Revisiting the difficult conversations that people don't want to have

With all due respect, Pam, "civility" can be a con

"Be civil" is more often than not the "polite" way of saying "sit down and shut up."

Of course reactionaries have changed over the years. Nowadays they're ;ikely to claim their hate-filled remakrs are "just a joke" and anyone who object to it is being "POlitically Correct."

The pool incident is more straightforward. They're racists and should be told that they're racists in no uncertain terms. It's up to THEM to do something about that fact. And if it's "uncivil" to call a racist a racist so beit. There is no "dialogue" to be had with such people. Thy're made up theri minds -- with hospital corners. What we should be doing is addressign the reast of the world, making it clear we're not going to put up with this crap.  

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:04:22 AM CDT

It can be a con, and it can be genuine

Vigorous debate can be held without threatening people, profuse use of profanity and demeaning language toward the other person and still hold people accountable for their actions and commentary. Sometimes it's just lazy thinking and cheap shots for effect, not to make a cogent argument.

Well the Don Imus's and Michael Richards of the world didn't get away with their "humor", despite the ridiculous claims that they aren't racist. The Valley Swim Club people deserve the label because they returned the money and told the group exactly why they did so. Other clubs that have the same sort of unwritten policy are probably on their heels right now.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:10:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah but the Valley SwiM Club didn't scream "NIGGER!" like Richards did.

See? They're "civil" in their abject racism.

True things can get out of hand on the net. But that can be managed. It's in real life where genuine problems come to the fore.  

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:50:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm torn -

- because instinctively, of course I agree with the idea that we should all be civil to one another.

But particularly online, I have seen the call to "be polite" used to shut down people trying to point out privilege. It seems that no matter how calmly-worded their comments, in many cases, even the inclusion of a word like "racist" (even if directed at a statement, rather than a person, i.e., "That statement is a little racist," or even, "That statement is problematic.") is interpreted as impolite.

And then the conversation turns to how impolite and rude that particular poster was, and no real discussion occurs.

I've also seen people of color in comments threads try to explain why something is problematic, and get peppered with very basic questions again and again, until the entire endeavor becomes a tremendous timesuck. But if they don't answer? Or say they are too tired to answer? Or that those questions have been answered before?

Rude. And therefore not worth listening to.

I guess I agree with the spirit of civility in online conversations, but find that so often that word is turned into another tool to silence voices.

---

by: echoecho @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:56:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"civility" can be a con, but civility is not a con

With respect David, any argument can be made in a civil way.

It is not true that argument about the tone of communication is automatically oppressive.  Somebody who is saying "shut up, you have no right to make your feelings on this known" and cloaking that in "civility" should be called out on that.  But to say "the WAY that you are making your point is speaking so loudly that nobody can hear your point" is completely fair, and sometimes necessary and valuable.

There seems to be a feeling that sometimes angry communication, venting, and even violent communication and/or action are sometimes justified or necessary.  While that might be true, it doesn't change the fact that the same messages can be communicated in a civil way.

---

by: mammab @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:33:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is a difference

between civility and being polite. I think this is where people don't get the idea of civil behavior. (And I should admit that there have been times when I have let emotion overcome common sense and let individuals lead me down the uncivil path). Its not always using "please and thank you." Its often about taking the time to think before you post.

Its also an issue of the tone of a post. This can be a gray area but it should be considered. I had a very recent example with this. Probably the best advice on blog posting I was given (by a friend at Media Matters) was.

Always read the entire post before you consider your response. After reading, take a minute or two to think about it. Look at the post within the context of the thread and than reply. Quick, hasty replies increase confusion and can lead to arguements.

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:25:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A (Im) Perfect Balance

I had to implement a comment policy on my blog. I resisted doing it for nearly two years, as the vast majority of my regulars act like adults when posting. Plus, I resisted a comment policy because I believe in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and I bristle at censorship.

The turning point came when a few dolts began taunting and stalking my regulars. I'm all for rigorous debate and blogs, especially political blogs, by their very nature means people will argue. That's all fine and well and I stay out of the fray. But, the taunting and stalking meant I had to do something and this year, for the first time, I've banned a number of people. Their IP addresses now go to Spam. I don't like doing this but I hold that people should feel safe in my house.

