Forum - View topicPreview Guide - Reign of the Seven Spellblades
|
|
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
TarsTarkas
 Posts: 5829 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||
|
James Beckett
Was this an editorial oversight? We all know who he is talking about. I could have called him out in the actual discussion. But I didn't want to ruin the preview discussion. I see the author as fighting for women's rights. With their most important one as being free from the presence of men in their private spaces. But I guess that is not the 'in' thing now. What is most dangerous for women, is that there is no official declarations on how much personal and intimate sacrifices women are expected to endure. Without that, most discussion becomes all or nothing affairs. So if you are not with me 100%, then you are my enemy type of thing. If James Beckett feels this strongly, that he feels okay publicly destroying the women author, perhaps he can tell the women of the world, where the line in the sand is, so they can judge for themselves is it worth it. Editorially wise, by dropping this bomb in the preview guide he opens up the preview guide discussion to this topic. Which I don't think you want, unless you do. |
||||
|
||||
Blood-
 Bargain Hunter Posts: 23775 |
|
|||
The presence of men? So clearly you don't think transwomen actually exist? In your view, they're men, right? That's what your statement implies does it not? Well, the "author" would certainly agree with you. Yay? |
||||
|
||||
|
TarsTarkas
Posts: 5829 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||
|
They obviously exist. But that is not the point, and you know it.
Also, ANN has rules about this type of name calling, even the Mods are to be held to that standard. |
||||
|
||||
|
Blood-
Bargain Hunter Posts: 23775 |
|
|||
|
That rule applies to posters posting about each other, I'm not sure it applies to public figures. For example, I'm pretty sure I could get away with referring to Hitler with insulting terms.
|
||||
|
||||
ChirashiD
 Posts: 104 Location: WA |
|
|||
|
@ Tars Tarkas
Please be reminded ANNs policy does prohibit discriminatory and hateful speech so supporting said transphobe is doing just that. But there is no rule saying you can't call out someone for views you disagree with. However, your point that men are trying to get into women spaces is not actually a women's rights issue. It's merely shorthand for discrimination because you either have women impersonators committing crimes (a matter of law enforcement and proper use of security measures) OR there are transwomen genuinely trying to live their authentic lives which is an evolving matter of accommodating both transpeople and cis people fairly. Don't pretend to be a champion of women's rights to justify hate and ignorance. But your other point is valid, do we want to drag the Preview Guide into a political debate? Personally I feel that since James didn't actually mention by name the author he's criticizing, you could argue that's a way of only passively referencing debate about these social issues. In other words, most readers wouldn't necessarily be motivated to engage or feel triggered by Becketts comment. I could be wrong of course. Last edited by ChirashiD on Mon Jul 10, 2023 6:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10421 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
|
Our forum guidelines apply to our staff and freelance contributors the same way they apply to our moderators and readers. However, these guidelines apply only to the forum.
Obviously we have certain expectations of our writers and contributors as well, but they are not identical to the forum rules. Additionally, Rowling is a public person (ie: Famous) and not a member of our forums. Even in the forums, more leniency would be permitted when criticizing public/famous individuals. Finally, it is undisputable that Rowling is a trans-exclusionary-feminist, which makes her a transphobe. "Deranged" is debatable, but much more subjective; obviously James Beckett feels that Rowling and/or her beliefs are deranged. It would not have been appropriate for James to go into depth about his beliefs on the subject, but that's not what happened here. I won't get into the discussion about the ethics of trans-exclusionary feminism right now. It's irrelevant. What you, James, or I believe on the subject has no bearing on whether or not it was acceptable for James to make that statement. |
||||
|
||||
Mad_Scientist
 SubscriberModerator  Posts: 3011 |
|
|||
So here's some thoughts, as a moderator, as a trans person, as long time (if sometimes infrequent) ANN poster, as someone who has been here through many forum moderation controversies and discussions both before and after becoming a mod. It is true mods need to abide by the forums rules too, and so we generally shouldn't "name call". But here's the thing: Every time a moderator deletes, edits, or otherwise takes action against a post for certain types of banned content, whether it be for racism, transphobia, hate speech, homophobia, or other bigotry, we are in effect implying that the poster is at least spreading racism, homophobia, or other bigotry. Because if they weren't, we wouldn't be deleting their posts for racism, homophobia, etc. The mere action of moderating them could be seen as an indictment on them. Now maybe they're not racist, they're just making racist posts, one could argue. But one could also argue that's a thin distinction, and why would someone who isn't racist be making racist posts? So does that mean that every time a moderator deletes a post full of filter bypassing racial slurs, citing racism and hate speech as our reason, we're "name calling" that poster and saying they're a hateful racist? Some people upset at being moderated have certainly thought so! By moderating a person for breaking the rules, are we breaking the rules ourselves?! Now, you might say, I'm being absurd, this is a totally different situation, in a different context. It's our job as mods to make those judgments, it's not the same thing as name calling. It's literally impossible for us to have a rule against hateful conduct on this forum and moderate it for hateful conduct without us making judgment calls and saying to ourselves, "yeah that poster is being hateful towards group x and/or person y, that's racist/transphobic/antisemitic/etc". And sometimes we will explain our judgment