Recent plankings
There's something bugging me about two recent plankings.
There's a pattern.
Is there something about our rules that makes it particularly difficult for Conservative posters to remain within them? I mean, you know me, clueless lefty, not sure whether God exists and hoping he's not the guy Fundies believe in, so my life is much smoother without political or religious conservatives, but oughtn't we be able to accommodate them for, you know, actual debate?
There's a pattern.
Is there something about our rules that makes it particularly difficult for Conservative posters to remain within them? I mean, you know me, clueless lefty, not sure whether God exists and hoping he's not the guy Fundies believe in, so my life is much smoother without political or religious conservatives, but oughtn't we be able to accommodate them for, you know, actual debate?
Comments
I think it's a category error mistaking fascists/ very far right authoritarian supporters of personality cults for conservatives. They're not conservatives by normal/ former standards- even if they want to pretend they are or trumpet that they are. They've stolen other people's clothing. Normal old school conservatives weren't supporters of white/ other extreme supremacisms or authoritarian personality cults.
Our C1 bans racism and all the isms. People sign up to that when they join but fascists/ authoritarians sign up either completely insincerely or with poor understanding that what they do breaks what they signed up to. They then quickly break the rules they signed up to with obvious consequences.
Happens with the MAGA/ Trump ones - and it's because they support the embodiment of everything C1 tells posters isnt on, yet they sign up anyway - with the obvious results we see.
That's the pattern - it's fascists not fundies and they sign up to rules which by the nature of that belief they cant sincerely keep.
As far as debate goes, I believe that one of the purposes of engaging with another person's point of view is to understand why they hold it.
If you believe that someone else's view is harmful, I see two options (at least). One is to counter the view, which involves understanding the view and being prepared to engage with those who hold it. Another is to oppose the view - which (in my understanding) typically involves disengagement, leading to polarisation, which is one of the roads leading to conflict.
It seems to me that we have longstanding conservative shipmates, albeit quite few now, but modern conservatism seems both inexorably linked to -isms that violate C1 and to bad-faith forms of "debate". The Trump Hell thread has become a checklist of gish gallops, false equivalences, goalpost shifting, and general refusal to engage in substantive debate. It's Hell, so substantive debate is not required, but there has been no sign that conservative posters want to engage in Purgatory either, and engaging successfully in Epiphanies would require them to have done enough self-examination that it's unlikely they'd be that sort of conservative any more.
They have their own sites where they dont have to follow any rules and can say what they really think about Black people, Jews, Muslims etc - if you really want to understand them and see them in action that's where you'll see it out in the open for the better understanding but obviously such stuff affects others - especially those they target.
I dont think it's really possible or desirable for both fascists and the people they target to be hosted together as a community in a way where those targeted by fascists aren't affected.
Again it comes back to mistaking fascist/ authoritarians for old style Creationists/ Conservatives.
They're not. This is a different thing.
They break the rules because those rules (our basics) contradict their basics.
I have done both IRL.
Option One turned out too painful. I was trying to engage with and understand them, but they had no wish at all to understand me.
I now opt for option Two.
Unless I'm defending those who are far away from my situation and difficulties - therefore the words of the person, although painful and horrible, don't affect me personally.
I have been concerned, though, on recent occasions, at the difficulty there seems to be in enabling even-handed debate and good disagreement on board. I try and note which category a discussion is taking place in, but I find myself reluctant to contribute to some Shipboard conversations, because of unease at the way participants interact.
I suppose I would place myself somewhere a little left of centre politically and also in matters of faith, but the essence of good discussion is the ability to give a voice to all, the only boundaries being the laws of the land. I admit I have felt uneasy at some of the responses to those who clearly stand well to the right of many Shipmates: I would like to think this was a welcoming Ship and (Hell perhaps excluded) a courteous and charitable one, so this development pains me.
Voltaire never actually said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (it was the creation of his biographer a century later) - but it does more or less express my own view, and I have used it in many contexts including council chambers in support of the right to be heard even of those whose views I find totally abhorrent.
I don't envy those who are Hosts or Admins!
