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 question "how do we stop them?" was then followed by a lengthy list of how women should moderate and mute their own behaviour in order to stop another group of (male) people from doing what they always do, it is a narrative all too familiar with women.

Common sense and experience tells us even when we do everything we are "supposed" to, the other group will still do what they are known to do.

So please just directly address the other group directly, in this case TRAs. Show them they have no power. Don't cave. Don't stop talking. Don't let them take control. Show them up. Call them out. etc... etc.

The thing is ‘calling out’ TRAs has to be from a position of strength.

It is no good justifying shutting down debate where you feel that you are in oppressed, but defending debate where someone else feels (or cynically pretends to feel) the same oppression from you.

You either believe in free speech or you believe in the ‘right’ side controlling the narrative. The problem with the latter is everyone thinks they are right so it just becomes tactical shutting down of debate.

It is the above that has led to so much unnecessary moderation and the threat of MN to shut down the debate altogether.

Morning larry! I have a question. When you came on this thread to explain to us how we are holding our discussions all wrong, is that because you genuinely think we need a man in charge to keep us straight, or are you just entertaining yourself?

Tallulah,

That is not a genuine question, is it really?

well it does make a difference when people are trying to decide whether it's worth engaging.

To me your answer clearly indicates option 2 but I'll leave other posters to make up their own minds

Tallulah,

How about a genuine belief in free speech and everyone allowed an opinion?

That idea just does not compute with some people these days.

Does not matter whether people ‘engage’, certainly not in this board.

I have reached peak ‘privilege’ and I think a lot of society is with me. What started as a movement to help the vulnerable has become a way of certain (generally privileged groups) seeking competitive advantage.

That's fair about freedom of speech Larry, but you surely expect that some opinions carry more weight than others as they are more informed, based on greater experience of the subject, and more considered?

For instance, if some heart surgeons are having a discussion about how best to place a catheter in a vein, your views possibly might not be all that helpful unless you have studied cardiac medicine? If you have been a patient before you might be able to contribute some useful feedback about your own experience of the procedure, but otherwise it's probably best for the layperson to pipe down and not cause a distraction.

That's a general point by the way, I'm sure your surgery skills are exemplary.

Morning everyone!

I was just about to add my tuppence worth to this thread when I saw that Ophelia had already typed on here the exact thing I had prepared in my head, so I will just copy and paste it and say, I agree 100%.

"Most feminists and so-called "terfs" have for decades included transsexuals into women's spaces and included them in feminism using a reciprocal "honour system" based around trust.

This honour system is being eroded by Transgender advocates who no longer believe an attempt at "passing" is necessary and are frankly making a mockery of the whole relationship between women and transsexuals.

No woman on earth wholly and truly believes that a transsexual is a woman. We afford them the courtesy of saying so in trust.

The line is no line. Transexuals have not changed sex but we accept them because of their obvious effort and feelings of kinship. Self declaring your own sex despite your appearance is just obnoxious especially when you force us to deny reality.

I am happy for people to declare themselves Transgender and all the exciting expression that comes with that. Don't expect me to believe you've changed sex."

I think we should offer the TRA a peace treaty based on compromise. It is this: once a man gives up his penis, we promise to use female pronouns and treat him as we would any other member of our sex.

Any man who refuses to give up his bits clearly isn't genuine or serious about living as a woman and gets no entry to anything.

It seems so bloody simple to me!

Ereshi,

I agree re expertise. However the ‘privilege’ system is believing a heart attack victim automatically becomes an expert in cardiology...

That's how you choose to frame it. I don't.

So in some ways as a women it’s better to let yourself think you’ve been persuaded than to really acknowledge that your choice can be overriden whatever you say wherever there are unequal power relations,

Yes absolutely. I’ve started saying ‘no’ at work more and it’s fascinating to see the effect it has.

