I don't post/comment here a lot (OK, ever, apparently) so take my contribution with a grain of salt.
But what I think is relevant is engaging with the book/story you're talking about, and making it possible to engage in further productive discussion about it.
I don't much care about being insulting to authors (whatever that means). Scans-daily over on DW has a specific rule about not making personal attacks on creators (that is, "This enraged me so much I wanted to hit him"), and while it's well meant, it's one of a number of factors that's been arguably problematic, over the past few years.
I mean, I /prefer/ it if people take down a text with a certain flair that is more dispassionate than actively vicious or gleeful, but that's a personal style preference and nothing more.
(I don't know how this would change along the axis of POC author/white reviewer; obviously, it would change /somehow/. That's something I'll have to ponder more.)
I do care far more about posters actually engaging with each other at least vaguely as if they share common community. I don't care if you harsh someone's squee, tromple over their favorite author, or take down their post logically, point by point. (Fuck, please do.) I do care if any of that has a chilling effect on discussion, which is hard to pinpoint in the heat of the moment but can be clear in the long term. And though I'm aware of the
I don't think specific rules are useful there. I do think long-term moderating is. And that moderating can address trolling/abusiveness while still observing the reality of problematic inequalities.
And to answer this one specifically: Are we correct to be worried about an asymmetric effect on white and POC/chromatic members of the comm?
I'm white. I haven't fuck all idea, frankly, which I've found generally tends to eventually mean, "Yes, in fact, you should be worried." Because you know, I can not notice the general trends in communities and groups quite effectively.
But I don't know how that plays out in a community trying to be aware of it.
vague natterings.
But what I think is relevant is engaging with the book/story you're talking about, and making it possible to engage in further productive discussion about it.
I don't much care about being insulting to authors (whatever that means). Scans-daily over on DW has a specific rule about not making personal attacks on creators (that is, "This enraged me so much I wanted to hit him"), and while it's well meant, it's one of a number of factors that's been arguably problematic, over the past few years.
I mean, I /prefer/ it if people take down a text with a certain flair that is more dispassionate than actively vicious or gleeful, but that's a personal style preference and nothing more.
(I don't know how this would change along the axis of POC author/white reviewer; obviously, it would change /somehow/. That's something I'll have to ponder more.)
I do care far more about posters actually engaging with each other at least vaguely as if they share common community. I don't care if you harsh someone's squee, tromple over their favorite author, or take down their post logically, point by point. (Fuck, please do.) I do care if any of that has a chilling effect on discussion, which is hard to pinpoint in the heat of the moment but can be clear in the long term. And though I'm aware of the
I don't think specific rules are useful there. I do think long-term moderating is. And that moderating can address trolling/abusiveness while still observing the reality of problematic inequalities.
And to answer this one specifically: Are we correct to be worried about an asymmetric effect on white and POC/chromatic members of the comm?
I'm white. I haven't fuck all idea, frankly, which I've found generally tends to eventually mean, "Yes, in fact, you should be worried." Because you know, I can not notice the general trends in communities and groups quite effectively.
But I don't know how that plays out in a community trying to be aware of it.
nimgnoyk said some things that resonated, too.