calls, and/or give users warnings, and so will say outright that a poster is being racist, or transphobic, or spreading hate speech and conspiracy theories, or some other thing. And in this context, that's not "name calling", that's literally just doing our job. So why am I even bringing this up when the context is so different and I clearly think that context matters? For literally that exact reason, context. Context matters. So let's consider context. Context: James Beckett is a reviewer on this site, it's literally his paid job to evaluate anime and share his subjective thoughts. All art is political, so he will share political thoughts sometimes. Context: JKR is not a forum poster here. (And if she was, and posted here the way she posts in other online places, she'd have long ago been moderated for transphobia, hate speech, and bad faith arguing). So if you're trying to advocate for some widespread universal application of forum rules, maybe consider how many, many, MANY rules she has violated in places outside of this forum. Context: JKR is a public figure, and ANN has, from what I can tell, been more lenient about people making harsh comments public figures compared to random forum posters for a long, long time, since before I was a moderator. Context: "Bigot, racist, transphobe, etc" are words with negative connotations that can be insults or name calling, but they can also be accurate descriptors. A Nazi, for example, is a antisemitic racist, and moderating someone for calling a Nazi such in a forum post would be absurd. JKR is not a Nazi but she is, by this forum's own rules and standards, indisputably a transphobe. Context: James Beckett didn't even make a forum post attacking another forum poster, he criticized a public figure in a preview guide. You're not upset because he somehow violated ANN forum rules in a place that is not the ANN forums. I know you don't believe the ANN rules should be applied universally, because like I said, if they were, JKR would likely be permanently banned from posting for numerous violations. No, what you are upset about is that someone had harsh words about a public figure, something that is not exactly unheard of in ANN articles, but this time it's a public figure you agree with. And if you want to argue against any "name calling" against public figures in ANN editorial content, the site would have to literally ban criticism of Hitler. This is not hyperbole or exaggeration. Like I said, I've been here a while, I've been through ANN moderation controversies, I remember the time a poster openly admitted to being either a white nationalist or a white supremacist and ANN had to decide whether to ban them for this or not when they weren't otherwise *technically* breaking the ANN forum rules at that time. (The poster in question was also super particular that there was also a HUGELY IMPORTANT difference between white nationalists and white supremacists, and insisted they were one but not the other. I've never gone back and looked up their posts to remind myself which of the two groups they claimed to be part of since I forgot. Partially because it's absurd, they're both overlapping groups of hateful bigots, and partially because they seemed so offended at the equating of the two groups together that it gives me some satisfaction to not even be able to remember which they said they were.) Oh, I just said white nationalists and white supremacists are hateful bigots. Is that a violation of the rules, is that name calling? Some would say yes, and again, this is not exaggeration, this is just what people have openly argued. Again, a major ANN moderation upheaval was caused by a white supremacist or nationalist openly admitting to being such and getting into a multiple page argument with people over that and the distinction between the two. So unless ANN literally bans calling Hitler a bigot, public figure criticism has to be a thing that is allowed. People are going to say that public figures are hateful and/or bigoted, and some people will read that and think "but wait, I agree with that public figure! Are you calling me hateful and/or bigoted then?!" And while I imagine that's not a fun situation, again, we would literally have to ban attacking Hitler to stop it from ever happening. But, surely, criticizing a public figure can sometimes go into the realm of hate and bigotry (criticizing a Jewish public figure while using antisemitic arguments, for example). And there's a difference between Literally Hitler and a lot of other public figures. It seems there's a line that could be crossed but should not be crossed, right? So where does ANN draw the line? That's honestly not an easy decision, this post is way too long to already to get into some gnarly particular examples of where it can be complicated, and I'm just a volunteer mod, so it's not my decision to make. But, if I were to give some advice, I'd say: Calling a public figure a transphobe when they have made countless public comments that, had they been made here, would get them moderated for transphobia and probably permanently banned, is not in fact crossing the line of acceptable criticism. And anyone who tries to bring up ANN forum rules to argue against someone mentioning in editorial content that someone is transphobic, when by the forum rules that person would indisputably be transphobic, is not arguing in good faith. |
||||
|
||||
|
SenpaiDuckie
ANN Community Manager
 Posts: 467 Location: PH |
|
|||
|
When I read Beckett's piece in the Preview Guide for the first time, I did not find the word insulting or triggered by it. For one, there are many instances that Rowling exhibited her transphobia. She is vocal about her views that there are old controversial tweets on this, and it is to the point that other famous people disagree with her perspective. I am a fan of her work, but like her other fans, I also disagree with her views on this matter. Many people are already aware of her phobia, and Beckett, in my opinion, is just stating that she is, using the 'deranged transphobe' as a descriptive.
As a moderator, I agree with Mad_Scientist where we don't just look at the content but also the context. In this instance, there are no rules broken. Mad has covered all of the grounds on this, which I also appreciate. Lastly, thank you for bringing this on the ANN Feedback rather than the Preview Guide Talkback. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group