Links to potentially sexist posts inside threads in other parts of DU

[Boojatta]

I think, for the following reasons, that this thread can serve a legitimate purpose:

1. When you are lurking or participating in a thread, your attention is on the main topic and on various subtopics, and when you see sexism it is an annoying distraction, and a reminder of a continuing problem, another repetition of something that has already repeated itself too many times.

If you start in this thread and follow a link, then you will be expecting sexism. You won't be distracted from the topic at hand, but will be ready to explain, in words that don't disclose any annoyance, how and why you judge that the post in question is sexist. Thus, your words will have a better chance of persuading jurors than if you had written them without having followed a link from this thread.

2. If you are lurking or participating in a thread and you see sexism, then you might be legitimately annoyed and distracted by the sexism. In that state of mind, why should you feel obligated to write a message for an alert? Instead, you can post in this thread to describe the problem, and then go back to whatever you were doing in the original thread. Somebody else will likely take care of writing a good alert message for you. That alert message will be posted in this thread, so this thread won't become a source of multiple alerts on the same problem. In fact, it's possible to have a discussion in this thread about the best way to formulate the alert message before anybody actually issues an alert. So it's probably a good idea to distinguish between a draft of a message that could be used in an alert in future, possibly after some editing, and an alert message that was used for an actual alert.

[enlightenment]

1. No offense intended,

but this sounds like you're suggesting calling out other DUers.

If someone is annoyed enough to leave a thread to come here and post a message describing a sexist post, why wouldn't they be annoyed enough to simply write a message in an alert? I am honestly confused by your intent.

[Boojatta]

2. You seem to be raising two different issues.

First issue: calling out other DUers
There is simply no reason for there to be any focus on the DU member who posted a message that is deemed to be sexist. The focus should be on the message. To focus on the DU member, you would have to do a lot of extra research.

Second issue: why wouldn't someone be annoyed enough to alert?
I don't think that the level of annoyance needs to be the sole determinant of whether or not the person sends an alert. Someone's annoyance might rise to a level well beyond what is needed to motivate the sending of an alert, but someone might nevertheless count to ten, remember this thread, and refrain from sending an alert.

[enlightenment]

3. You could well be correct.

I've reread your OP and still don't quite get what you're suggesting, so it is probably an issue of my interpretation rather than what you are saying.

My confusion seems to arise (after rereading) from this section of point #1:

If you start in this thread and follow a link, then you will be expecting sexism. You won't be distracted from the topic at hand, but will be ready to explain, in words that don't disclose any annoyance, how and why you judge that the post in question is sexist. Thus, your words will have a better chance of persuading jurors than if you had written them without having followed a link from this thread.

Since you previously noted that someone is 'lurking or participating in a thread' and sees something sexist, which they find distracting, I'm at a loss to understand how they could 'start in this thread and follow a link'. To me, it sounds like you are suggesting that a person who is annoyed by a sexist post should provide a link to that post in this thread - which other people could then follow - presumably for the sole purpose of alerting on the poster. Pointing out an individual's post with 'intent' is a call-out, especially when you suggest that an offending post could be discussed here with a mind to creating the best formulated alert message. Obviously we see the issue differently.

As to sending an alert if annoyed - what you just described to me is not what you said in your OP. Deciding to allow discretion to serve as the better part of valor is a fine thing indeed - but your OP does not suggest that. Rather, it suggests that the annoyed individual come here, provide the link to the offending post, and then return (presumably to watch) to the thread in question. Again, I have to ask; if someone is annoyed enough with a post to take the time to copy the post link; come to this thread; post the link; return to the original thread . . . why couldn't they just alert on the post?

[Boojatta]

4. "which other people could then follow"

Yes, it's a division of labor.

Pointing out an individual's post with 'intent' is a call-out, especially when you suggest that an offending post could be discussed here with a mind to creating the best formulated alert message.

Well, I suppose that it's possible to debate whether or not a given message is sexist. It's possible for there to be a difference of opinion about whether or not a message is sexist. It's also possible to formulate questions for the individual who created the post that is allegedly sexist in order to get clarification and reduce uncertainty about the intent of the individual who created it. Given that it's possible to write in a manner that encourages people to read between the lines, and that it's also common for people to make mistakes and choose words that don't convey exactly the idea that they intended to convey, it makes sense to make use of the opportunity for back-and-forth dialog that this venue allows in order to focus on ideas rather than on words. Words are a means to an end. The goal here is, I take it, to communicate ideas.