Everyone has a unique world view and life experience that informs their response to a particular topic. That's why I stay out it as much as possible. Oddly enough, I rarely encounter homophobia in the blogosphere and I certainly don't hide that fact I'm queer. On those rare occasions when I do encounter a homophobe, it's always on a liberal or progressive blog. This is one of life's great mysteries.  

People ask, "How have you guys managed to stay so long?" I tell them, "Don't sweat the small stuff." It's mostly small stuff.

---

by: christopher di spirito @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:31:45 AM CDT

What makes a comment or commenter civil...

Is the willingness not to degrade someone who holds an opposing or nuanced view.

It's also the willingness to allow that someone else's opinion comes from somewhere besides being "evil" or "immoral."

Civility involves being willing to listen even as we may try to find ways to counter a statement or an action.

There are some statements and actions that have become egregious, or are becoming egregious through the current efforts of activists.  This is as it should be.  Yet taking the time to find out the source of someone else's concerns, prejudices, fear, and yes, even hatred may give you the tools to diffuse those things, and set up an opportunity to live in freedom and peace.

I don't wish to live in a world where I have to cast people as haters.  I realize there are people who hate, and they can be difficult to live with.  In some cases, it may be best to simply move away from them;  we may not be able to keep or even let them into our lives.

But others may not be beyond being brought around.  They may come to see a person as a whole being, someone worth knowing, if they are exposed to others outside their comfort or belief zone, and they may reflect the respect we give them in disagreeing with them.  

Civility, if nothing else, buys us time to discern this.

This is the big one, folks.

Hate stops a beating heart.

---

by: KarenS @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:20:15 AM CDT

YES...THIS!!

is the very heart of the matter.

What makes a comment or commenter civil is the willingness not to degrade someone who holds an opposing or nuanced view.
It's also the willingness to allow that someone else's opinion comes from somewhere besides being "evil" or "immoral."

Generally you know that you've corssed the line when you go from discussing the comment to talking about the person making the comment. That happens waaaaay to often. Some people seem to have a hard time expressing themselves without making it personal.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 12:25:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are some pluses to virtual communities

Unfortunately, we're often made aware of commenters who use anonymity to be narcassistic bullys.  However, the web also gives us the opportunity to flesh out complicated arguments (it's generally not polite to talk at someone face-to-face for minutes at a time).  There's no requirement for immediacy on the web.  Prior to replying to comments, we can, as Mattkazoo suggests, take a deep breath, or even sleep on it.  When it comes to issues that we're largely ignorant of (say trans issues, or many issues centering on race), we have the power of the internet at our fingertips.  Prior to replying to a post, it's possible to look up basic information, and find out what other people have said in the past.

In some ways, I think that it's easier to have the difficult discussions online.  However, we all need to commit to reading and thinking before we post, and to genuienly considering other people's points of view.

---

by: eastsidekate @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:39:57 AM CDT

Can we have ratings back

so I can give this a 4?

That's exactly the upside of online--I get to roll out my ideas and know that they will be attacked or ignored, both of which are valuable feedback for my IRL activism.

The downside is the temptation to objectify or 'other' the people you're debating, but I think it's a worthwhile exchange to get to HAVE the conversation at all.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:52:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent point

There's a comment now that I fully intend to respond to, but I'm thinking about what I'm going to say. I've started to respond several times, reread what I've written, and gone up to hit the "home" link without posting it, because it didn't say what I wanted said, in the way I wanted it said. I can't do that face to face.

There's also a down side to the internet availability, especially when it comes to things like trans issues. I've googled and read quite a bit, and the only thing I've really learned is there's previous little agreement on pretty much anything. For every argument that says A, there's another that shouts B is the only reasonable option, and somewhere else says A and B are both full of crap, C is The One Truth. Which do I believe? And that leads me right back here, where over the last couple of weeks I've learned I don't have the right to ask questions, because I have to take the responsibility to educate myself (where? and with what? and how do I even know what questions I need answered?), and before I engage a trans person on pretty much anything past "Could you tell me what time it is?" I have to first apologize for systemic oppression that I had nothing to do with setting up, or maintaining, but is somehow my fault anyway. And I'm frustrated. As I'm sure this post makes clear.

