![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouETA: I'm aware this has been linked on at least one of the digests. Before you jump in with both feet, it might help to know that this is me verbalizing my way through the dynamics. The goal is a reasonable yet flexible understanding. That way in future I'll be better equipped to know when I'm dealing with digression or derailment in myself or others, and how to better express myself to reduce what ambiguity and misunderstanding that I can.
Towards that end, civil, logical, and trend-supported arguments are most persuasive. I say 'trend-supported,' because too-specific instances are too easily dismissed as 'exceptions'; I do use examples but only when I can think of at least four other instances of similar. Otherwise... well, we do all have our bad days, eh.
This post is in itself a digression from what's actually been on my mind, but partially references the discussions in my linkspam reset post and the preliminary pokings I did in re derailment. (Side note to this side note: there's a lack of replies-to-replies on the second linked post, b/c I had notes saved, blue-screened my mac -- because yes, I really can do that -- and lost them and just didn't have the energy to recreate... so, uhm, there it is.)
This may not be as detailed-thought-out as usual, because I'm busy with other stuff and have limited brainpan space right now for heavy editing... but on the plus side, that also means it's a lot shorter than usual. So, yay for that, and please to be excusing any really awkward stuff. Oh, hell, I'll probably be smoothing the worst of any rough spots over the next day or so, or as they're pointed out.
Anyway, the various discussions have had me contemplating how one can identify digression versus derailment, because sometimes it seems as though digressions get labeled as derailment when perhaps they aren't. So let's see, and if you have better/clearer definitions, speak up.
From Irenes Daughters' Derailment Monday series:
Also, there's what's become the final (or close-to-final) word on derailment tactics: Derailing for Dummies. The latter is more inclusive; in the quoted definition, replace "anti-racist" with "anti-sexist", "anti-homophobic", "anti-ableist", or any other non-privileged area, as needed and it still applies.
In actual practice, from what I've seen, derailment seems to boil down to one of three basic maneuvers: "you don't really suffer", or, "I also suffer, feel my pain, too!", or, "even if you do suffer, I can ignore it/you because of ____". Frex, if the topic is, say, sexism, and someone replies saying "your experience is akin to my experience as [insert serious or trivial marginalization here]", this is treated as a But That Happens To Me Too!. And in the instances as given in the linked site, yeah, those are trivial instances.
At the same time, I do think that sometimes the "I can relate" response can be problematic solely due to phrasing, especially when -- in a objective view -- the respondent may in fact be offering what's awkward support. "Yeah, as a [different kind of marginalized person], I go through something like that, too. I'm totally with you on how aggravating it can be. You've got every right to be furious."
It's only human nature to feel that we must justify in what way we could even relate, especially in the face of someone's (especially if righteous) anger; the inclusion of our means of 'relating' is meant to defuse the person from seeing us as an object of attack: "hey, I'm not clueless about how that might feel. I get what you're saying."
That response is not automatically a derailment, I think. When awkwardly phrased -- particularly when the OP has already gotten the full version one time too many -- it can produce an immediate flag of potential derailment, if by sheer force of habit. But I don't think it's necessarily a derailment if the reply stops there: if the reply started and stopped with simply, "You're right, the fashion industry sucks! They just do not make clothes for real bodies!" The respondent is confirming the marginalized person's complaints, agreeing, supporting -- and yet not requiring any affirmation in return.
The real derailment, from what I've seen, takes place when what could be a well-intentioned reply of empathy becomes, "and now we should really talk about how I've experienced discrimination, too."
But I've also seen such supportive replies get charged with "derailment", at the same time that derailment has come to mean an intentional reaction, if not outright malicious (as opposed to 'kneejerk' and 'stupid'). The very charge of 'derailment!' is so loaded that, from what I've seen, it can clear football-field-sized holes in a journal. It simply reduces any potential defense to rubble. It's like how the Reductio ad Hitlerum maneuver used to work, before it got used one too many times and we ended up with Godwin's Law and learned to laugh hysterically whenever Hitler's invoked.
That's definitely not the response one would wish for any charge of derailment, which is a significantly more serious issue as relates to anti-ism discussions. Calling out unchecked privilege should not (I hope) ever be trivialized as something that can be laughed off as easily as we now laugh off references to Hitler and the Nazis. Problem is, it seems to be getting there.
Have a real-world example of the kind of instance I have in mind. (I am keeping this name-free and somewhat vague, because the intention is for a post-mortem rather than a rehashing per se, because I don't believe anyone was intentionally malicious per se, or at least I'm not willing to ascribe that motivation when stupidity will suffice.)
The players: a digest of community posts, a single post, and a referencing post.
A. Metafandom posts the day's links. Topics are roughly: slash and gender (4); writing (1).
B. OP#1 critiques historical-AU slash; notes trends of erasing/ignoring historical fact of racism.
C. OP#2 links to (A) and to (B); notes trend in (profic, non-slash) historical romance to erase only those historical limitations that affect white women. (That is, increase female agency to reflect modern reader perspectives, without corresponding regard for homophobia or racism issues.)
Where's the derailment?
If you say it's Step B, I wouldn't blame you, but then Step C is also a derailment, speaking as it does to non-slash. Or, if you see the topic as "gender" in fiction (above and beyond slash), then Step B is derailment, seeing how it diverts attention to issues of race and away from issues of gender -- and Step C is gets the train back on track with discussion of gender, except not, because it's not squarely on the issue of slash. That is, Step B treats slash-in-history as tangential or peripheral to the issue of racism-in-history, while Step C treats slash-in-history and racism-in-history as symptoms of a problem identifiable only by looking at sexism-in-history.
