Racism and our community

[Paul]

Greetings all,

Following the tragic and senseless murder of George Floyd, whose brutal killing has shown yet another light on the pervasive and systemic racism, violence, and inequities plaguing those of our fellow human beings who find themselves in positions of less privilege and power, many in our community have sought to share their opinions, beliefs, and understandings.

We are a venue for open and frank discussions, in the hope that we will all grow and learn from each other. This is a community where we celebrate the ability to openly and willingly be exposed to and accept the insights and perspectives others have from their life experiences to inform our own personal journey and understanding of the greater world beyond us.

Yet after returning from a brief absence, I was disappointed to see that many of the comments shared were wholly inappropriate and failed to meet the civility standards set forth in our Community Guidelines. We have removed these discussions pending further review and I ask those of you who encounter any further bigotry, to please report posts that we may have missed.

Some of you appear to be wholly misinformed about why we exist and what we expect from those of you that join our conversation here. We are here to address all matters involving interpersonal relationships. This is not the place where we accept or allow perpetuating myths, hostilities, and aggression toward any group of people. This is not the place where we sweep the abhorrent mistreatment of other human beings under the rug of conspiracy and political machinations. This is not the place where we live in our own echo chambers.

If you are so blessed and privileged to have never personally experienced or witnessed atrocities committed against yourself or others by virtue of simply reflecting some characteristic of "other," then now is the time count your blessings and to focus your attention on actively listening and learning from those who live in the shadows of this reality every hour of every day through no choice of their own.

Best,
Paul

[Piddy]

Thanks for the post.

It's amazing to me in 2020 how many here are in denial and think that systemic / institutionalized racism doesn't exist.  As history has shown 400 years of embedded systematic racism have proven a difficult thing for our country to overcome. 

Many of us keep thinking that the latest ugly violent incident of systemic racism will be an inflection point and we'll start to see real change in all aspects of our society.  However, it's always an uphill battle when too many either can't or won't admit that there is a problem with systematic / institutionalized racism in this country. 

Just maybe your post will have people take another look and end the denial for some that seems to be so prevalent in today's society.  One can only hope.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Piddy

[gaius]

If the new rule is that any discussion of race beyond "every problem the black community faces is due to a thousand years of oppression" is considered racist and won't be tolerated, then so be it. But that's definitely a change from the mostly open and honest dialogue we've been allowed to have for the last 10 years I've been here.

Society in general seems to be changing to be much less tolerant, less open to an honest exchange of ideas, so I guess it only makes sense that LS changes with it.

Edited June 9, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Removed off-topic conjecture.

[Haydn]

Thank you Paul. 

[Paul]

gaius,

I've removed the conjecture surrounding motivations from your post, as it's off-topic for this thread. We set guidelines here based on what we believe to be in the best interest of our entire community as a whole.

13 minutes ago, gaius said:

If the new rule is that any discussion of race beyond "every problem the black community faces is due to a thousand years of oppression" is considered racist and won't be tolerated, then so be it. But that's definitely a change from the mostly open and honest dialogue we've been allowed to have for the last 10 years I've been here.

I'm not sure where your "new rule" comes from. It's not reflected in my first post in this thread, nor in our Community Guidelines.

The expectation is and always has been that participants in this community will treat each other and the world with the utmost respect, civility, and dignity they deserve as equals on this journey through life, through our subjective opinions and discourse, and that when we make objective claims, that those will be supported by academic standards in the social sciences. While there were posts in the temporarily removed discussions that fell into the spirit of our expectations, there were many that did not. We're working to review those removed discussions and restore, if possible, the posts that did not get swept up in the bigotry of others. As a reminder, we're all volunteers with day jobs, so regrettably, these things can take some time.

LoveShack.org has never been a platform for saying whatever is on your mind in whatever fashion you'd like to say it for anyone. This is a special purpose place with a special framework for discussion on specialized subject matter. If anyone finds themselves here while looking for a place to write down whatever they'd like to say in an unmoderated fashion without consequence or regard for the rest of the world, or if anyone finds themselves here unwilling to learn from others and unwilling to share and grow in the context of their relationships with others sharing humanity, they've taken a wrong turn. Some may have started here on that journey, but lost their way over time. It happens. We're not set out to censor ideas or thoughts--we're here to cultivate an environment that supports our primary directive of meaningful interpersonal growth.

