Recovering comedian, polymorphic fox-shaped lava monster, self-appointed Sheriff of Saturn, singing voice of the Wingdings font.


asunchaser
@asunchaser
This page's posts are visible only to users who are logged in.

atomicthumbs
@atomicthumbs

even if it's not against the rules (for whatever reason and with whatever reasoning; the end effects are the same) we can still build a culture on here that rejects suicide baiting because it hurts people we don't want to hurt.

we just have to work at it.

it won't be easy. people don't like being told to change their behavior, a lot of the time. people don't like feeling like they've been told to shut up, even if it's something they feel when told "what you said has hurt me, even if you didn't mean to." there will be pushback, possibly loud pushback.

the alternative is this: you will keep hearing from people who feel suicide baiting (especially without making use of the site's safety features) is an appropriate rhetorical tactic, loudly or otherwise, and unless they are brave enough to speak up and endure the backlash, the people it hurts will just go quiet, as a few of them have already, and however many more didn't say anything about it.

you won't hear them anymore, because they won't be here, because it hurts them to use this website, and their voices won't be part of the discussion. their contribution to the culture on here will vanish, along with the diversity that comes of having more, and more sorts, of people on here.

i think that makes cohost a worse place to be.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @asunchaser's post:

I think it's really bad to have rules that work like this, where almost anything is fair game on the right people. I think ASSC are good people with decent values so I trust their judgement on who they think it's ok to say bad things about, but "I like the mods" is fundamentally a thin reed that this hangs from.

I think it's also worth emphasizing what you said here, in that the post was absolutely within the rules of the site. The CW in question is not in cohost's list of things that have to be CW'd, and the other rules don't really say anything that would disqualify this post as far as I can see. It's worth clarifying because you can't really be mad at mods for following the rules that are set out. You can be mad at the rules being like that, and you can absolutely advocate for a change of those rules, but if the content didn't violate the rules then the problem is the rules, not the moderation decision.

I can confirm I got that email as well. Here's what was said

​thank you for reaching out. the content in question is sensitive and we would strongly encourage the usage of content warnings for it. we also agree that the original poster should have been more thoughtful. that being said, this is not a situation in which a content warning is mandatory.

I can only hope that means new Age of Ruling soon...

in reply to @atomicthumbs's post:

ngl it leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth that the response is "the right target makes this okay," both because suicide should have a mandatory cw in the first place, but also because I've seen that used for so many other things as well. "suicide baiting is okay if it's the right target. homophobia is okay if it's the right target. transphobia is okay if it's the right target. ableism is okay if it's the right target"

these are all things I see all over. I see these things in leftist spaces (like actual leftist, not "american democrat" leftist) where people should really know better, and on cohost, we but especially staff should really fucking know better.

my understanding is the sentiment (or at least the intended sentiment) was more along the lines of "yeah it's shitty behavior but under the circumstances not exactly actionably shitty"

tbh i'm not sure what exactly people want done? like yeah the behavior sucks and that sort of thing shouldn't be the cultural norm here, and obviously there has to be a line somewhere, but on some level it's just not feasible to make "being a stupid jerk" a bannable offense if you wanna run a website with more than like, 50 users

i reported the post with a note that this was not a request for action against the post or the poster (in part because I hoped they'd do something themselves), but a request to review the post and comments and take them into consideration for the community guidelines. i and other folks revived this response (mine also included a note about passing the guidelines feedback on):

the content in question is sensitive and we would strongly encourage the usage of content warnings for it. we also agree that the original poster should have been more thoughtful. that being said, this is not a situation in which a content warning is mandatory.

My interpretation here is that they are operating off the rules they have set in place. they have in the past worked intentionally to moderate this place in a consistent manner, being generally. permissive and avoiding acting outside rules. this does make a good amount of sense, because if you start banning or otherwise taking action for things outside the rules, nobody knows how to act.

it's important to remember that the staff are just other people, who have to balance this and a whole lot of other things while keeping the site running smoothly. figuring out how to handle something like this, both in the immediate present and going forward, is probably pretty damn hard, and takes a lot of work and thought. as it should; it's a subject that deserves a lot of thinking and consideration

I think it's really funny that I've seen chosters here who have no problem ""doxxing"" a politician's address yet when it comes to stuff like this, don't give out a username.

Yet, the outcomes are the same which usually involve some form of harassment. One is different than the other, but I find this to be tickling me funny bone.