My point is that I don't think you can logically claim that only Step C is derailment. That's a contradiction, because either both are diverting from the main issue -- the intersection of gay relationships and gender issues -- or each are talking about a subset within one of the two topics.
The problem? If you read the comments, only Step C got slammed for derailment, and it appears to have shut down the conversation entirely, as well as any potential further discussion of Step C's thesis. That's really a pity, too, because if you do not view either Step B or Step C as derailments -- but as logical and informative digressions -- then you do consider it a loss to have that secondary branch cut abruptly short. And it's especially a loss in that it's cut short by what amounts to a kind of public shaming, for which the irony is only compounded that the shaming occurs on behalf of a post that, by the standards that say Step C is a derailment, thus is also a derailment on its own.
When someone makes a statement, you can say "yes" or "no". When you say "Yes, and..." it's not automatically a digression.
A: Racism against Hispanic people takes ___ forms.
B: Yes, and these forms are also used in racism against ____ people.
The point of B contains a digression in that it expands A to apply to B. Where it becomes a diversion -- and where, I think, people are most likely to mistake "digression" for "derailment" -- is if B uses this agreement to segue into, "and thus we should discuss this expanded point instead of the original thesis."
However -- and this is very important, I think -- derailment is specifically, by common definition, when someone uses privilege to enforce the status quo. The subtext of that privilege is because the speaker is uncomfortable with, or wishes to divert attention from, their own alliance/guilt with the privilege being called out in the original statement. A clear example of what I mean:
A: The rape culture condones and even encourages men to treat women as sex objects.
B: Hey, men get raped, too. [expansion] We should talk about how the pain those men feel [diversion] because that's even worse [privilege].
And by "clear", I mean, "especially obvious when it's a woman calling out male participation in, or uncaring blindness to, social patterns, and the respondent is a man who'd rather not have to address his own contribution to those social patterns". That's where and why we get the "I've suffered, too, [and my privilege allows me to demand that] we should discuss my suffering instead, because [my privilege has taught me that] my issues are [more] important [than yours]."
That's belaboring the nitty-gritty of derailment, but I think it's important, because that's not really a true "Yes, and..." -- it's a "Yes, but." Essentially, the replies above are saying, "Yes, you're hurt, but my hurt is more important."
A "Yes, and..." is how I classify both Step B and Step C, in the real-world example. If we categorize the original topic (Step A) as "slash (with a side-order of gender)", then it seems perfectly reasonable for Step B to be giving a positive "Yes, and..." reply. "Yes, slash has problems, and these also include how it treats race alongside its treatment of homosexuality." In other words, Step B could be read as saying, the problem is larger than the original thesis -- and in turn, Step C is tying this digression back into the main track via the topic of romance (of which slash is really a subset) and how it handles gender and homosexuality (the original topic areas) and racism (the digressive topic area).
That is a well-evolved conversation, one in which the disparate parts -- digressive though they may appear on the surface -- in fact are informing each other in turn. Shutting down Step C via public chiding and a liberal tossing of the derailment grenades stunted the discussion's potential growth right there. That's not fair to the posting parties, nor is it fair to we readers who seek out and wish to continue with a discussion's evolution.
I do think it's entirely feasible -- and reasonable -- to say, "this is digressing from the main topic," without also shutting down what is a supportive response, though perhaps one outside the OP's scope to either address or to possibly moderate, should the expansion inflame the commentaries. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the OP to say, "ah, I see your point, but I've set the topic to these edges."
At this point, I do think it's important to note that the respondent does not, in my opinion, have an ethical leg to stand on if s/he then charges the OP with being racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other category. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not the OP really is; the fact is that the OP has the right to set the limits of the thesis as it's being discussed. Nor do I think it's acceptable to force the OP to justify those choices; the fact that someone may not wish to expand the thesis into areas they're not expert in, or are not personally experienced in, or are already looking at a massive time-sink in dealing with replies and don't want to increase the traffic, does not automatically mean that their agreement must be hollow simply because they don't then take up the banner to expand their thesis to include your additions.
It just means their thesis is what it is, and for their own reasons -- which they have the right to have -- they aren't able or willing (or comfortable) doing more than agreeing while keeping the thesis limited to its original points.
To push past those limits is like showing up at someone's party and insisting that when you discover there's a hot tub in the backyard, that the host is the one in the wrong for refusing to let you use it. No; when you are a guest in someone's journal, you abide by the journal-owner's request -- if you want a party with a hot tub, then you get a hot tub and host that party yourself.
That might seem like a silly example, but I think it's what makes the internets such a vibrant place: we're constantly at other parties, seeing hot tubs and liking them, and coming back to our own spaces and opening up a hot tub of our own for people to enjoy. At the same time, even as we open this metaphorical hot tub for additional enjoyment, we sometimes find ourselves annoyed by the insistence of particular guests who don't see why we won't cut down our backyard trees for a bonfire. But I provided this lovely hot tub, we'd say, isn't that enough? No, the guest replies, it's not; we want a bonfire, and if you weren't selfish [racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc], you'd be willing to put forth the energy to entertain us in the way we'd prefer."
To which the proper answer is, "you're perfectly welcome to have a bonfire... in your own backyard." Thus the circle continues, with those guests going home and starting up their own party, with hot tub and bonfire, and inviting everyone (or possibly a limited few, if tempers got involved) to enjoy the combination. Hell, for that matter, the guests may decide bonfires are way better than hot tubs, and just have a bonfire. It's their party; they can do that.