As a community, we can have educated and informed discussions here on the many complexities that impact how we treat ourselves and others, including things like the color of one's skin, ethnic or ancestral background, gender and sexual identities, the governing laws and societal expectations and those who enforce them. As with most societal issues, there are a great multitude of factors that influence the perceived and actual experiences we have. Oppression takes on many forms, and many contexts, and often is invisible to those who have the luxury to not be a target. Here, we expect that the community will remain cognizant that one's personal experience is not the definitive human experience that can be safely applied to anyone else. This is a place to actively listen, engage to learn, and empathetically respond. What we don't, never have, and never will tolerate here is the failure to do just that.

LoveShack.org has been online for decades now as a community. With millions of posts, dozens of volunteer moderators, and participants finding themselves here under false pretenses, there are undoubtedly discussions that have transpired that don't fit our expectations. We're human and as imperfect as everyone else. One should not assume because something appears in a post someone made here, that the poster was engaged in the spirit of our guidelines. As you encounter things that aren't, please report them--no matter if it was made ten minutes ago or ten years ago.

1 hour ago, gaius said:

Society in general seems to be changing to be much less tolerant, less open to an honest exchange of ideas, so I guess it only makes sense that LS changes with it.

 

I don't agree with the sentiment about our community, and I'm here to clarify however I can. On the contrary, our expectation is that LoveShack.org be a beacon of acceptance and tolerance within the context of guidelines that we first authored decades ago, and that we, as a community and as individuals, continue to grow and evolve to be better.

Best,
Paul

 

[lana-banana]

4 hours ago, Paul said:

As with most societal issues, there are a great multitude of factors that influence the perceived and actual experiences we have. Oppression takes on many forms, and many contexts, and often is invisible to those who have the luxury to not be a target. Here, we expect that the community will remain cognizant that one's personal experience is not the definitive human experience that can be safely applied to anyone else. This is a place to actively listen, engage to learn, and empathetically respond.

This is just so beautifully stated I had to call it out. Thank you, Paul. 

[jspice]

I hope you stay around or look in more frequently. 
This has been going on for a long time and reporting issues doesn’t always ensure balance. 

[Paul]

5 hours ago, jspice said:

I hope you stay around or look in more frequently. 
This has been going on for a long time and reporting issues doesn’t always ensure balance. 

Thank you for the feedback. I'm personally reviewing every post that was removed this morning. There are just under 1,400 posts that were temporarily taken down for review. I appreciate your patience as we work to bring back the discussion that was good and leaving out the too many posts that were not.

I think it's clear that there is ample opportunity for many, should they embrace the challenge, to expand their world views and learn from others. I'm sure none of the people who posted would consider themselves "racist," and depending on the lens with which they view the world, would have likely struggled to identify the subtle and not so subtle derogatory and hostile remarks that were found in the bodies of their posts. For others, the experience of reading a great number of these posts would have been horrifying.

I'm hopeful that through this process, we can find a way to open the minds and hearts of all of us who have something to learn. I also think that we, as a community, would greatly benefit from additional voices and diversity behind the scenes so that in those times when we each have our personal and professional obligations to attend to when not volunteering at LoveShack.org, there's a strong team of individuals remaining available to help guide and reinforce our mission from as great an array of perspectives as possible.

I'd encourage and welcome anyone interested to reach out.

[Libby1]

5 hours ago, Paul said:

I think it's clear that there is ample opportunity for many, should they embrace the challenge, to expand their world views and learn from others. I'm sure none of the people who posted would consider themselves "racist," and depending on the lens with which they view the world, would have likely struggled to identify the subtle and not so subtle derogatory and hostile remarks that were found in the bodies of their posts. For others, the experience of reading a great number of these posts would have been horrifying.

I'm hopeful that through this process, we can find a way to open the minds and hearts of all of us who have something to learn.