I actually felt a little bit good about what I was learning prior to the last couple of weeks. Some of it was obvious, once it was pointed out, much of it wasn't, but made sense once it was explained. There were a couple sticking points I was having trouble wrapping my head around, but I figured that would come with time, more information, and some thought.

Once upon a time, we didn't have the internet, and we didn't have the information of the world available, just a few keystrokes away. If I wanted someone to know something, I had to take the time to tell them, and so did everyone else. There are times I miss that.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:17:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Civility is, to me....

Discussing, arguing, making a point, expressing yourself, ranting, soapboxing... or any other means of communication as long as it's done so that others feel they can offer their opinions.

I'm not sure I would equate civility with politeness.  Politeness feels deep-southy, sometimes fake.. just done for pleasantry.  Civility means, to me, that we can have spirited, passionate dialog without losing it.  Giving wide berth to misunderstanding, avoiding name-calling, etc etc.  If civility is used in argument a solution can be found.  

I guess that online, this means re-reading your comments and examining your anger before posting.  That's the beauty of an online community, you have the chance to think everything out and whether or not it inflames the discussion or brings out new ideas rather than shuts it down.

Even though it's a perk of online interaction... I still wish at times I were sitting around a coffee house with the people on here.  I think that would be fantastique.

---

by: flyerfier @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:37:52 AM CDT

decorum has a purpose

It's not so much a matter of being polite as staying on topic, and it isn't just the anonymity of the internet that sometimes fosters abuse. I've seen real-life board meetings derailed because the debate shifted from the business at hand to ad hominem attacks, and no business gets done at that point.

Robert's Rules has the original principle on decorum in debate.
http://www.constitution.org/rr...

Simplified, it means that you do battle on the business at hand, and dispute the arguments, not question motives or make personal attacks.

The real damage that, say, Rush and Newt and Karl have done to this country is that they manage to stifle most debates simply by a quick non sequiteur. Who cares if the other party has qualifications, a military record, or whatever experience that informs the debate, if in two or three sentences you can question their loyalty?

---

by: coram nobis @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:02:39 AM CDT

Definitely not true.

Pam said in this post, "I'm sure none of the members of The Valley Swim Club believe that they are racist."

From the perspective of a white gay male, I know it to be absolutely true that some white people are admitted racists and are actually proud of it. Case in point: I know a white gay christian male in NC who is still closeted at the age of 40. He makes derogatory racial jokes rather frequently. When I hear one from him I call him out on it and denounce it. His reply has always been the same, "You're not going to change my mind."

He truly believes in his heart that whites are better than blacks and should hold a position of superiority. He also believes that gay rights are not necessary and, at least outwardly, professes that he is just fine living his life in the closet.

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:12:43 AM CDT

I agree

I know people who are admitted racists. All of them are "friend of a friend" type aquaintances.

One of the things that my having blond hair and a name like "Fritz" means is that many people feel free to reveal their racist beliefs to me. Sometimes it is subtle and shrouded in code words. Other times is is blatant.

What it comes down to is someone letting me know that they prefer my company because of how I look. They make it clear that they believe we have a connection based on race.

Even when many of these racists discover that I don't share their views, they still want to associate with me because they view me as part of their preferred group. They try to change my opinion and bring me into the fold.

There are also many racist groups that have tried to recruit me. The first time I was aware of this this happening was in college. I was selected because of how I look and my ethnic heritage.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 15:25:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"taking a hostile digital dump"

   http://filmfanatic.org/reviews...

how V_I_V_I_D.

LMQAO!

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 16:57:09 PM CDT

a fortiori

Latest FaBlog: Fait Diver -- Swimming Pool

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 17:38:19 PM CDT

this post clarifies a lot IMO

In my own blogging I have tried to made it safe to discuss race by saying no question is dumb, and that mutual understanding can be gained only be holding discussions, not shouting sessions. What this requires from me, though, is a lot of listening, and self-censorship to a degree -- with those who disagree or are coming from a place of anger, resentment or fear, I really have no latitude to become angry or defensive. If I do, it only affirms the belief that the topic cannot be discussed and worse, they can't trust engaging any black person on the topic.