I've not yet seen a label for counter-derailment, but I'm sure it's coming soon enough. I suppose you might call it a reverse derailment, except that within the metaphor that makes for a really bizarre image (not to mention one that completely wrecks my points that the OP, as the engineer, is the one driving the train and has the right to say which is the 'right' track). What I'm describing here is more like track-jumping.
The OP makes a post about slash and gender. I should note, for the purposes of this illustration we must also presume that this is all taking place inside the same conversation ring, hereby defined as "the OP's post and its comments" -- although inside the metaphor we could say, "all taking place on the same train." If a commenter replies that the slash/gender thesis could be expanded to ableism, for instance, and the OP won't allow, entertain, or encourage (regardless of agreement) this diversion, then a commenter who slams the OP with anti-____ privilege is not derailing in the classical sense. The commenter is, however, attempting to jump the train to a different track: one no longer guided by the OP but instead steered by the commenter's perspective.
I say it's not derailing because derailment hinges on privilege to deny or dismiss the posted thesis. "You're not really that marginalized," and, "oh, I get that all the time," are dismissals. "I absolutely agree with you" is not, on its own, a dismiss but an affirmation. Furthermore, I won't say the OP is derailing (denying via privilege), because I don't think you can really derail your own train, so long as you remain on the thesis-track you'd laid down*. (Though I concede an OP can definitely assist a derailment, if unintentionally; all it takes is getting caught in a back-and-forth with a respondent especially skilled in classical derailing.)
* I'm sure there are people who've posited an anti-oppression thesis and then, in the course of their own arguments for that thesis, end up proving the opposite. But I think that's a result of unexamined privilege, some incredibly fuzzy logic and/or muddy writing, not derailment as it's usually defined: a defensive reply from the audience. Hard to argue well upon one thesis and then post your own defensive reply attempting to derail that thesis... though I suppose you could, but I'd also expect most visitors to think you're just a little crazy for it, too.
But neither do I think you can say the commenter is derailing, per se, unless you want to get into Oppression Olympics to justify arguing the commenter is speaking from a position of privilege -- and if the commenter is not, that's when I think it's more an attempted track-jump than the much more loaded and negative version of true derailment.
The reason I specify the difference is because a track-jump is the postulation of an anti-oppression thesis in its own right. Or to use the party metaphor, it's the difference between hosting your own party but with hot tub, versus hosting a party that consists of people holding signs and walking the sidewalk in front of someone else's party. If the original response was, "Yes, but I've suffered more," this makes the track-jumped thesis into a declaration of the oppression olympics (to use a really clear and simple example, though real-life would be muddier, of course). Compare that to "Yes, and this also applies to ___." Can you see the distinction?
The first digression creates a thesis that measures itself against the original while the second contains a thesis that builds on the first. To use the train metaphor, stating the first reply as a thesis requires taking someone else's thesis and driving it intentionally off the rails as part of your own thesis. Stating the second reply as a thesis means taking someone else's starting point and carrying it past the original thesis' destination to somewhere farther down the line.
Yes, I'm aware that when writing from privilege, it may not be obvious to the respondent of the first type that this is what they're doing. But if their separately-stated thesis can be rephrased to generally mean, "someone is talking about X, but X isn't really that important" or its fuller corollary, "someone is talking about X, but Y is more hurtful to me and we should talk about that", then it's probably an intentional and argumentative oppression train. Even if it's not directly derailing someone else's discussion-train within the comments to that actual post, I think. It is, at the very least, creating an echo of the first train as a separate post and derailing that echo instead.
And yes, also, I can see that in the light of that paragraph, Step C might be judged as a kind of derailment, in that it prefaces and references several other train-paths. But for that to be true, then Step B is also a derailment -- and, I'd posit, we must also then participate in oppression olympics to gauge who is oppressed enough to be able to claim their track is the One True Track and all others must be derailment. I don't know about you, but that game is one I see no value in playing, because all it does is blow up the tracks so no trains will come through at all.
That's why it's of crucial importance to me that spaces be delineated, and that derailment be limited to those times and instances where it really does fit the crime. Throwing it around, such as at someone's decision to lay a route for a train that's track-jumped from someone else's starting point, is going to get us nowhere -- with the added benefit of turning 'derailment' into a ridiculed term that means nothing, and is tossed out only by the desperate.
Towards that end, civil, logical, and trend-supported arguments are most persuasive. I say 'trend-supported,' because too-specific instances are too easily dismissed as 'exceptions'; I do use examples but only when I can think of at least four other instances of similar. Otherwise... well, we do all have our bad days, eh.
This post is in itself a digression from what's actually been on my mind, but partially references the discussions in my linkspam reset post and the preliminary pokings I did in re derailment. (Side note to this side note: there's a lack of replies-to-replies on the second linked post, b/c I had notes saved, blue-screened my mac -- because yes, I really can do that -- and lost them and just didn't have the energy to recreate... so, uhm, there it is.)
This may not be as detailed-thought-out as usual, because I'm busy with other stuff and have limited brainpan space right now for heavy editing... but on the plus side, that also means it's a lot shorter than usual. So, yay for that, and please to be excusing any really awkward stuff. Oh, hell, I'll probably be smoothing the worst of any rough spots over the next day or so, or as they're pointed out.
Anyway, the various discussions have had me contemplating how one can identify digression versus derailment, because sometimes it seems as though digressions get labeled as derailment when perhaps they aren't. So let's see, and if you have better/clearer definitions, speak up.
From Irenes Daughters' Derailment Monday series:
derailment [n]: a defensive argument, statement, or question that dismisses or seeks to undermine anti-racist arguments in an effort to preserve privilege or the status quo.