Perhaps encouraging people to open their hearts and minds would be more effective in the context of spirituality discussion?  When the discussions are taking place in a very political context, the extremely polarised state of politics (US in particular) is bound to poison the discussion.  I recall some commentary in the now deleted/suspended discussion from a black poster who said that he feels that both political sides are using black people as pawns, and I'm not surprised. 

Spiritual discussion doesn't need to exclude atheists, but it would maybe help to steer the tone away from political agendas (which is admittedly difficult to do with a US election looming) and towards people relating to each other as human beings regardless of their politics.  

[NuevoYorko]

Thank you, Paul.  I'd like to acknowledge that at least posts attempting to address racism have been permitted on this forum since the "break;"

I realize it's a challenge to find balance between allowing and supporting free speech and providing a platform for the promotion of racism.  Efforts towards that end are  appreciated.

Edited June 10, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
removed off topic discussion

[carhill]

Caution, the discussions below may contain references to racism and/or racist remarks.

Those are mostly discussions of high profile events which included comments which discussed racism or commented on it. There are many, many more less well attended discussions and I only included one discussion from the Political forum where many took place. I'd say it's a pretty representative example of various viewpoints on the topic. Feel free to re-read and form one's own opinion. I personally found the repository of history to be quite informative and glad to see we're keeping the discussion of race relations front and center.

[FMW]

Our company provides training on implicit bias as it relates to diversity every year. If someone is open to exploring the idea it's really interesting and explains a lot.  Unfortunately those that need it the most are not open to the possibility it applies to them.       

[Ruby Slippers]

Some wise sage said that the goal of participation in any good debate should be to truly understand the other point(s) of view. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Ruby Slippers

[Paul]

All,

The first of three groups of posts has been restored and is now available here:

Some things to note:

• Not all posts have been reviewed yet. This collection represents approximately 1/3rd of the posts being reviewed.
• Of the posts reviewed, approximately half were removed from the original discussion.
• Please do not infer that a missing post suggests that what was posted failed to meet our Community Guidelines. There were wonderful posts made in reply to not so wonderful posts, and leaving them would have made little contextual sense without the posts that were removed. Alternatively, it may have been overlooked as the result of human error. Contact us privately if you're concerned about a particular post and we can discuss.
• Conversely, a post left in the thread may warrant an additional look. Please report posts that may have been overlooked as the result of human error.

Thread #2:

• This is the second third of posts being reviewed. An additional thread remains under review.
• Of the posts reviewed in this thread, 40% were removed from the original discussion.
• As with the first collection, disclaimers above apply. Contact us privately with questions, and kindly report things that may have been overlooked.

Thank you for your understanding and continued patience.

Best,
Paul

Edited June 11, 2020 by Paul
Thread #2

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

Thank you for your understanding and continued patience.

Best,
Paul

Thank you! 

[homecoming]

Thank you for that opening post, Paul. 

 

[jspice]

4 hours ago, Paul said:

As we move forward in this discussion, it's important to understand that intolerance is something that can both exist for some and be invisible to others. The challenge to the community moving forward is to listen and find ways to share your own personal truths, questions, and considerations with an open mind and heart and actively aware that it takes great effort, purpose, and energy to consider the world and how it looks from the perspectives of those that don't share our time, space, education, groups, and identities.

Our visceral reactions may be to state our thoughts as truth, and to actively seek ideas that reinforce our beliefs and bias, or receive indirectly confirmations through that in which we are and have been surrounded. Yet, I think it's important that we all give ourselves the individual respect and love we deserve and we give to others the individual love and respect they deserve by looking toward people that feel differently from us and try to understand things from vantage points other than our own. It is utterly nonsensical to think that because something does not look a certain way to you, that anyone who sees it differently is wrong.

Understanding someone and seeing something from another person's perspective does not at all mean that we agree with them, or that we condone them, or that we justify their actions/inactions, and/or excuse them. Feeling passionate about something and sharing what we believe does not give us the authority to use disparaging or berating terms to describe other human beings, or encourage the use of violence, or the promulgation of hate based on perceived injustices. We can understand and see things from perspectives that are completely foreign to ourselves or in radical opposition to what we believe. We feel strongly about these topics. We feel strongly about these labels. We feel strongly about our own identities and how others perceive us. We feel forced to confront things about ourselves and others that stretch our zones of comfort. And when we feel these things, it's easier to react. A lot of reacting happened here, and statements were made that were full of hostility and vitriol as a result.