To me this says a whole whole lot about where this site is coming from -- who it centers in discussions, and its underlying approach to how systems of oppression operate. I appreciate this statement because it says some very important things about what this site is and isn't. It hurts me to see it, but at least it is clear.

You're describing a context where those who are the targets of oppression must absorb more pain in order to serve the needs of those who are the agents of oppression ... though it is seldom stated that bluntly in public and certainly isn't that blunt here.

I have seen this approach before in many contexts.

There was a white-dominated feminist organization I worked with years ago where behind closed doors, a white staff member told me very bluntly that while she recognized the patterns of racism in the organization (and she did, very clearly IMO), and while she was against racism and wanted the racism to end, the fact was that she valued her comfort level more than the pain that would come with honest, collective, action-oriented scrutiny of how racism functioned in the organization and what needed to be done to change it.

And also behind closed doors, a Latina woman working there told me about her experiences on the other side of that organizational situation that preserved the white women's comfort -- including a story where a white intern asked her an "innocently" racist question, and she was worried that her response (pain) would hurt the intern if she expressed it, so had to go into her office and do a breathing thing to calm herself and process the pain enough to be able to function as she was supposed to. And how she had to go to her family members outside the organization for help with her pain, while serving the white woman's need to learn and make mistakes and not showing her pain because that would hurt the innocent intern.

These two examples show a major thread in the organization's everyday culture that was visible elsewhere also. Patterns related to human-ness, comfort and pain. My observation was that that situation normalized the pain of women of color, made it normal and unremarkable and something that wasn't a concern. At the same time, the white women's comfort was also normalized. The only pain worth concern was that of the white women. And it showed in the everyday life of the organization, where friendliness (their version of civility) served to mask what was going on underneath.

we'll never know how to build bridges if people aren't willing to express their fears and ignorance without getting their heads bitten off. By the same token, no rational discussion about sensitive topics can take place if that expression is not really about engaging tactfully or diplomatically, but unloading frustrations in a way that is hurtful and shuts down conversation. That's what happens when people leave these discussions buried -- they come out in all the wrong ways, resulting flashpoints at the completely wrong time.

So from this perspective and given the first part quoted earlier -- if I am reading this correctly, the way power works is that if the members of the oppressed group don't practice prevention by caring for and center the feelings of those in the oppressor group, then those in the oppressor group may well do violence and harm from having things buried that come out later.

I understand that there are coping mechanisms for how to deal with the operation of power dynamics.  We all do what we feel we need to do in given situations to try to survive and cope inside this violent system and often it's freaking dangerous for someone on the target end to not take care of the feelings of the oppressor. Oppressors who are angry with you for not taking care of them properly can do real harm and violence, because that's what the system empowers.

There are major downsides to this approach too, which I won't name because this comment is long enough, and because I suspect that most people who read this from the standpoint of where they are targets of oppression already know, or will be able to perceive them with some reflection, privately if not publicly at least.

---

by: michelle @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 17:42:07 PM CDT

;)

Which also serves to show why the conversations are still not going to be had.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 17:59:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is your alternative?

Do we simply open the trapdoor and eject those who are uneducted?

I tried to have an educational discussion with a commenter last week regarding some feminist issues. He was simply uneducated and had difficulty understanding the concepts of a patriarchial society and androcentrism. This made his comments seem sexist and offensive. But, I think he was simply looking for answers.

Unfortunately, several others became abusive and called him names.

That's not right. It was not civil. It certainly didn't help make the world a better place.

In your example, you seem to assume that the women who ran that organization were not capable of being educated. Perhaps you just did not know how to go about doing it. Perhaps Pam's approach would succeed were you obviously failed.