I would respectfully disagree. The law of the land does not forbid advocacy of mass murder so long as you frame it as a future action by the state and don't directly incite violence or hatred on the basis of a protected characteristic. Good discussion requires that a platform only be given to this interested in good discussion, and that is not possible for people who, by their allegiances, apparently want to see other shipmates murdered, imprisoned, or worse.
It's a choice - harassment and hate speech have always been used to assert the dominance of powerful groups and to drive the less powerful out of their spaces. As soon as that is righted, the aggressors against minorities cry ' freedom of speech' so they can return to putting women and minorities back in their place and making spaces hostile and costly for us to inhabit.
If the entry price is being subjected to misogyny, racism, homophobia or ablism all the time, then the people who are routinely subjected to those attacks pay a higher price to inhabit a space than those who aren't.
Those who dont pay the higher price so much often 'tone police' - demanding that those attacked or in danger in real life from the aggressors be polite and welcoming and charitable to the people who are dehumanising them and campaigning to remove their human rights - and that adds to the exhaustion.
Some of us will pay the price to fight back - but it's still discrimination and eventually the people most subjected to those attacks both in everyday and here usually get exhausted and withdraw, or get so angry they can be tone policed by hosting for quite understandably attacking their attackers back.
There isnt a happy land where fascists dont fash and play nicely by the rules against attacking minorities. If they were into playing nicely with others they wouldn't support groups or authoritarian leaders aiming to murder, deport or oppress those others.
Nostalgia for a different sort of conservative and a different time is totally understandable but this is where we are - a world where the rise of the far right under authoritarian leaders, and the rigged/ phony 'debate' styles based on misinformation they embrace which @Arethosemyfeet mentions are a thing.
I think this is an obvious and detectable thing and clearly in breach of our rules. Our rules choose the attacked minorities over the far right authoritarian attackers - and I believe rightly so.
If someone tries to adopt a slur as a ship name we wouldn’t accept their registration. I am not platforming shipmate Nword. Again I don’t think that is particularly controversial, there is a question of where we draw the line after that, that is not easy to define.
I'll admit, as someone who still has some smidges of consideration for the idea of free debate, that it bugs me to start censuring folks merely for their political preferences, even if they're unpleasant. Honestly, some forms of low-grade racism seem tolerable - if only for educational purposes. I have a pet theory that censorship sometimes leads to encouragement because it creates shadow-communities were the forbidden attitudes can thrive.
Sometimes I try to categorize things as "class A, class B, class C racism" to give myself a sense of how to deal with people. And there's also a sense in my mind that all white people are a little racist, so it's a little hypocritical of us to say we can't stand any racism. We all fall short of the glory of God, so to speak.
That said, most of us aren't promoting the Klan. And seriously, I'm quite happy saying that even if those types should get some help, that kind of help isn't something the ship is up to providing. I might be more willing than some to wade into those waters and I don't think I'm necessarily qualified.
And I would not want to platform that kind of thing. The fact that the ship is a corporate person with a corporate reputation to protect is certainly important.
On a tactical level, the "do not crusade" rule is important here. If someone wanders in here who happens to be a political conservative and also has a personality besides being a political conservative, I could deal with that. And if they could be gently encouraged to be a fuller human being without getting roped into the trap of continually arguing politics, that could be healthier. We've had personae on the ship like this in the past. I could name a few. People come and go here from time to time. But if it seems like someone comes here for the pure purpose of arguing on behalf of a conservative worldview, that's a kind of crusading. The irony that a lot of cultural conservatives envision themselves as latter day crusaders does not escape this crusty social justice warrior.
Similarly (and I have sometimes worried at this) if I found myself doing nothing but arguing about intersectional politics, I suppose that could be viewed similarly. And sometimes I do ride that hobby horse a lot.
The other thing that comes to mind is the now-old joke about The Terrible Sea Lion. There is an art to very politely and respectfully arguing for terrible opinions, and it's rather nefarious. I've occasionally encountered people who do it. It's annoying, people who devote themselves to the form of argumentation in defense of some truly repulsive substance. I suspect some fundamentalists are like this, practicing deductive logic to hide their absolutely rotten axioms. Those are challenging, perhaps best left ignored unless you're really into that sort of thing.