To have a meaningful conversation, we must fight back against reacting and take the time and effort necessary to challenge ourselves to stand in someone else's footsteps, seeing the world from their eyes, and starting the conversation with the understanding that we stand in a place and see things from a perspective where others do not. That is simply a part of the human condition. We must recognize that we're hardly ever getting a complete picture, and we're harming ourselves and our ability to grow by failing to allow ourselves the freedom to safely explore the perspective of others.

We must respond with the intention to learn and with the reception to hear.

I’m quoting you because I hope you get to read before it gets deleted again. 
 

@homecoming made a point I’ve been trying to get addressed for a while now about some posts being deleted and others not, particularly with this issue. 
 

We’re not allowed to comment on moderation but in this instance it’s very relevant. When I try to talk about it or ask why we’re not talking about it here it gets deleted and the reasons for editing are altered. 
 

if this gets deleted again I’m just going to send you a message but I believe it’s relevant, especially since you mentioned maybe more moderators from different backgrounds might be needed. 

[Paul]

@jspice: I don't see @homecoming message, yet I moved your comment into this thread so we don't interrupt the topical discussion happening where it was asked. I'm assuming it's elsewhere, so if you wouldn't mind sending a note (report post would be fine), wherever it is, I'm happy to answer questions.

Discussing moderation decisions in public threads has largely been a distraction over the years and we decided long ago that it made more sense to answer questions about why a particular member's thread was moved into a different category, or why one person's quote from a copyrighted source was removed, or the believe that one person was being treated unfairly compared to another, etc. We set the expectation that people reach out privately so we could address whatever mistake we may have made or help them understand why a particular decision was made. There are a few reasons why we implemented this policy, but on the whole, most surrounded us recognizing that, in general, public discussion of a particular moderation decision was a distraction to the rest of the community.

There are times when exceptions to that rule make sense, and I think the matter we're discussing here is one of those times. I think we need to talk about what was removed, and why in a bit more detail, keeping in mind that I've outlined the problems in general in both this thread and elsewhere already. I think this is an opportunity for all us to learn.

I believe there needs to be a clear reason that a post is removed or edited, understanding that it is a nuanced and somewhat subjective art. Moderation, as I see our role, is a form of cultivation, much like the care of a garden. We weed, prune, water, in an effort to grow something beautiful, fruitful, and productive. I do think we could benefit from having a greater number of volunteers to help moderate from different time zones around the globe, so that there are people here and present around the clock to help guide and shift discussions as necessary, and to account for gaps that naturally occur as each of us have separate lives, responsibilities, and commitments that call us away from the time we can give to the community. In my mind, the more individuals we have participating in that process, the more lenses we have with which to see our community, and the more opportunities we have to check in with and learn from each other when an extra set of eyes would be helpful.

I think your concern might be if I believe a lack of diversity in the cultural, ethnic, or racial backgrounds of our present moderators was a significant factor in the breakdown of discourse that occurred. That's not what I was trying to imply, and I don't believe that's true. We have wonderfully gifted individuals giving of their time here. Of course, who we are will always play some role in how we view and interpret the world (and, by extension, the discussions here). Rather, I feel we don't have enough individuals serving in a capacity necessary to sustain such rapid-fire, controversial topics. As soon as one person throws out a hostile remark, it's hard to contain the resulting snowball unless caught early on, and it's overwhelming for the small group we have now.

I hope that helps answer your questions and I invite those interested in volunteering to continue to reach out.

Best,
Paul

Edited June 11, 2020 by Paul
Oops. Hit save too soon. :)

[jspice]

I understand the overall policy absolutely. 
Also, I get that these are volunteer positions but what I am concerned about is not about not being able to respond rapidly but rather the skewed response. 
 

There is a very strong bias from some here who have the ability to steer the conversation, to delete or edit posts, or even ban members. Things get very personal sometimes. 
 

Take the post you removed and edited; how many posts from very early in the thread did you have to clean up? That’s not a lack of response time in my opinion. 