Regarding biological brain differences - I don’t doubt that there are differences between men and women just as there are in physiology generally. I will make two points though:

1. Evolutionary psychology has been greatly damaged by certain groups using it as an excusing mechanism and at times it shifts dangerously close to ideas espoused in MRA excuses and even racial eugenics. For example, Male aggression. Men have higher testosterone and so the EP line has been hijacked to excuse Male violence - it is the ultimate boys will be boys cop out. We need to be very careful when we use EP because it’s very easy to slip into using it as a justification for some pretty bad shit.

1. Our knowledge of the brain is in its infancy. We can look at things like the aerobic capacity of athletes, the Male vs female musculature/skeletal system etc and say with some certainty that the differences are this and that.

We cannot YET do that with the brain. We can see physical differences in structure and organisation but we CANNOT relate that to any aspect of our ‘being’ right now. If you read an article that says ‘Male brain found to be different in x way, hence men are more/less xxx’ then you need to have a big ‘ol dose of skepticism because we simply cannot say that in the light of our current knowledge.

Both these points are important because the TRA lobby (and some very unpleasant racist groups) use that ‘x physical difference hence x behavioural difference’ technique as a way of ‘justifying scientifically’ some very unpleasant things. They are no more right scientifically or morally than the people who once went round measuring craniums of different racial groups and ordering them in terms of ‘advanced culture’ based on how big they were.

I am a scientist and I don’t like seeing science misused like this. I’ve been an extremely pedantic person on many threads (under many names) trying to debunk this.

The problem is that TRA activists have just pushed at a door unlocked by the Rad Fems.
1st rule of misogyny: Women are responsible for what men do.

larrygrylls everyone here but you seem to recognize that you are mansplaining and using DARVO tactics to do it.

There is no "legitimate debate" with mansplainers. There are only zombie lies that when evidence to the contrary is offered they dismiss it and demand that women stop naming their behavior.

The Bewilderness,

Re you and TRAs:

'But they had not gone twenty yards when they stopped short. An uproar of voices was coming from the farmhouse. They rushed back and looked through the window again. Yes, a violent quarrel was in progress. There were shoutings, bangings on the table, sharp suspicious glances, furious denials. The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously.

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'

So prescient of where we are today!

The problem is that TRA activists have just pushed at a door unlocked by the Rad Fems.

Ahhhh ... I see. So it’s our fault and we should just shut up? Well that’s certainly a view espoused in the daily mail comments that go ‘well you feminists wanted equality huh huh huh.’

Hyper mice,

Context is all. You need to quote my comment in full, or else you are fully subscribing to the Daily Mail school of journalism.

Im confused

Who are the pigs and who are the men?

Are you actually calling people on here pigs

Honestly [shocked]

Aaahhh man!!!!

That would have been funnier if id done right

I became a vegetarian after reading Animal farm

My mother was not happy

I appreciate many years later that i had completely missed the point

To be fair i was 9!

Rufus,

You were clearly an exceptional 9 year old. :)

Thats kind of you to say larry

But i doubt id have missed the point so completely if i had been truly exceptional

(I bet there are posters on here whose children would absolutely have got the point at 9)

I read it on Christmas eve...like i say, not a happy mother (though to be fair my dad did the cooking)

The problem is that TRA activists have just pushed at a door unlocked by the Rad Fems.

FYI larrygrylls, Radical Feminists were not actually the first humans who tried to get to the root of women's oppression and male violence.

I get that you are unable to tell the difference between the screams of the perps and the victims. Your failure does not matter because we can discern the difference.

What is the daily mail school of journalism? Just so I know.. since you’re so very good at explaining these things to us poor simple ladies?

Your post started with the premise that feminism was to blame for TRA aggression. It then footled around two unrelated points that have some value but aren’t actually backing up what you want to say and then came back to blaming feminists. This is in itself a common rhetorical technique.

The bad people did this
Anecdotal point to get people nodding
Second anecdotal point to get people nodding. Now the people believe you.
Apparently reasonable point that actually blames the bad people
Back to blaming the bad people

You shit sandwich the point you’re making (all the fault of the radfems) between two anecdotal but not actually relevant Points then circle back to the locus of blame.

If we’re talking propaganda playbooks, Larry, then that one is straight outta Goebbels.

The last two pages of this thread represent a half hour of my life I'll never get back 🤣