Also, there's what's become the final (or close-to-final) word on derailment tactics: Derailing for Dummies. The latter is more inclusive; in the quoted definition, replace "anti-racist" with "anti-sexist", "anti-homophobic", "anti-ableist", or any other non-privileged area, as needed and it still applies.
In actual practice, from what I've seen, derailment seems to boil down to one of three basic maneuvers: "you don't really suffer", or, "I also suffer, feel my pain, too!", or, "even if you do suffer, I can ignore it/you because of ____". Frex, if the topic is, say, sexism, and someone replies saying "your experience is akin to my experience as [insert serious or trivial marginalization here]", this is treated as a But That Happens To Me Too!. And in the instances as given in the linked site, yeah, those are trivial instances.
If you are speaking to a fat person who is complaining about the lack of fashion-forward and beautiful clothing made in their size, try something like: “The fashion industry sucks! They just do not make clothes for real bodies - I mean, just because I am a size four doesn’t mean I’m short! Jeans are always too short on me!”
At the same time, I do think that sometimes the "I can relate" response can be problematic solely due to phrasing, especially when -- in a objective view -- the respondent may in fact be offering what's awkward support. "Yeah, as a [different kind of marginalized person], I go through something like that, too. I'm totally with you on how aggravating it can be. You've got every right to be furious."
It's only human nature to feel that we must justify in what way we could even relate, especially in the face of someone's (especially if righteous) anger; the inclusion of our means of 'relating' is meant to defuse the person from seeing us as an object of attack: "hey, I'm not clueless about how that might feel. I get what you're saying."
That response is not automatically a derailment, I think. When awkwardly phrased -- particularly when the OP has already gotten the full version one time too many -- it can produce an immediate flag of potential derailment, if by sheer force of habit. But I don't think it's necessarily a derailment if the reply stops there: if the reply started and stopped with simply, "You're right, the fashion industry sucks! They just do not make clothes for real bodies!" The respondent is confirming the marginalized person's complaints, agreeing, supporting -- and yet not requiring any affirmation in return.
The real derailment, from what I've seen, takes place when what could be a well-intentioned reply of empathy becomes, "and now we should really talk about how I've experienced discrimination, too."
But I've also seen such supportive replies get charged with "derailment", at the same time that derailment has come to mean an intentional reaction, if not outright malicious (as opposed to 'kneejerk' and 'stupid'). The very charge of 'derailment!' is so loaded that, from what I've seen, it can clear football-field-sized holes in a journal. It simply reduces any potential defense to rubble. It's like how the Reductio ad Hitlerum maneuver used to work, before it got used one too many times and we ended up with Godwin's Law and learned to laugh hysterically whenever Hitler's invoked.
That's definitely not the response one would wish for any charge of derailment, which is a significantly more serious issue as relates to anti-ism discussions. Calling out unchecked privilege should not (I hope) ever be trivialized as something that can be laughed off as easily as we now laugh off references to Hitler and the Nazis. Problem is, it seems to be getting there.
Have a real-world example of the kind of instance I have in mind. (I am keeping this name-free and somewhat vague, because the intention is for a post-mortem rather than a rehashing per se, because I don't believe anyone was intentionally malicious per se, or at least I'm not willing to ascribe that motivation when stupidity will suffice.)
The players: a digest of community posts, a single post, and a referencing post.
A. Metafandom posts the day's links. Topics are roughly: slash and gender (4); writing (1).
B. OP#1 critiques historical-AU slash; notes trends of erasing/ignoring historical fact of racism.
C. OP#2 links to (A) and to (B); notes trend in (profic, non-slash) historical romance to erase only those historical limitations that affect white women. (That is, increase female agency to reflect modern reader perspectives, without corresponding regard for homophobia or racism issues.)
Where's the derailment?
If you say it's Step B, I wouldn't blame you, but then Step C is also a derailment, speaking as it does to non-slash. Or, if you see the topic as "gender" in fiction (above and beyond slash), then Step B is derailment, seeing how it diverts attention to issues of race and away from issues of gender -- and Step C is gets the train back on track with discussion of gender, except not, because it's not squarely on the issue of slash. That is, Step B treats slash-in-history as tangential or peripheral to the issue of racism-in-history, while Step C treats slash-in-history and racism-in-history as symptoms of a problem identifiable only by looking at sexism-in-history.
My point is that I don't think you can logically claim that only Step C is derailment. That's a contradiction, because either both are diverting from the main issue -- the intersection of gay relationships and gender issues -- or each are talking about a subset within one of the two topics.
The problem? If you read the comments, only Step C got slammed for derailment, and it appears to have shut down the conversation entirely, as well as any potential further discussion of Step C's thesis. That's really a pity, too, because if you do not view either Step B or Step C as derailments -- but as logical and informative digressions -- then you do consider it a loss to have that secondary branch cut abruptly short. And it's especially a loss in that it's cut short by what amounts to a kind of public shaming, for which the irony is only compounded that the shaming occurs on behalf of a post that, by the standards that say Step C is a derailment, thus is also a derailment on its own.
When someone makes a statement, you can say "yes" or "no". When you say "Yes, and..." it's not automatically a digression.
A: Racism against Hispanic people takes ___ forms.
B: Yes, and these forms are also used in racism against ____ people.
The point of B contains a digression in that it expands A to apply to B. Where it becomes a diversion -- and where, I think, people are most likely to mistake "digression" for "derailment" -- is if B uses this agreement to segue into, "and thus we should discuss this expanded point instead of the original thesis."