I dunno. If I had a vote I think I'd handle such people on a case-by-case basis. I think "Trumpers" are by political preference jerkish and will often violate the rules because of the fundamental nature of their political convictions. They're devoted to rudeness and coarse "will to power" on principle. For that reason I wouldn't worry overmuch about policy.
And if a Sea Lion shows up, I do enjoy an occasional snack. There might be some of us who still keep those rusty tools lying around, if we still have the spare time, per the old ways.
As others have said, it's very difficult to imagine a genuine fascist or racist actually being able to respect others existence enough to really engage in meaningful discussion. But, maybe at some point someone will come along and prove that "very difficult" is not the same as "impossible". But, we have some long standing shipmates who are more conservative than the majority of people here, and they have demonstrated that it's quite possible to be conservative and courteous, to disagree with respect for the other people you're in conversation with.
So what ideology would you classify Enoch Powell under?
I had an essay all typed up to respond to this because I have too many thoughts, but one essay per day is enough for me.
It might depend on where you think white supremacism turns into extreme white supremacism. It also might depend on how much milder expressions of white supremacism become supportive of extreme white supremacism even if they do not intend to.
And the question of intent there is a very loaded one.
This might be getting into my model of class A, B, and C racism. Whether casual, even unconscious racism is a feeder for extreme, outspoken racism is a question. Not sure if that's a thread for Purgatory or Epiphanies, but hoo boy, that could be at thread.
Speaking a an Epiphanies host, that would definitely be an Epiphanies thread, and yes an interesting one though it would want framing. And links to sources including those own-voice sources.
We certainly didn't normally or more than very occasionally get Enoch Powell level racists on the Ship calling themselves conservatives and that kind of racism led to a prompt acquaintance with the plank from the ship's very beginnings.
MAGA, which isn't necessarily 'conservative' as much as it is 'pro-authoritarian/nationalist' has opened the floodgates and approved of all kinds of virulent expression. I'm not suggesting the two recently planked shipmates are MAGA, but MAGA -- arguably on the heels of the harsher side of Brexit -- has influenced other right and right-leaning politics to the point that spillover behaviors are running amok, and even lesser conservatives are failing to tamp themselves down to adjudicated levels of discourse in other spheres.
FWIW although I was expecting the one I saw to eventually be planked, I was surprised he wasn't given a warning first as he was so new.
Religious conservative really never normally equated to pro-authoritarian zealous racist in the UK over the past 25 years, and we have American shipmates who are Conservative Christian anti-racists so it isnt the case that the two are the same in the US either.
I think there is something different going on politically though. The kind of viewpoint which you would have had to have gone to Nick Griffin and the BNP for in the 2000s is now much more normalised and I think we've been slow to recognise it for what it is.
Fascism is back - and because of successful entryism into and institutional capture of what used to be more mainstream conservative parties, there's now a significant number of fascists hoping to be treated as mainstream conservatives with legitimate views.
Authoritarian racism and following a violent authoritarian leader who is trying to brute force through white male straight supremacy on the back of demonising and dehumanising minorities is fascism.
I'd argue that anyone who holds to that cant sign up here sincerely and that posters who are open about their support for Trump should be asked how they intend to sincerely reconcile that with what they signed up to?
I dont think they can.
Tolerable for those subjected to it? And how would you or I know how "low-grade" it would need to be to be tolerable? Who would benefit from such educational posts?
I find this utterly appalling, right there with your post immediately after someone detailed the terrible experiences some girls have at co-ed schools where you said it's basically fine because how else are boys going to be socialized.
Girls should suffer so boys can learn something. People of color should suffer so white people can learn something.
The ship tolerates a low-grade level of sexism because it's so baked into our cultures. I would bet real money we do it with racism too and I just don't see it because I'm white and privileged. Let's not do it on purpose.
All this said, I kind of agree with you, could go either way. But I felt like writing this piece anyway, since you seem not to understand me on a personal level...
How can I do this? I'm willing, under conditions, to try to painfully change people's minds if there's hope for that because I have the hard-earned callouses that make it possible for me to do that work. I've got the privilege that allows me to have that conversation.
