Reducing Moderation Load for MN (continuation of Dealing with Inflammatory Posts)

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

I'm starting another thread - which is really a continuation of the previous post re dealing with inflammatory posts and comments. On Site Stuff, MNHQ have revealed more about their issues with FWR - i.e. the moderation workload. They need that reducing.

Please do also take on board the fact that the combative tone isn’t just in relation to goady posts or trolls - the majority of deletions take place in discussions where there isn’t a debate or conflict. It’s a root and branch problem.

What's the nature of the root and branch problem - is there a pattern to the deletions? Are they from certain OPs? Without fully understanding the problem, I am unsure what solutions to focus on - ie. will self policing the tone work as that assumes it's our comments that are the problem? Or is it, as I suspect, trolling that is increasing the mod workload?

I personally don't report much as I am conscious of their workload. Am I alone in this? Thus, I have asked them if they have analysed which accounts are doing the reporting (to see if Sealion and troll accounts are swamping them). Or is it the mods trawling through comments policing the tone??? Or is it us?

BTW @Datun has suggested pinning a post emphasising self policing. Great idea if it is us - but if so, what phrasing is OK and not? Would I be right in thinking saying "self id doesn't take sufficient account of concerns about women and children is fine"? But what is off limits? I still come back to what is that the root cause of the mod workload increase?

Secondly, I keep pointing out that Sealions/concern trolls use covert bullying so the pattern of someone's comments is important, not just a one off remark. As with coercive control in DV, each individual incident can seem inconsequential, but over time the drip, drip cumulative effect leaves women alternating between enraged and cowering. And with Sealions it's not just the comment reported but a pattern of covert bullying remarks consisting of dismissing others concerns, falsely accusing others(Transphobia), criticism that is based on distortion, misrepresentation or fabrication.

Where I think we may need to be smarter is in dealing with Sealions. I have heard it argued that the debate is needed. But if one is wasting one's time on Sealions, it just gives them more ammunition to report and complain about. It feeds them. Hence more mod workload. The only way I have found effective is not to engage with known Sealions. I just ignore them. I don't engage personally with them. So we potentially have a conflict between those who want to have the debate and yet at the same time needing to call time and IGNORE Sealions, after they have demonstrated an unwillingness to engage healthily. For example on the Inflammatory post - I would have preferred to call time on certain Sealions much earlier - there's no point in being nice if it defeats the object ie having debate with someone who wants to engage plus not increasing the mod workload.
Would love some of your thoughts…..

The reason these conversations give me hives is that they're so reminiscent of conversations I've had with men who, when I've indicated that no I'd really rather not have sex with them, have viewed that as the beginning of a negotiation, or a debate about whether my saying no is unfair to them in some way. I wonder how many other women reading these threads are having the same mental associations crop up.

A woman's right to say no is not something that should be up for debate.

I also think men should be doing the self-reflection, behaviour changes and budging up. However, trans people stand as much chance of them doing that as women do - that is, no chance.

I feel that born males - GRC or not - should not be participating in affirmative action programmes designed to reduce sex-based inequity (eg AWS). I think if trans people want to campaign for their own affirmative action programmes they should have at it. I wouldn't dream of standing in their way.

I feel that born males - GRC or not - should not be in women's prisons or DV refuges or closed mental health wards or anywhere traumatised women are. Nor should they be working in such places. I think if trans people (and gay men for that matter) need their own DV refuges, such refuges should be set up and properly funded. I wouldn't dream of standing in the way of that.

I don't think penis belongs in women's changing rooms and toilets. I do, however, accept that post-SRS transsexuals occupy a different category and feel the old honour system of mutual trust and respect worked pretty well. Would like to think that aggressive transactivism hasn't shattered that for good. But I think the best solution now is effective, secure third spaces.

(Night Gasping. Thanks for sticking at it!)

AngryAttackKittens Fri 13-Apr-18 22:15:29
The reason these conversations give me hives is that they're so reminiscent of conversations I've had with men who, when I've indicated that no I'd really rather not have sex with them, have viewed that as the beginning of a negotiation, or a debate about whether my saying no is unfair to them in some way. I wonder how many other women reading these threads are having the same mental associations crop up.

A woman's right to say no is not something that should be up for debate.

Yes, this, a hundred times over.

Absolutely, Angry.

LangCleg - I wish there was an applause smiley because I agree entirely and wholeheartedly with your post at 22.21.
But there isn't (or at least I can't see one) so I shall just say cheers

It's bizarre to me to watch women replicate that behavior, given that almost all of us will have been on the receiving end at some point.

The female socialisation is strong with many of us Angry. Especially if we haven't spent much time around feminists.