There was a white-dominated feminist organization I worked with years ago where behind closed doors, a white staff member told me very bluntly that while she recognized the patterns of racism in the organization (and she did, very clearly IMO), and while she was against racism and wanted the racism to end, the fact was that she valued her comfort level more than the pain that would come with honest, collective, action-oriented scrutiny of how racism functioned in the organization and what needed to be done to change it.

And what did you do to change this person's mind? Did you try to have a dialogue? Did you view her as someone who was not capable of learning? Did you feel threatened? Fear violence?

It seems to me that you what you're suggesting is that it is too much to expect those of us who suffer oppression to advocate on our own behalf -- too painful, too much of an inequity.

Your comment has left me with many unaswered questions.  

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 18:21:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hi, Fritz

I'm not going to give a detailed answer to your questions about what I did in the example I used, because the nature of my participation in that organization was waaay too complicated and twisted a situation for me to give you an answer that isn't a million pages long.

But to clarify: In my assessment, what I did and didn't do was NOT effective. It was absolutely not. And to position myself a little bit more in what I was writing about, what I was doing in both of those conversations I described was asking questions and listening very closely - that was my formal role at the time, and for someone like me, it was a very ugly, wrong and twisted role for me to be enacting.

It seems to me that you what you're suggesting is that it is too much to expect those of us who suffer oppression to advocate on our own behalf -- too painful, too much of an inequity.

I think that members of oppressed groups absorbing the pain in order to act in certain ways is likely necessary as a strategy in some contexts. But it is a strategy that, like any others, comes with a serious downside.

My primary concern -- because of how I perceive -- is with deception. Protecting those who do harm from seeing the effects of their harm on other human beings is the promotion of some of the deception that lives at the core of this system: for example that in any given situation, some are more human than others, that certain kinds of violence/harm is normal and unremarkable, that the violence/harm swirling around because of these power dynamics  is not actually happening (not visceral) except at a protected calm theoretical distance.

I think that this approach requires those who are oppressed to be more than human (not react to the pain) while at the same time positioning those who are oppressed as less than human (because their/our pain isn't a matter of concern). Sure we can do it, but it requires acting as agents/supporters of some of the lies the system tells about us.

I think this approach also dehumanizes those acting in the role of oppressor. To harm another actual being but evade seeing the effects of the harm, to be protected from what is actually going on, this dehumanizes those who are being protected. They/we are so delicate that we can't handle seeing reality and so they/we must be protected from the effects of our actions. I say this from a variety of positions, including self-knowledge about what this protection does to me where I am an agent of oppression.

And this whole dynamic is so deeply embedded at every level that I have seen of how the insanity works as to be essential to it.

On the upside, this strategy responds to the real fact that those acting in the oppressor role are over-empowered by the system in that role and can be dangerous. So a person or group acting from the oppressor role may need to be sweet-talked or otherwise dealt with very carefully for the sake of really basic survival kinds of things.

Also,  in my observation it is true that those who are oppressed may be able to not show our pain when we need to mask it to cope and survive. I myself don't glorify that, but it can be intensely necessary and it is a survival skill as far as I am concerned.

I don't think it's either-or in terms of strategy; we're in a really insane violent system here are there is no easy path in dealing with its insanity. For me in particular, the important thing is ruthless honesty about the upsides and the downsides of any given strategy.

And I recognize that the downside of ruthless honesty is that it can sometimes reveal too much and have bad results because this whole thing is so freaking insane.

---

by: michelle @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 19:07:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's not protecting anyone, it's ignoring fact

My frame of reference has always been Jackie Robinson, as in almost every case of my personal professional history I have been the first black woman or the first POC in the position I held. I was very cognizant that for good or ill, others who followed me would be judged by my performance.

Jackie Robinson paid a huge psychological and health price for taking the abuse, the vile insults, the death threats not by being an angry Negro, but by showing that he could excel despite it. Branch Rickey of the Dodgers was very explicit with him that Robinson was hired to be the first black in the majors precisely because he had the right talent and temperament. A talented black man who was going to goad and speak out would not have helped the cause for other black players who came behind.

And Barack Obama is president because he knew that he couldn't show wild swings of emotion and win. Our society still likes its Sidney Poitier safe version of the black man, and as we saw during the campaign, even a mild-mannered biracial man drew out the ugly racism still embedded in society.