However -- and this is very important, I think -- derailment is specifically, by common definition, when someone uses privilege to enforce the status quo. The subtext of that privilege is because the speaker is uncomfortable with, or wishes to divert attention from, their own alliance/guilt with the privilege being called out in the original statement. A clear example of what I mean:
A: The rape culture condones and even encourages men to treat women as sex objects.
B: Hey, men get raped, too. [expansion] We should talk about how the pain those men feel [diversion] because that's even worse [privilege].
And by "clear", I mean, "especially obvious when it's a woman calling out male participation in, or uncaring blindness to, social patterns, and the respondent is a man who'd rather not have to address his own contribution to those social patterns". That's where and why we get the "I've suffered, too, [and my privilege allows me to demand that] we should discuss my suffering instead, because [my privilege has taught me that] my issues are [more] important [than yours]."
That's belaboring the nitty-gritty of derailment, but I think it's important, because that's not really a true "Yes, and..." -- it's a "Yes, but." Essentially, the replies above are saying, "Yes, you're hurt, but my hurt is more important."
A "Yes, and..." is how I classify both Step B and Step C, in the real-world example. If we categorize the original topic (Step A) as "slash (with a side-order of gender)", then it seems perfectly reasonable for Step B to be giving a positive "Yes, and..." reply. "Yes, slash has problems, and these also include how it treats race alongside its treatment of homosexuality." In other words, Step B could be read as saying, the problem is larger than the original thesis -- and in turn, Step C is tying this digression back into the main track via the topic of romance (of which slash is really a subset) and how it handles gender and homosexuality (the original topic areas) and racism (the digressive topic area).
That is a well-evolved conversation, one in which the disparate parts -- digressive though they may appear on the surface -- in fact are informing each other in turn. Shutting down Step C via public chiding and a liberal tossing of the derailment grenades stunted the discussion's potential growth right there. That's not fair to the posting parties, nor is it fair to we readers who seek out and wish to continue with a discussion's evolution.
I do think it's entirely feasible -- and reasonable -- to say, "this is digressing from the main topic," without also shutting down what is a supportive response, though perhaps one outside the OP's scope to either address or to possibly moderate, should the expansion inflame the commentaries. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the OP to say, "ah, I see your point, but I've set the topic to these edges."
At this point, I do think it's important to note that the respondent does not, in my opinion, have an ethical leg to stand on if s/he then charges the OP with being racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other category. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not the OP really is; the fact is that the OP has the right to set the limits of the thesis as it's being discussed. Nor do I think it's acceptable to force the OP to justify those choices; the fact that someone may not wish to expand the thesis into areas they're not expert in, or are not personally experienced in, or are already looking at a massive time-sink in dealing with replies and don't want to increase the traffic, does not automatically mean that their agreement must be hollow simply because they don't then take up the banner to expand their thesis to include your additions.
It just means their thesis is what it is, and for their own reasons -- which they have the right to have -- they aren't able or willing (or comfortable) doing more than agreeing while keeping the thesis limited to its original points.
To push past those limits is like showing up at someone's party and insisting that when you discover there's a hot tub in the backyard, that the host is the one in the wrong for refusing to let you use it. No; when you are a guest in someone's journal, you abide by the journal-owner's request -- if you want a party with a hot tub, then you get a hot tub and host that party yourself.
That might seem like a silly example, but I think it's what makes the internets such a vibrant place: we're constantly at other parties, seeing hot tubs and liking them, and coming back to our own spaces and opening up a hot tub of our own for people to enjoy. At the same time, even as we open this metaphorical hot tub for additional enjoyment, we sometimes find ourselves annoyed by the insistence of particular guests who don't see why we won't cut down our backyard trees for a bonfire. But I provided this lovely hot tub, we'd say, isn't that enough? No, the guest replies, it's not; we want a bonfire, and if you weren't selfish [racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc], you'd be willing to put forth the energy to entertain us in the way we'd prefer."
To which the proper answer is, "you're perfectly welcome to have a bonfire... in your own backyard." Thus the circle continues, with those guests going home and starting up their own party, with hot tub and bonfire, and inviting everyone (or possibly a limited few, if tempers got involved) to enjoy the combination. Hell, for that matter, the guests may decide bonfires are way better than hot tubs, and just have a bonfire. It's their party; they can do that.
I've not yet seen a label for counter-derailment, but I'm sure it's coming soon enough. I suppose you might call it a reverse derailment, except that within the metaphor that makes for a really bizarre image (not to mention one that completely wrecks my points that the OP, as the engineer, is the one driving the train and has the right to say which is the 'right' track). What I'm describing here is more like track-jumping.
The OP makes a post about slash and gender. I should note, for the purposes of this illustration we must also presume that this is all taking place inside the same conversation ring, hereby defined as "the OP's post and its comments" -- although inside the metaphor we could say, "all taking place on the same train." If a commenter replies that the slash/gender thesis could be expanded to ableism, for instance, and the OP won't allow, entertain, or encourage (regardless of agreement) this diversion, then a commenter who slams the OP with anti-____ privilege is not derailing in the classical sense. The commenter is, however, attempting to jump the train to a different track: one no longer guided by the OP but instead steered by the commenter's perspective.
I say it's not derailing because derailment hinges on privilege to deny or dismiss the posted thesis. "You're not really that marginalized," and, "oh, I get that all the time," are dismissals. "I absolutely agree with you" is not, on its own, a dismiss but an affirmation. Furthermore, I won't say the OP is derailing (denying via privilege), because I don't think you can really derail your own train, so long as you remain on the thesis-track you'd laid down*. (Though I concede an OP can definitely assist a derailment, if unintentionally; all it takes is getting caught in a back-and-forth with a respondent especially skilled in classical derailing.)
