in personal-interaction-levels.
But then, when it comes to certain other facets of my activism I am completely totally an angry kerchief-on-face Nukey anarchist. So I guess it depends on my venue.

Both places I definitely am far more emoter though. I am not logic bombey at all.

While I don't think nuking is inherently problematic, I would like to get some responses on how people feel it fits into the social space we have here. The issue I'm having is pretty context-specific: given the number of people who've spoken about having issues with social anxiety here, and the stress we've put on making the forum a safe discussion / support space above all else, I worry that overwhelmingly nuke-y responses endanger that.

Edit for clarity/completeness/I don't feel like I've quite explained myself yet:

Even when people are gettin mainsplainy in the space, if our first focus is gonna be on safety, then we need to have a more nuanced approach to making sure that the space is kept safe from the douchebro stuff, (because I don't think there's anyone who's in any way interested in making this a 101 space in its entirety) in a way that doesn't make it feel socially unsafe, or that makes people feel that diversity of opinion (or opinion that hasn't been specifically endorsed) is unwelcome.