The concept "call-out" isn't completely clear to me. I thought that it involved focus on the person who wrote a message rather than the message itself. I cannot see anything wrong with a cooperative effort to formulate the best possible alert message. If a cooperative effort to formulate the best possible alert message removes any doubt about whether or not something constitutes a call-out, and confirms that it is a call-out, then it sounds as though a call-out is a good thing. However, before we can evaluate something as good or bad, we need to know exactly what we are talking about.

What is wrong with the goal of formulating the best possible alert message? Why is formulating an alert message an exception to the rule that something worth doing is worth doing well?

[enlightenment]

6. I guess 'call out' is

the point of contention here.

To me, a 'call out' is the act of deliberately identifying another DUers post - in a different thread and/or forum - in order to shoot down the DUer in question.

You said that you thought it focused on what the person said, rather than the person, but the act of coordinating an alert response seems very focused on the individual.

It's almost like you're suggesting creating a little posse, to make sure that the alert sent is so carefully crafted that it almost guarantees that the offending post will be hidden (and the offending poster prevented from commenting further on the thread).

Again, this may be my singular perception - but the idea of creating a 'room' (this thread) for the sole purpose of identifying and removing any post deemed sexist seems just a bit wonky to me.

I like the idea of using a space (this one, for instance) to discuss whether or not a post is, indeed, sexist - conversations of that sort can only help clarify a murky and emotionally charged term. If the focus of this thread were on the discussion aspect - on the cooling off aspect (for the highly annoyed) - on the learning and understanding . . . that I could understand. The focus on creating the 'best' alert message is simply problematic to me, as it smacks of a collusion between certain DUers in order to achieve a shared goal.

[Boojatta]

5. To watch what?

Rather, it suggests that the annoyed individual come here, provide the link to the offending post, and then return (presumably to watch) to the thread in question.

My idea was that sexism is a distraction. Somebody who visits this thread and posts a link can then return to the thread that contains what is deemed sexist and carry on as though nothing in it were sexist. For the purpose of communicating with jurors, it's not good enough to merely assert that a post is sexist. It's necessary for it to be explained very clearly to jurors. A DU member who is lurking in a thread or participating in a thread and who is genuinely annoyed and distracted by sexism is probably not the best person to formulate a message for jurors.

[enlightenment]

7. I assume, based on how you described it in the OP,

'to watch' the offending post be hidden . . . in order to then carry on in the manner you just described.

I'm sorry, Boojatta, but I really think that if an individual is sufficiently upset/annoyed/distracted by a post then they should be the one who alerts on it - rather then formulating a response by committee. Why can't they do that? Do you honestly believe that someone can become so incensed by a post that they lose the capacity to write a coherent explanation of why they are upset?

If someone gets that upset at a post on DU, they should probably take a break from the board. I understand getting angry, feeling hurt, being disgusted . . . but if a post can cause such a profound level of distress, then there are other issues beyond the offending post.

[Boojatta]

8. Think in terms of the outcome that is most likely.

Are you assuming that if people don't do something then they cannot do it?

[enlightenment]

9. No - but you're suggesting that

people who are annoyed are not capable of formulating the best alert message without consulting other DUers. Seems to me that if anyone is assuming an incapacity on the part of the individual, it's you . . . isn't it? Otherwise, why suggest that they go so far as to bring their issue here, so that someone who was not involved in the thread in question can put together the most dispassionate alert message possible to achieve the best possible outcome in the jury decision?

Honestly, what you are suggesting sounds like manipulation of the jury. While the DU system does not allow for an accused to face their accuser, it does provide that the accuser make the accusation. Suggesting that this system be established is - in essence - actively working to undermine DU's system of jurisprudence. Granted, the system is flawed, but at the very least it should rest on at least some foundation of fairness - and fairness demands that the accuser take responsibility for their accusation.

[undeterred]

10. One thing participating in the new jury system has allowed me to see

is that I am not the only one alerting on sexism in posts. Sometimes I feel like I am- perhaps we all feel that way. I have served on a jury about 16 times now and I think 3 times were for sexist remarks in posts I had never even seen. I was quite pleased to have a chance to give my decision to hide these posts. I've never been a moderator and probably will never have time to, but at least being in the jury system gives me a chance to give my opinion.