Still--and I know I am only speaking for myself here--I don't engage with posts that are labeled as problematic.
Which is entirely my point about the fact that such warnings need an incredibly light touch -- or else you've got a group of people (outside the ones who'll be following the links & reading for the first time) who are passing value judgments on posts. Let's set aside whether or not those posts deserve such judgment, in toto, and just think about the objective pattern that's likeliest as a result:
1. Some readers (I'd posit the majority) will just avoid that post altogether.
Basically, Linkspam is saying, "someone posted on this topic, but what they're saying isn't worth listening to." For a group that purports to be all about anti-oppression, I find it hugely ironic that they then proceed to do the exact same dismissive action I see so often in the "oh, you're just a ____, you have nothing to contribute." With only a very very few exceptions of really remarkable fail, most posts do have something to contribute, even if it's to observe the momentary stupid come around to wiser comprehension via discussion in the comments. But, in the end, I just don't believe that anyone's words can, or should, be dismissed out of hand -- and when Linkspam says, "this post is problematic" or "this post is digressive/derailing", that's what they're doing: they're creating justification for seeing that specific post as not worth reading. In which case, why freaking link? If it's such a pointless waste of pixels, what's the point, other than (I am left to conclude) to act as a shaming device?
2. Some readers will go out of their way to zero in on the posts tagged as OMG RONG in some way.
Because, y'know, it's a discussion, and that whole territoriality thing I mentioned in the main post.
Upshot: with or without context, with or without indication of willingness to communicate and shift in position, with or without acknowledgment of any other shortcoming that may prevent perfect communication and with the benefit of the doubt because every freaking one of us has privilege blinders of some sort, a post judged as failing by linkspam will therefore get far fewer open-minded readers willing to engage, and a much higher percentage of angry readers more than happy to engage, with flamethrowers.
As for commenting: you are more than welcome to comment here, and I'm glad you feel comfortable doing so! Sure, perhaps the points would've been better raised elsewhere, but see, that assumes I actually really care enough to make that much effort. Hmm, maybe I might at some point, but that caring would only last until the next distraction comes along -- and right now, my energy is being directed towards finding a lost cat. The idea of opening myself up elsewhere to anyone telling me that just making these suggestions are indication of privilege (with its attendant implication that I therefore can be dismissed, now go away) -- or even just minor criticism, to be honest (at this specific point in time) would draw energy away from something far more important.
Or maybe it's that I don't particularly care because I have so little energy left to do more than meander about/around it here, where I can feel relatively safe to do so.
no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2010 01:20 am (UTC)Which is entirely my point about the fact that such warnings need an incredibly light touch -- or else you've got a group of people (outside the ones who'll be following the links & reading for the first time) who are passing value judgments on posts. Let's set aside whether or not those posts deserve such judgment, in toto, and just think about the objective pattern that's likeliest as a result:
1. Some readers (I'd posit the majority) will just avoid that post altogether.
Basically, Linkspam is saying, "someone posted on this topic, but what they're saying isn't worth listening to." For a group that purports to be all about anti-oppression, I find it hugely ironic that they then proceed to do the exact same dismissive action I see so often in the "oh, you're just a ____, you have nothing to contribute." With only a very very few exceptions of really remarkable fail, most posts do have something to contribute, even if it's to observe the momentary stupid come around to wiser comprehension via discussion in the comments. But, in the end, I just don't believe that anyone's words can, or should, be dismissed out of hand -- and when Linkspam says, "this post is problematic" or "this post is digressive/derailing", that's what they're doing: they're creating justification for seeing that specific post as not worth reading. In which case, why freaking link? If it's such a pointless waste of pixels, what's the point, other than (I am left to conclude) to act as a shaming device?
2. Some readers will go out of their way to zero in on the posts tagged as OMG RONG in some way.
Because, y'know, it's a discussion, and that whole territoriality thing I mentioned in the main post.
Upshot: with or without context, with or without indication of willingness to communicate and shift in position, with or without acknowledgment of any other shortcoming that may prevent perfect communication and with the benefit of the doubt because every freaking one of us has privilege blinders of some sort, a post judged as failing by linkspam will therefore get far fewer open-minded readers willing to engage, and a much higher percentage of angry readers more than happy to engage, with flamethrowers.
As for commenting: you are more than welcome to comment here, and I'm glad you feel comfortable doing so! Sure, perhaps the points would've been better raised elsewhere, but see, that assumes I actually really care enough to make that much effort. Hmm, maybe I might at some point, but that caring would only last until the next distraction comes along -- and right now, my energy is being directed towards finding a lost cat. The idea of opening myself up elsewhere to anyone telling me that just making these suggestions are indication of privilege (with its attendant implication that I therefore can be dismissed, now go away) -- or even just minor criticism, to be honest (at this specific point in time) would draw energy away from something far more important.
Or maybe it's that I don't particularly care because I have so little energy left to do more than meander about/around it here, where I can feel relatively safe to do so.