I was raised by born again christians who truly believed that women were created to serve men.

I feel myself caving when I hear arguments like those of Gasping.

Thank fuck for the rest of you reminding me that we should just me able to say no!

I suspect that's one of the reasons for #nodebate. It's easier to control women individually when we're unable to look to each other for support and backup.

In a way it's a sign of our backfootedness here that we're the ones arguing for a debate

No is a complete sentence.

End of!

In all seriousness flowers, I know we had a bit of a tiff on the first thread we encountered each other on, but I think there's a lot more common ground than disagreement there. My first priority is always protecting women and girls. Sometimes that may result in my being less than patient with those who're trying to weasel their way around that principle, especially when they're trying to use women's socialization against them, but when push comes to shove I will always have the backs of other women who's boundaries are being encroached upon, regardless of any disagreement on other issues.

I'll drink to that Angry (but with , 101 days today since my last 'proper' drink, but I usually chat about that elsewhere ).

I do remember that tiff - water under the bridge

Tea on a cold day is always welcome!

Tea's for me - you have whatever's your poison

Mine's a martini!

(Does not exist in smiley list. Prejudice against vodka drinkers!)

I was brought up in good old Catholic Ireland.

Where no meant maybe.

And maybe meant yes.

And yes meant the girl was a whore.

[depressed]

Have we really not moved on?

Yes we have, Maryz. That's the problem. Men have not. They still think no is the beginning of a negotiation when women say it .
While women are beginning to think that people who refuse to take no for an answer are not safe to be around.

It's weird. I had a long conversation with my son about the Ulster rugby rape case.

He was scathing about the guys and their attitude - but then suddenly said "of course, you have to push a bit, because all girls say no at first" - and I lost my temper completely.

He did backtrack and try to explain that he felt that girls were conditioned to say no, and guys were conditioned to persuade them otherwise, but I was so fucking furious I probably didn't handle it well

He's a nice kid; but there is still an element in Ireland of "nice girls just don't - and if they do they aren't nice" which is really frustrating.

It is everywhere in pop culture and pretty much always has been. Every interaction between men and women consists of men trying to push women from tolerance to submission.
No surprise that it is considered normal behavior. The thing that amazes me is they do not view themselves as nags, even though they nag women until the women either leaves, throws them out, or gives in to the coercion.

"Delusional" is also used to invalidate people as "nutters whose views I don't have to bother with" and that's not ok.

It is yes, but medically that’s not what it means. Medically it means a belief at odds with reality. So in this context it’s accurate.

I agree with the previous few posts on consent and by god yes, the WHOLE of cinema is basically ‘boy meets girl, girl says no BOY PROVES HIS LURVE girl caves.’ It’s utterlt shit (Bollywood particularly guilty of this, Hollywood almost as much.)
There is no movement for me on safety. I’ll debate inclusion and the bits round the edges, but a woman’s right to say no, and the rights (the legally protected rights, let’s just be clear, these are rights the law agrees on, not hysterical laydee opinions) are sacrosanct.

So in this context it’s accurate

Then why does the medical establishment not describe transsexualism as a delusion?

reminiscent of conversations I've had with men who, when I've indicated that no I'd really rather not have sex with them, have viewed that as the beginning of a negotiation, or a debate about whether my saying no is unfair to them in some way

Fuck me, this is exactly what I was thinking as a certain conversation progressed...
And indeed I compare it quite often to conversations about women's boundaries being a matter of negotiation!

Then why does the medical establishment not describe transsexualism as a delusion?

The delusional belief would be that one is, or always has been, the opposite sex. The wish to have gender reassignment surgery to appear more like the opposite sex, while being aware one is not biologically female (or vice versa), would not count as delusional. The belief has to be at odds with reality to count as delusional. If someone is transsexual and aware that they are not a natal woman then they are not delusional.
It’s not a perfect system and there is fudging to a degree to ‘avoid offence.’ So for example a belief in demons - delusional in someone who has no cultural or personal background in a religion that doesn’t have this as an idea, but not delusional in someone who does have a religious/cultural background in it. So the same thought can be used to diagnose someone, or not, depending on (if we are going to be brutally honest and cynical) how rational their background and thinking is. Which I’ve always found odd, but there you go.

And yes, that is a fudge, because it’s the same thought. A cynic (and I know several psychiatrists who hold this view) might say medicine has capitulated to the threat of violence from religion holders.

We seem to be entering a post-truth era where there is no objective reality agreed on anyway. Once feelings replace reality, maybe there will be no more beliefs defined as delusional.

I wonder how many other women reading these threads are having the same mental associations crop up.

Yes, totally!