* I'm sure there are people who've posited an anti-oppression thesis and then, in the course of their own arguments for that thesis, end up proving the opposite. But I think that's a result of unexamined privilege, some incredibly fuzzy logic and/or muddy writing, not derailment as it's usually defined: a defensive reply from the audience. Hard to argue well upon one thesis and then post your own defensive reply attempting to derail that thesis... though I suppose you could, but I'd also expect most visitors to think you're just a little crazy for it, too.
But neither do I think you can say the commenter is derailing, per se, unless you want to get into Oppression Olympics to justify arguing the commenter is speaking from a position of privilege -- and if the commenter is not, that's when I think it's more an attempted track-jump than the much more loaded and negative version of true derailment.
The reason I specify the difference is because a track-jump is the postulation of an anti-oppression thesis in its own right. Or to use the party metaphor, it's the difference between hosting your own party but with hot tub, versus hosting a party that consists of people holding signs and walking the sidewalk in front of someone else's party. If the original response was, "Yes, but I've suffered more," this makes the track-jumped thesis into a declaration of the oppression olympics (to use a really clear and simple example, though real-life would be muddier, of course). Compare that to "Yes, and this also applies to ___." Can you see the distinction?
The first digression creates a thesis that measures itself against the original while the second contains a thesis that builds on the first. To use the train metaphor, stating the first reply as a thesis requires taking someone else's thesis and driving it intentionally off the rails as part of your own thesis. Stating the second reply as a thesis means taking someone else's starting point and carrying it past the original thesis' destination to somewhere farther down the line.
Yes, I'm aware that when writing from privilege, it may not be obvious to the respondent of the first type that this is what they're doing. But if their separately-stated thesis can be rephrased to generally mean, "someone is talking about X, but X isn't really that important" or its fuller corollary, "someone is talking about X, but Y is more hurtful to me and we should talk about that", then it's probably an intentional and argumentative oppression train. Even if it's not directly derailing someone else's discussion-train within the comments to that actual post, I think. It is, at the very least, creating an echo of the first train as a separate post and derailing that echo instead.
And yes, also, I can see that in the light of that paragraph, Step C might be judged as a kind of derailment, in that it prefaces and references several other train-paths. But for that to be true, then Step B is also a derailment -- and, I'd posit, we must also then participate in oppression olympics to gauge who is oppressed enough to be able to claim their track is the One True Track and all others must be derailment. I don't know about you, but that game is one I see no value in playing, because all it does is blow up the tracks so no trains will come through at all.
That's why it's of crucial importance to me that spaces be delineated, and that derailment be limited to those times and instances where it really does fit the crime. Throwing it around, such as at someone's decision to lay a route for a train that's track-jumped from someone else's starting point, is going to get us nowhere -- with the added benefit of turning 'derailment' into a ridiculed term that means nothing, and is tossed out only by the desperate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 13 Mar 2010 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 13 Mar 2010 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 13 Mar 2010 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 13 Mar 2010 11:21 pm (UTC)Hm, I do think the interaction ends up sounding very differently if the commenter trying to extend the conversation to ableism is privileged with respect to the OP on the conversation about slash and gender versus if the commenter comes from an intersectional experience, but the difference would still lie in the distinction you've already raised: a person who thinks they're saying "yes and" can come off sounding as a "yes but" and also that privilege is really the crux here.
In your extended example, I wouldn't consider post C to be a derailment either, at least not as you summed it up and not as I remember any of the posts in that particular discussion happening; I'm quite surprised to hear that there were accusations of derailment occurring. (Well, unless we're talking about completely different posts B and C, which is also possible.)
I have to admit, I have trouble understanding the concern over the misuse of "derailing" as a term because I still see derailing (in the way you define it: a tangential point brought up to dismiss the original topic of conversation) happen the majority of the time. This probably has to do with the subset of discussions I've paid closer attention to, as well as the particular areas where I possess privilege. I agree that there ought to be understanding that not all discussions inherently are the one and same discussion, but I don't agree--as has been argued by people multiple times although not by you in this post--that making a post separately in one's own journal necessarily and automatically means that one has moved the conversation to a separate space. As you say, if the thesis of the post is to publicly dismiss the concerns of the original discussion, then it is still derailing even if it takes place on someone's separate journal. Ultimately, while I think you're right that conversational spaces should be better delineated, I also think that such separation of conversation streams won't obey a list of hard and fast rules. There have been several suggestions raised on how to make sure a "yes and" doesn't end up being mistaken for a derail but a parallel discussion, such as not referencing the original discussion or waiting in time to make one's post--I think none of these suggestions are intended as hard and fast rules either and that there are probably other solutions depending on the situation.
no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 12:44 am (UTC)Metafandom does not separate by conversation. Which means that in a given post, you will probably find posts talking to each other and posts that don't know those other posts exist.
In any definition I've seen, one cannot derail a conversation one is not part of.
(Now, the discussion of which posts belong to the same conversation is tricky to say the least. Personally I trust self-identification. i.e. someone says 'about this other thing this other person posted here' or 'I've been following the conversation in x community and...'.)
no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:08 am (UTC)In any definition I've seen, one cannot derail a conversation one is not part of.
Until the attempts to define it otherwise, yes, this is true, and pretty much a big part of my point. And even if one does reference someone else's party, that doesn't mean one's own party is an attempt eclipse the other, or even that mention thereby indicates a direct continuation of.
no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:13 am (UTC)Well, I guess we've a very different understanding on communication on the internet. I do think conversation happen across spaces, and that concept obviously influences how I see this. As your concept that they do not changes how you see it.