Is this approach right? No it's necessary. Every individual should be judged individually, but minorities have too much evidence to the contrary to believe minorities of any kind when they are the only one in a group particularly, don't have to be more accommodating of the oppressor to make the dialogue happen. But I think those in the oppressor class don't take time to think of the unfair burden that creates.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 04:47:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

thank you for this Pam -- it adds additional clarity

Pam, IMO your comment adds even more clarity on where you're coming from and where the site is coming from given you're its owner.

I appreciate this clarity very much.

But I think those in the oppressor class don't take time to think of the unfair burden that creates.

IMO, in this particular set-up ... those in the oppressor class simply aren't going to do that (or if they do it will be for show, not for real). The power dynamic between the oppressor group and the ones who are bearing the pain you describe is configured so that members of the oppressed group naturally are supposed to serve their "betters."

So from the oppressor standpoint, this situation is precisely as it should be. It is not an unfair burden from that standpoint, it's what the oppressed owe the oppressors -- it's only the oppressor group's right, their entitlement. At that level of the situation, it's not unfair and not a burden, it's what the members of the oppressed class are there for, to the extent that they even have the right to exist in the first place.

Is this approach right? No it's necessary.

Yes. I see that the approach you're describing is necessary for the goals/desired outcomes you're talking about here. I agree that it is necessary for those goals/outcomes given how power dynamics operate in this society; all evidence I have seen points to that as true.

I also know that other goals/desired outcomes have different necessities, and that there are struggles over this kind of thing among and between members of oppressed groups.

To me the main thing for any of us is to be clear on what we're doing and why. So again, I appreciate the the additional and IMO very useful clarity of your comment.

---

by: michelle @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 16:56:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Having difficult conversations needs to not only include lists of banned words

It needs to factor in INTENT. If someone asks something clumsily or awkward, but shows an intent with no ulterior motive or mean spirit. That is significantly different than someone goating and pushing people's buttons with the INTENT to harrass and hurt. Maybe civility means you give people the benefit of the doubt, until they show their intent is otherwise.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 18:31:22 PM CDT

goading...typo

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 20:44:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Painting with words

I think something that may hinder honest discussions is overuse of negative descriptive words. One I have noted used quite often is 'oppression' and 'oppressor'.

First off, these are very strong words. When I hear 'oppression', the first things I think of are Stalinist Russia or the Warsaw ghetto. In these discussions we are talking about unconscious social attitudes that cause disadvantage to certain groups of people. Certainly, in an academic sense this is oppression, but it is a far cry from the kind of real oppression you see against gay people in Iran or Nigeria or against trans people in Jamaica.

Above, michelle makes references to real life and online interactions with an "agent of oppression" and a member of "the oppressor group". Don't you see how that will colour your discussions in a negative way? Even if you don't use those words aloud, in your mind you addressing the other person as an enemy. You are applying a very broad and negative group description to the individual you are speaking with and making assumptions about their intent. By considering the person who you are talking with to be a willful "agent of oppression" you are mentally putting them beyond reach of being educated on the subject.

And of course, if you actually do call the person an oppressor, it will provoke defensiveness where there was previously an honest attempt to learn and try to shed innocent ignorance.

Similarly, many discussions of privilege have veered away from trying to educate people about privilege they did not realize they held and instead attacking them merely for having privilege.

I have white skin and I am reminded of the privilege that gives me whenever I am out and about with my biracial cousin. I was painfully aware of my white privilege when I was the only white student in a Native high school and the white teachers treated me very differently than they did the other students.

Since I can't change the colour of my skin, I can't stop others from conferring undeserved privilege upon me, so attacking me for it doesn't accomplish anything. However becoming conscious of this privilege informs the way I interact with others and gives me some understanding of what disadvantages other people may face.

Educating people is hard work and can be frustrating at times when they are slow to understand, but that is the best way forward. Attacking someone for their membership in a demographic or for their ignorance is much less effective and may even be counterproductive.  