I don’t know if any reader here will even back me up, but a lot of people notice the heavy handedness in moderating certain subsets in certain discussions. 
 

Again, thank you for actively showing that everyone’s opinions are welcome here.

Im not a super active poster, but I had been thinking about deleting my account. 

[NuevoYorko]

3 hours ago, jspice said:

I understand the overall policy absolutely. 
Also, I get that these are volunteer positions but what I am concerned about is not about not being able to respond rapidly but rather the skewed response. 
 

There is a very strong bias from some here who have the ability to steer the conversation, to delete or edit posts, or even ban members. Things get very personal sometimes. 
 

Take the post you removed and edited; how many posts from very early in the thread did you have to clean up? That’s not a lack of response time in my opinion. 

I don’t know if any reader here will even back me up, but a lot of people notice the heavy handedness in moderating certain subsets in certain discussions. 
 

Again, thank you for actively showing that everyone’s opinions are welcome here.

Im not a super active poster, but I had been thinking about deleting my account. 

I would like to back you up ... a post I made with a similar point was deleted.  

[jspice]

33 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

I would like to back you up ... a post I made with a similar point was deleted.  

I know. My post quoting yours was deleted  too. 

[gaius]

That's what you guys have been asking for though. Heavy moderation, getting rid of any posts that can be interpreted in any negative fashion whatsoever. Instead of just allowing a free flowing conversation and getting rid of the obviously offensive stuff. Now that you got what you ask for you want to deactivate your account? 

Thank you @Paul sincerely for giving me a place to express over 10,000 of my thoughts for the last decade. I appreciate all the work, money and effort you and the volunteer moderators have put in over the years. This community you created has had many great moments. And while I don't think I'm going anywhere (unless moderation deems it so one day) I can't see myself participating in that new sub forum. A conversation where the diversity of opinions range from the black community should get 10 trillion in reparations to the black community should get 100 trillion in reparations has no appeal. I'm sure many members will find it stimulating though.

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by gaius

[Paul]

Thank you for the feedback, @jspice.

16 hours ago, jspice said:

Also, I get that these are volunteer positions but what I am concerned about is not about not being able to respond rapidly but rather the skewed response. 
 

There is a very strong bias from some here who have the ability to steer the conversation, to delete or edit posts, or even ban members. Things get very personal sometimes. 

That a bias would exist, or that there is a perception that bias exists, beyond a clear and intentional bias toward the principles espoused in our Community Guidelines, is one that we'd all benefit by addressing. Our mission is for people to have a place to safely explore their relationships with each other and their communities, full stop. My belief is that we have a number of factors that may be at play. More on that in the days to come.

16 hours ago, jspice said:

Take the post you removed and edited; how many posts from very early in the thread did you have to clean up? That’s not a lack of response time in my opinion.

In this thread in which we're posting right now, six posts have been moderated. Four posts were deleted for being off-topic to the first post of the thread, a fifth post was edited to remove a statement that discussed previous actions taken by moderators, and a sixth post was edited to remove commentary positing on the personal motivations of moderators to prevent people from expressing certain opinions. These actions were taken based on the following parts of our Community Guidelines:

Quote

Primary directive: It is important that all participants recognize that tangents started within threads of discussion should be avoided at all times. All replies to any thread should relate directly to the first post in that thread.

...and...

Contacting LoveShack.org: LoveShack.org has provided a number of methods to contact us should an issue arise that you feel needs to be brought to our attention. We expect that community participants will use the "Contact Us" form or the "Report this post to a moderator" form to get in touch with us with any questions pertaining to the site, its operation, or materials posted on the community forums.

Visitors are strongly encouraged to report posts which may violate these Community Guidelines by using the "Report this post to a moderator" function on the top right side of the post. Posts or threads that challenge moderators' decisions will be deleted. Such challenges shall be made via the "Contact Us" link located at the bottom of each page.

This thread had a purpose, as stated in the first post, which I authored, and three individuals decided to attempt to steer the conversation back onto what was being discussed in the temporarily removed threads instead of the matter at hand. The fourth reflected on the decisions moderators made in the past, and yours challenged the moderator's decision to remove the statement from the fourth.

