I have seen good things said about http://www.patreon.com/ as a way of patronising (in a good way) your favourite web content folks.
They seem great, but not for us. As I understand it, participation as a creator means publishing your content to their site, and I can't quite get my head around that.
Weeelll… I thought Rachel Smalley’s rant on mainstreaming special needs kids last week was deeply offensive. By countering that it wasn’t her intention to offend, she thought that this was sufficient to change the meaning of what she has said. And I find this deeply problematic.
For sure. There's not much ambiguity there. She's said what she's said. Or rather, written what she's written.
I liked your blog in response more than your tweets. And you yourself quoted Autism and Oughtism to good effect:
I don’t think Smalley means harm, even though her article does harm. I don’t think she set out to misconstrue reality, I just think she did inadequate research into autism, special needs, and the state of the current education system. I would like to think that when we engage in the debate that she calls for – about mainstreaming and special needs children – that people like her will hear our arguments and realise that moving towards inclusion really is in the best interests of all students; that our children are not a threat, they are an opportunity for everyone’s betterment.
Which does not, of course, exclude explaining to Smalley why her argument was offensive.
I don’t regret it in that instance, but I wouldn’t make a habit out of it personally.
I've dwelt on it quite a bit. Also don't regret it.
On the flipside, though, they organized pile-ons themselves, on their victims. And that has been so effective that they haven’t actually suffered any legal consequences for the alleged crimes even now, years later, and after all that public controversy.
Damn right. There has been huge pressure put on victims and witnesses via social media.
Months later, no consequences at all have found their way to the actual Roastbusters, other than the pile-on they got, which does show the limits of the effectiveness.
Oddly enough I was told today that Beraiah Hales' claim that the police weren't doing anything isn't true. Detectives are out detecting.
that point can be made without slighting references to his weight or appearance, calling him a fag or wishing a painful and violent death upon his head.
That’s several steps beyond “rude”.
I don't think of Brownlee fat jokes as bullying per se -- I doubt he feels bullied -- so much as the kind of speech that normalises bullying.
intent does matter.
It tends to be a hallmark of performative pile-ons to disqualify intent as a factor.
A phrase that Emma uses here -- "read kindly" -- seems important to me. Reading what the subject has said in the worst possible light rarely ends well. Assuming good faith is better.
Another characteristic is the narrowing of terms of an acceptable apology. Sometimes this is a reasonable expectation. Sometimes it's just laying bear traps for the subject who offers the wrong apology.
Certainly his & Russell’s response to the WJ JT thing was a world away from the kinds of shouting down via various ists, isms & phobes you often see.
Yes. Gio was calmer than I was. Which is why all the shouting-down stuff that was pinned on him was so odd. He was just measured and effective.
I want to preserve my right to be rude to the deserving
Yes, I was trying to get that across in the post.
But look at the stupid Polly Gillespie pile-on recently. Her dumb comment about the danger for foreign tourists of NZ beaches was stripped of its context (the Piha Rescue TV show) and people went nuts about it. After about two hours of it, someone I regard as quite sensible was calling her “scum”. It went way beyond “rude”.
but deny anyone a right to issue death threats. The pileon is a nuanced phenomenon that in some cases is a legit protest campaign and in others a nasty exercise in ostracism and shame.
I’ve seen friends hurt in the latter – sometimes by other friends, which I find particularly disconcerting.
Sometimes, yes it is. Having one person reply to you with “You’re wrong!” might be no big deal to most people. Having a thousand, or ten thousand, people say it all at the same time, and for days and weeks afterwards, is potentially emotionally devastating. Especially when each one of those replies is from someone who thinks that they, uniquely, have a duty to say so, and a right to be responded to in return.
Yes, this. Which is why I've been quite surprised to see it rationalised away here.