---

by: Stephanie @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 06:42:44 AM CDT

Educate Me Please

I ask this in all honesty Pam, as a white man, 57 years old, raised in the South, adult years in the West.

The Swim Club Case:

Woman afraid multi racial kids would harm her child: pretty obviously racist

Swim Club itself: I am not so quick to judge.  I was quick to judge then this evidence came in.

City thought it would close pools for summer.

Swim Club entered into contracts with a couple of Day Care programs like the one in questions to give the kids a chance to swim.

Day Care showed up with lots of kids and swam - lots of kids - took over pool.  As a past WSI and life guard, I understand how kids can take over a pool ( or how the 6 kids visiting my buddies for the summer can take over a house!!!)

Swim Club decided it simply could not handle the number of kids and the additional noise and activity in its pool with its original club members.  Gave money back to Day Care.

Gave money back to other Day Care program with multi racial kids.  Other day care program does NOT see racism at all.

Swim Club has White, Black, and Asian members - young and old.  Black kids use the pool regularly according to the stories I read in CNN.

This case sure does sound like racism and smells like racism but is it racism on behalf of the Swim Club (not the idiot woman)???

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

---

by: Dagon @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 13:42:49 PM CDT

The law and online civility

It would be nice if at least the general legal limits on speech applied online.  Of course, they are impossible to enforce without forcing blogs to reveal the posters "true" identities, i.e. IP addresses.

However, I do think it is appropriate that defamatory, libelous, or slanderous speech carries civil penalties. As in the non-online world, people would be held responsible for intentionally damaging another person's reputation.  This would mean that plenty of politically incorrect speech would still be allowed, but not speech that causes actual harm to an actual individual.

---

by: Repeal8 @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 17:18:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Pam, but in the interests of civility and such, lets break this down...

>The Swim Club Case:

>Woman afraid multi racial kids would harm her child: pretty obviously racist

Agreed. But 1) this was not the only reported comment, 2) comments were brought to the attn of the camp director, who talked to the club director who "seemed apologetic." 3) if the comment from the lifeguard was accurate, s/he is a club employee and represents the club. If s/he is not held responsible, it's tacit agreement on the part of the club.

>Day Care showed up with lots of kids and swam - lots of kids - took over pool.  

It wasn't a day care, it's a camp. Other reports have said that the camp told the club how many kids to expect. That's normal procedure, isn't it, to be asked how many kids are coming? When I taught nature education for the City of PHiladelphia, we have a good count of how many kids were expected on any given day. If you are running a business that in part takes money from outside groups, you should know your capacity and hire extra people for that 90 minute session. It wasn't as if the kids were there all day.

>Swim Club decided it simply could not handle the number of kids and the additional noise and activity in its pool with its original club members.  Gave money back to Day Care.

According to the reports, the camp was NOT given that reason when the money was refunded. If it had, I'm sure the camp could have diffused the situation. The fact that it took 4 days to refund the money (on a holiday weekend where I'm pretty sure the pool was open) is problematic - wouldn't you know that day, if you were the director, that your pool was overcrowded?

>Gave money back to other Day Care program with multi racial kids.  Other day care program does NOT see racism at all.

Maybe because they had different experiences and didn't get ill treatment and rude comments that were not suffiently addressed by management.

>Swim Club has White, Black, and Asian members - young and old.  Black kids use the pool regularly according to the stories I read in CNN.

Fine. But there is a difference between membership and attendance. Were any visible minorities there on that day? Were the people making the comments either directly to or in the hearing of the campers visible minorities? All signs point to no.

Also, there are lots of subtle racists who have no problems w/ individual minorities, small groups, etc. or even non-African-American minorities. There are lots of subtle racists who see more than 4 black children together, especially boys, together, and think "gang!" or worse. Thank you, MSM.

>This case sure does sound like racism and smells like racism but is it racism on behalf of the Swim Club (not the idiot woman)???

1. as stated above, possibly/likely far more than one woman (although I'm with you on the idiot part).

2. At the very least, the club director and possibly the administartion in general is tone-deaf and insensitive. The multiple excuses that have come out (it was overcrowded, the camp kids couldn't swim) after the fact does NOT pass the smell test. And history is not on the side of the swim club.