Was there bias in the removal or editing of these posts in this thread we're talking in now? No, upon reflection, I don't think so. Would our making exceptions to our expectations have make sense for this particular thread, for example your removed post and in the statement made by @NuevoYorko? Possibly, yes. But, they were not deleted because a moderator disagreed with what was expressed, or because a moderator's world view was different from the posters'. They were deleted because they didn't follow the framework that has been published for decades.

Could our guidelines benefit from revision? Absolutely! Does that mean there was bias? No. What has been clear to me, in reviewing the threads in question, was that a great number of people feel biased against when encountering opinions, decisions, and perspectives that are different from their own. There is incredible polarization, and I think, personally speaking, it's a reflection of the direction society is taking.

16 hours ago, jspice said:

Again, thank you for actively showing that everyone’s opinions are welcome here.

Not quite. Any opinion, expressed in a manner consistent with our Community Guidelines, are welcome here. Those posters who simply refuse to treat each other with civility and respect, even when they adamantly disagree with an idea or opinion that's expressed, are absolutely and unequivocally, not welcome here. If the opinion you want to express is one in which you desire to single out a subset of humanity and use words or undertones that berate or demean individuals who would be members of the group you've identified, rather than have a civil discussion about what you believe and demonstrate the willingness to hear what others believe, please find the nearest exit. We don't learn by shouting in each others faces and calling each other names and insisting that voices and opinions contrary to our own be silenced by default, or that they have no worth because they're different.

It doesn't matter how true something is to you, or that you have every right on earth to put it on a sign and stand in the middle of the street proclaiming it--here, in our private space, we define boundaries that include civility and respect as fundamental barriers to entry. This is a place to sit down at a shared table, recognize we all see things differently, and grow from the experience. There are places for proclaiming things. These places are important. The act of speaking out about your beliefs and perceptions is something I'll defend your right to do outside of this space. But when you cross our threshold, you agree to take a different, collaborative approach, and to work within the framework we've laid out.

Our vision is of a community where someone that believes in their heart of hearts something to be true finds the safety and ability to engage in a peaceful, open, sharing way with a person that believes in their heart of hearts that the same thing is fundamentally false without coming to blows. And we welcome the input of those of you who think we can do better, or who want to play a larger part.

Best,
Paul

Edited June 12, 2020 by Paul
Edited to include details on an edited post that I had missed when looking back up the thread. Sorry!

[jspice]

Just to clarify, I know not every opinion is within your guidelines but if was saying every person is welcome to post ( I suppose I should’ve qualified that it is within the guidelines)

 

I didn’t see anything in this thread that was deleted so I was referring to another thread then. 
 

thanks again 

[Libby1]

Recognising our own biases is incredibly difficult at the best of times, but in any discussion focused around addressing racism effectively it's going to be even more so.  People aren't likely to want to acknowledge biases they have which other people will term racist.  It is, after all, an exceptionally loaded term which over the years people have become very frightened of being labelled with.  The other issue is that in a discussion like that people might be overly keen to perceive racism in any posts that question their position - if they regard themselves as staunch advocates of anti-racism.  Terms like "racism" can become a bit of a weapon against political opponents in these discussions.

I wrote a post in the political section about how I see some of the activism that is around just now, and the corresponding drive to cleanse society of various things that are regarded as offensive (recently in the UK, a couple of hugely successful comedies from 10 or so years ago have been removed from youtube for fear of causing offence).  Sometimes there's an element of the passionate rescuer who sees everybody as a potential persecutor of the victim they've adopted, and therefore lashes out pretty indiscriminately - with the justification that the victim must be protected at all costs.  We wouldn't hesitate to question that sort of dynamic if we saw it occur in interpersonal relationships.  We'd recognise very quickly how unhealthy it is.  But so long as it occurs in the context of political activism, that dynamic can be played out with impunity.  Especially if anybody questioning it can be very swiftly silenced with allegations of racism. 

Oughtn't anti-racism activism be as open to analysis (in terms of whether the activism in question is likely to promote or obstruct us from creating a healthier, better society) as any other human behaviour?

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Libby1