And I'm dealing with low grade racism including microaggressions and certain amounts of willful ignorance. That said, once I pick up a degree of sincere disingenuous crap, to my eyes, they're in contempt and I figure once I'm holding someone in contempt, that's some deep contempt because - as you're illustrating - I'm more tolerant than many folks are on the left.
And maybe we need a commandment for that. Falls under "don't be a jerk" and "don't crusade." Racist trolling consists of repeated advocating for horrible ideas in a disingenuous fashion. There are rules for this on the books, perhaps we could sharpen them a bit, hm?
If folks want to come here to learn via discussion, let them learn. We do need to change people's minds occasionally if this world is ever going to come around. I know it sucks. I hate it too, but I'm kind of tired of people refusing to communicate with people just because "ohmygod they're racist/sexist/albeist/etc.!" Far as I see it, we're all off these things, up to our necks in a damnable hell-bound state built on genocide and slavery. Just some of us are a little less awful than others! Maybe the fact that it has been a learning curve for me gives me a little empathy for ugly stupid people, or a sense that maybe we can beat some sense into them. And maybe that's foolish of me. You caught on a brighter day.
And of course, I have no desire to force anyone else into that conversation, nor any desire to set policy for the ship. I just sometimes express my opinions. God have mercy on my soul...
I'd also prefer if people of color (if there are any here?) were granted the dignity to speak for themselves instead of having us white folks holding them up like human shields for our white anxieties. If I may say so as a white guy with a lot of contact with other folks, this is a very privileged, Caucasian space for us to be talking about what People of Color Think. No shame or shade intended, but I think that's true.
All that said, I don't think you're wrong. I could go either way.
I was actually about to start a thread about this very matter and I completely agree with you. There are quite a few conservatives out there though here in the US not many that actually have political power, who are anti-Trump/Maga/fascism/racism, etc. I follow both the dispatch and the bulwark, which are conservative old school anti-Trump and anti-Maga news and editorial sources, plus occasionally David French when he shows up for French Fridays on the Holy Post podcast (which is evangelical Christian, and anti-MAGA, but not 100% liberal/conservative on everything). I wish more conservatives of this kind would come to the Ship. I’m politically very liberal but I like old-school conservatives with whom, while I strongly disagree politically, one can debate respectfully without denying each other’s sanity, intelligence, morality, or humanity. (Theologically some people would call me conservative, some not, but I just try to be orthodox—again, very liberal politically.)
We had conservatives of various kinds on the Ship before, but I don’t know what became of them all. Did they flee? Change? Become Trumpy and then flee? I think Trump became a sort of line in the sand for political (and even theological) conservatives and things started changing a decade ago…
I agree. I’m troubled by the laws of the UK apparently having changed such that the Ship could get in legal trouble for what is otherwise protected speech elsewhere, and I wish those laws had not changed, and/or the Ship were hosted where those legal problems would not be an issue.
I do wonder if something like this—which happened at my old college, New College in Sarasota (years before the current sad state of affairs changed everything)—could even happen on the Ship as it is now.
https://www.sarasotamagazine.com/news-and-profiles/2019/01/derek-black-white-nationalist-new-college
(As a side note, Derek Black has since transitioned (last year, I think) and is now Adrienne Black.)
The law in the UK hasn't changed recently and, barring the Palestine Action situation, I can't envisage anything currently prohibited in the UK that wouldn't get you planked from the ship regardless. Did you have something in mind?
I don’t know— @Louise said
And I also find the fact that that can change back-and-forth like that with the government of the day just deeply disturbing. I mean, it means you could be fine, saying exactly the same thing under one governmental administration, and not be fine under the next, with no change to the laws.
😢 Ah well.
So the thing about laws governing speech is that it doesn't really matter what the law is. What matters is what the prevailing practice of prosecutors and/or litigation-happy individuals is. The minute somebody prosecutes or sues you, you lose lawyer money.
That’s troubling and at least equally bad…
Amongst other things it is illegal to:
… yikes … So if someone merely says “I like/agree with/support Proscribed Group X,” they can go to jail??
😮
(What if it’s part of a comedy sketch or satire? Jonathan Swift did one about literally eating babies, but he wasn’t serious.)