3. It doesn't matter what the club director intended. The fact that people are offended and have stated exactly what the problems were means that he is under an obligation to address their concerns and acknowlege that he understands where they're coming from, even if it wasn't intended. The director should not be making additonal explainations after the fact if he truly gives a good damn about being anti-racist.

---

by: lyonside @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 19:05:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent points!

The administion has not addressed the concerns raised but has made the mistake of coming out with first one then another "explanation"  He has yet to address the idiot members comments.

You have made most excellent points and I thank you.  

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

---

by: Dagon @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 02:21:35 AM CDT

Sometimes something Civil is missread as Uncivil because it is discomforting

I've experienced it plenty with anti-intellectualism on some sites where anything carefully and civilly and intellectually written that a person cannot argue against is considered uncivil or a personal attack no matter how politely written, sourced and refferenced etc because of the way it makes the other person feel.

And I've seen it with other issues where people read in their own negative interpretations of posts that was not actually there in the text itself.

Usually these skewings of meaning come from a position of privilege. Double-standards go unnoticed and I've seen Mods on some sites use blatent ad-homs against polite posters raising discomforting views, carefully worded and civil posts are missunderstood as hostile, valid complaints against biased moderation are seen as further attacks or troublemaking no matter how softly worded.

And all this with the privileged feelling they have been attacked when instead those they have labelled as uncivil are the victims. And when those victims do get angry or uncivil this is used as validation of the erroneous view that they'd been uncivil all along. Silencing the discomforting voice quite effectively, maintaining the bias and privilege and all without self-awareness that this is what has happened.

Or alternatively there is the 'false balance'. Where the biased majority is allowed to shout down or drown out the disquieting minority.

Or where clear 'baiting' is allowed (often considered as 'civil') so that the minorities, feelling perpetually under assault from bigoted views get either driven away or are provoked into anger and then banned.

See often civility can be itself a veil, the cloak that hides the venomed dagger. Cruel attacks can be couched in a civil tongue.

And also sometimes emotion is justified. We are human, not machines. And when i read for example the attempted suicide rates for Australian GLBT youth and that depression and suicide initiatives like Beyond Blue focus on much less vulnerable groups even though the GLBT stats are on their own site (and the only proper mention of GLBT there!) showing they have known about the extent of the problem and yet focussed instead on other less at-risk and more perceived-as-popular groups I'm entitled to get angry and i think it's justifiable to say they have comitted murder-by-negligence and have blood on their hands because of their inaction. No, sometimes anger and emotion are perfectly valid responses and careful excessive politeness can be a betrayel of the immensity, the severity, the seriousness and the horror of the issue.

Now there is a difference between baselssly attacking someone and legitimately calling a liar a liar or a negligently-killing-children organisation a negligently-killing-children organisation. The first is definately uncivil, the second is apt, appropriate and justified so long as it is true and of course public retractions if a claim turns out to be untrue is the proper response and not "gee beyond blue, any chance you could please mention GLBT kids 1 in 3 + attempted suicide rate in between all the post-natal-depression and rural-male-suicide stuff cause while those are important they aren't as high as the GLBT stuff pretty please, you have known about the stats for a while now... oh, come back later? ok" which takes politeness to the sycophantic. No sometimes anger is appropriate. It needn't be invective. I don't have to call beyond-blue goat-interfering child-murderers. Simply negligent child-murderers should be fine, keeping it just to what is accurate.

Now I've seen far more of these problems on other sites but I've seen too much of them here on the blend. And I hope that the next step in understanding the deeper levels of ettiquette and diplomacy are understood in this discourse...

That an essential part of civility is fairness, and that there are levels of unconscious bias, from unconscious racism and sexism to transphobia and homophobia that bend the goal-posts and distorts viewpoints and make the civil look uncivil.

Not to mention things like cultural bias (example: amongst many Australian indiginous peoples traditions a direct question is utterly rude! At best it is usually not answered at all and ignored as if it was never spoken)

---

by: battybattybats @ Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 07:27:43 AM CDT