So, thanks for clarifying the point, I'll just go away to read some nice otp fic before going to sleep.
no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:25 am (UTC)Err, not exactly. I do think that one can, and should be able to, post as one chooses in one's own journal, and it can be presented as, and become, a separate thesis. If it were true that one could derail simply by posting a contradictory and/or privileged post in one's own journal, then we're all freaking derailing. I mean, come on, there has to be a line somewhere, or else it just becomes a reason for anyone to run around and shame people into shutting up when it just might be that the person would eventually realize the ups and downs of their statements if they bloody well could use their own space to work that shit out, yo. Lacking any better way to delineate the conversation streams, the simplest is really the simplest: "are these in different journals? yes? then unless otherwise explicitly stated as "this is a direct response to so-and-so and that person's post about such-and-such" (which I have seen), then give it the benefit of the doubt and consider it separate.
Doing otherwise requires that we have or tolerate conversation police, who'll run around and tell each of us when we're derailing what someone else is saying somewhere else. That seems... verging on ridiculous, not to mention offensive when a conversation's natural digression is taken as derailment.
a person who thinks they're saying "yes and" can come off sounding as a "yes but" and also that privilege is really the crux here.
I think it's messier than that. I think someone can mean "yes and" yet read like "yes but" not automatically because of privilege; sometimes the blame belongs at the foot of inadequate communication skills. Furthermore, unless someone specifically states their positions of privilege (and even then, we'd be here all night if we were to each introduce our personal intersections of privilege and lack), what we have to go on is implication -- half of which is in the eye of the reader, further complicated by language/writing skill levels -- and the other half is tone. I've seen plenty of people assume privilege when in fact the actual privilege is minimal, and tone (authoritative, that is) seems to be a big part of that misinterpretation.
Plus, we've got a third intersection on journals, I think, of audience: someone might be genuinely attempting a true derailment in direct response to a post about such-and-such -ism... but if the person knee-jerking on privilege has only 10 readers, while the voice reacted against has 200... I just don't see that as having a silence effect, not practically speaking, and even less so if the derailing person doesn't get linked to and/or has no audience in common with the bigger voice. I put that down as, "someone is being stupid in the corner, but maybe eventually they'll wise up." I don't put that down as reason to launch a full-on attack at someone who nobody's damn well listening to, anyway.
Well, then again, that sort of requires that we presume all participants are somewhat rational and unlikely to go bounding off in fury over the fact that someone is omg WRONG on the internets. And I bet you can guess as well as I can just how far such a presumption would really get us...
(My own tone may be rather snappish right now, so if I reread this tomorrow and I still get that impression, I'll likely edit it down -- having a very bad night tonight, and if I were smart, I'd just shut up and reply tomorrow. But either I'm not smart or I'm overestimating my ability to handle reasonable discussion despite horrible mood. So we'll have to see on that one.)
no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:28 am (UTC)No, I'd say that my perception that A, B, and C were part of an overall ongoing conversation indicates that I do think that discussions can range across delineated spaces. But at the same time, I don't think this gives anyone the right to police someone else's space as to whether or not another is participating "correctly" in the discussion.
no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:30 am (UTC)I cannot restrain myself from snarking that the FGM argument is a common example because, honestly, it's so
cut-and-dried, err, like shooting fish in a barrel. And stuff.no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 01:38 am (UTC)Now, as our community is a community mainly made of discussions (not that there's not a material side to it all, like cons, but whatever), the only way the community interacts is by 'showing up' and telling other people your opinion (or by linking and writing your opinion in your own space). While no rules get broken...
I disapprove of flaming, and I would disapprove of people sending their friends to flame other people. Now, I suspect this is not what you're talking about.
no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 02:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 02:23 am (UTC)I don't know any of the background to this post, as others here seem to, more or less, but yeah derailment is one of those loaded terms -- and I've been wanting to see other people's perspectives on it (aside from the Derailing for Dummies guide that I've read some of) considering I've been personally run out of discussions by the charge before... though most of the discussions where 'privilege' and 'derailing' have been involved that I've seen have been on anonmemes or otherwise anon-heavy fora, so the atmosphere is probably somewhat different from what you're discussing.
Most of the time though I'm an observer in these discussions... maybe it's to be expected, haha, but most of them rarely go anywhere productive. I'd be interested in where I could have a look at some that actually go somewhere.
no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 03:36 am (UTC)Well, here's the thing--and I am invoking this specific example from my own experience because it's the only situation where I can be sure of all the variables, although I have seen and heard of countless other situations that closely resembled it. I once made a locked post on my reaction to a discussion about x (where I lacked privilege). The following day, my friend (who did possess privilege w/r/t to x) made a post that said basically that since she didn't get upset by reverse x or by y (different issue where she lacked privilege), people should just accept the fact that everyone is a little bit [x/y]-ist and that she was sick of hearing people talk about x. She didn't directly or explicitly reference my post, but later, in a private communication, she told me quite frankly without even being asked that she only made the post because of my locked post on the subject in order to get me to stop talking about x since it made her uncomfortable/upset. Under your definition, this is not a derail because it happened in her journal and she made no reference to my post, but it was clearly a response to the discussion about x and--which only became clear after I had already given her the benefit of the doubt that she hadn't intended it personally for me--a response to my post on the subject.
And well, you know, this addresses one of your later points as well: I have a much larger readership than she does, and we are both on the periphery of metafandom and its kind. She didn't silence the discussion about x at all. She did manage to shut me up quite effectively for a while though. Perhaps there were other people on her friends list that felt the same. And well, you're right that one can post as one chooses in one's personal journal: nothing stopped her from making that post or from making a similar post again in the future.
For what it's worth, I do think that a post that comes from a privileged or contradictory position isn't inherently derailing, and I agree that there is a line where one can present one's post as a separate thesis. But I really don't think the rule as you stated here--"are these in different journals? yes? then unless otherwise explicitly stated as 'this is a direct response to so-and-so and that person's post about such-and-such'"--is sufficient.
(I didn't read your tone as snappish, for what it's worth, but I understand if you would rather reply later.)
no subject
Date: 14 Mar 2010 06:39 pm (UTC)I've been puzzling over how to integrate an awareness of derailment into my own ethics of posting; puzzling and puzzling away at it, because a lot of what has been said about derailing just didn't make sense to me.
I tend to like to discuss things over and over, not just once, and so I like to explore digressions -- it's one of the things I love best about online conversation.
For that reason, I think, so much of what I've seen in the discussion of derailing did not actually sound like derailing to me, but rather useful and interesting digression. This left me with two irreconcilable issues: I clearly could not recognise derailing a good part of the time, and so had no way of being sure my own posts would not be inadvertant derailing; and also the very type of sprawling discussion I liked best was, at its core, apparently derailing.
Add into that some intersectionality issues (such as a need for a space for my own female-centred speech), and a desire to be a good ally and not unintentionally derail important conversations, and the outcome has been a big fat void of conversation.
I had actually just decided that my silence was a worse outcome than speaking up and being derided for derailing, and that as an ally I should wear it and speak anyway. And then you post this, and lo, most of those half-articulated problems I've been having are resolved -- or a good way to it, anyway.
Seriously, thank you. This has been an incredibly useful post to me.
Edited for silly typos and sense-making.
no subject
Date: 15 Mar 2010 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 15 Mar 2010 04:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 15 Mar 2010 04:25 am (UTC)I do think that metafandom and linkspam, while providing an awesome collection of links, can lead to accusations of derailing *in other posts* far too quickly - in your A, B and C examples above, there really are a lot of commonalities, if part of the same general conversation, but not so much in the same specific conversation.
no subject
Date: 15 Mar 2010 11:17 am (UTC)For example, there was recent discussion on 'the internet as an American space'. If I read those posts, and then made a post about, oh I don't know, Irish-Americans subsuming a nationality into an ethnicity, and then reducing it to plastic shamrocks, prefacing it with "Foo's post made me think of this", then the derailment (if present) depends on what my post actually says. If I said, "Foo's post talked about how her culture is being silenced by the internet as an American space. I have this experience of this other culture being silenced by this other thing. Both are as a result of (broader issue which is then discussed)" then I'd call that a "Yes, and..." argument. If I said, "Foo's post talked about this. Now I'm going to talk about how St. Patrick's day is oppressing me!" then that's going to be a "Yes, but ..." argument. If I said, "Foo's post said this. This got me thinking about Irish-American culture, and cultural acceptance of funding terrorist organisations", it would be completely inappropriate to talk about it in the comments of Foo's post but fair game on my own journal - something of a perpendicular divergence.
There is a point to be made that arguments can be derailing, depending on their location. In recent discussions on derailing, I've seen the assertion made that any post, at all, which makes reference to other posts in the dialogue is a part of that dialogue, and should be treated as equivalent to comments on those posts. Journals aren't completely lineated spaces, but I'm uncomfortable with the 'we're all part of the discussion' argument (except in a sort of meta-ish holistic way), because it by necessity renders offshoots derailing, that were actually just riffing off the original post. And also, the fact that whether or not a post is derailing depends on both the intent of the author and their skill at conveying arguments.
Further, not all journals are equal, and issues arise if there is a disparity between the impact of the OP and the commenter who then takes it to their own space (the former having 20 readers and the latter having 200). To use your analogy, it would be like person A organising a party for their friends with a hot tub, person B deciding that a party with a bonfires are a good thing, and then hosting a massive bonfire-disco-rave beside A's house with hundreds of people. That is to say, a post which may not be derailing in and of itself ("Foo raised X. This is sort of related to an experience of mine, Y. They're not equivalent, but I can start to see where Foo is coming from. X and Y are both bad because ...") may become derailing because of its particular impact (say, the above poster's flist has large numbers of people with experience of Y, which they want to talk about instead of X).
no subject
Date: 15 Mar 2010 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 15 Mar 2010 03:03 pm (UTC)But then, it's also a question as to whether one can derail another's discussion when you add in the details of the first post being locked, and the second being public. It's a lot easier to reroute a loose conglomeration of discussions (as grouped within a general "we're all roughly talking about X") when one voice is locked -- all you have to do is unlock your own post. Okay, and get it linked on a digest and/or linked via friends, and your voice grows exponentially. But as long as the first post is locked, then... I dunno. I have a hard time seeing the second as true derailing, because if the first post is locked, then it's not like just anyone could participate, anyway, y'know?
Definitely a stickier set of dynamics and pre-conditions around that example.
I'm not sure the not-really-a-rule (more a rule-of-thumb?) is sufficient, agreed, but I'm not sure how else to word it. Basically, my idea is that if someone posts elsewhere (and does not respond directly to my post in comments and/or in the preface to their own post, which I have seen done -- "this is a reply to so-and-so, but it got too long there so I'll just post here") -- then we do need to give benefit of the doubt as to whether or not this constitutes derailing, digression, or just someone needing to work through their own understanding on their own.