On the state of forum moderation

[Wei Ji the Learner]

WormysQueue, I'd prefer an ideal situation where individuals of a certain ilk didn't attempt to disrupt the community by other-ing/dehumanizing a portion of the community for no good end.

I'd prefer to not have to raise concerns, questions or confront behavior that is disgusting.

Those preferences go out the window when said individuals 'double down' because it looks like no one is keeping a watch.

This is in part caused by the fact that the moderators have not been funded and it's a tertiary aspect tacked onto their daily tasks..

[Kobold Catgirl]

Diego Valdez wrote:

It’s a very old rule. The thinking is there are children who view these boards, and because of that it needs to be free of profanity. Circumventing that rule with placeholder words is against the rules, and we do try to enforce that.

So, my understanding was that if a swearword is caught by the filter, it's okay. I wasn't circumventing the filter, and I wasn't directing the filtered swearword at someone else in a way that might escalate things (like calling someone a @#&%$#$%*&@#$@$%$@*, to use a made-up swear for an example). I am not looking to protest the moderation, just express that I genuinely thought I was operating within the forum's traditional rules. Now that I know I wasn't, I'll change my habits accordingly.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

What exactly is the profanity policy? Can someone point me to it?

Hmm

[Kobold Catgirl]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

What exactly is the profanity policy? Can someone point me to it?

Hmm

It's what replaces certain bad words with comic-strip-style symbols.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

I've never triggered it, then. Okay, good to know.

Hmm

[WormysQueue]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

This is in part caused by the fact that the moderators have not been funded and it's a tertiary aspect tacked onto their daily tasks..

I fully understand your stance in the rest of your post (and I agree), but I wanted to point out how much I agree with this. Having been a forum moderator myself, I know that moderating a forum of this size is a full-time job so to tack it on top of another full-time job simply can't work. At all.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Some thoughts that may not be popular:

I am thinking through a lot of things, and I am troubled by the concept of calling other forumites bigots. I can see calling out their actions or posts as bigoted, but... There has to be a better way. I can understand your stance of not wanting to let a bigoted post go unchallenged, though my personal mode is to flag and move on. I realize though that others feel differently, especially with so much hatred being posted. And hey, you're correct that I may be coming from a privileged enough background where I can see something nasty and just flag it and move on. I'll try to be better about being the advocate I want to be.

But in my mind, shouting back at someone and telling them they are a bigot just makes them shout back and then it's another flame war that makes everyone feel crappy and makes a lot of work for the mods.

So here is what I would suggest, and will try to get better at implementing. "Hey, I'm flagging this post. Paizo forums are for everyone, and this one makes some of our community feel unsafe." And then I would link to Heather's post, and stop.

Once this is posted, the conversation moves on and the troll is deprived of your outrage and passion. Nothing's feeding it, so less work for the mods.

This is a lovely sentiment that I unfortunately cannot fully agree with, for the reasons I've gone over above. I respect your decision, and I'd certainly never say you're obligated to get involved, like we do. There are times we do simply identify a post as offensive or bigoted and move on. Funny enough, no matter how gently we phrase it, that, too, starts an argument.

There's also the realistic fact that someone will always engage. I am so, so tired of pretending like "Flag and move on" is something that ever happens. Someone will always "feed the troll" (and I think that's a naive way to think of trolls these days, anyways). An argument will always start. We can condemn it or not, but we can't control it.

You will never be able to corral every single forumite into ignoring a bigoted troll, even if we do agree--and we don't--that such an outcome is necessarily ideal. And as long as someone's engaging, the bigotry will continue. Again, this is ignoring the problems that flawlessly ignoring the troll causes.

So why even continue to bother to push for that scenario? It never happens. Last night's debate started, though many might not have seen/remembered, with a racist and transphobic trollpost being largely ignored and Flagged. But the mods were not online. And he kept trolling. That's when we started engaging him.

[Cori Marie]

But again, that doesn't help matters when it happens at 5:30 PM on a Friday night and won't get removed until Monday morning. Unless you don't think moderators deserve to have days off?

[Ixal]

Cori Marie wrote:

But again, that doesn't help matters when it happens at 5:30 PM on a Friday night and won't get removed until Monday morning. Unless you don't think moderators deserve to have days off?

And does attacking other posters make the mods wake up earlier so that they can remove the post sooner? No.

[Andy Brown]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I am troubled by the concept of calling other forumites bigots. I can see calling out their actions or posts as bigoted, but...

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I don't see the problem with calling it a water fowl.

Quote:

And hey, you're correct that I may be coming from a privileged enough background where I can see something nasty and just flag it and move on.

And I may be a bit on edge because my national broadcasting company has just platformed a transphobe who then went on to call for all trans women to be lynched (and named some specific people who should be first).

To reference a different post, transphobic posts are a call for violence, so they're going to get flagged and challenged.

And I'm concentrating on transphobia here, because that's what we're currently seeing more of, rather than most other bigotry

[TwilightKnight]

Cori Marie wrote:

But again, that doesn't help matters when it happens at 5:30 PM on a Friday night and won't get removed until Monday morning. Unless you don't think moderators deserve to have days off?

I agree, but I push that responsibility right back on Paizo. As I am oft to say, their management style even when its not explicitly wrong (see the hotel room incident) it is incredibly poor. They are simply unwilling or unable to make simple changes to correct problems that have existed for years. Forum moderation is one of them. We shouldn't have to talk about how fair it is to the customer service agents because it shouldn't be their responsibility in the first place. That Paizo continues to make it so, it as offensive* as the bigoted language they are expected to police.

*at least it is to me, though I do not personally suffer from any bigotry so I have a difference perspective given my privilege. No offense intended towards those who do have to suffer bigotry.

[Grankless]

The less welcoming this place is to bigots of all kinds, the better a community it shall be.

[Leg o' Lamb]

Andy Brown wrote:

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I am troubled by the concept of calling other forumites bigots. I can see calling out their actions or posts as bigoted, but...

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I don't see the problem with calling it a water fowl.

Careful talking about ducks. I speak from experience.

;)

[TwilightKnight]

Quote:

profanity rule

Diego Valdez wrote:

It’s a very old rule. The thinking is there are children who view these boards, and because of that it needs to be free of profanity. Circumventing that rule with placeholder words is against the rules, and we do try to enforce that.

But, the masking of the word already protects anyone who might read it. IIRC the forums are meant to be PG-13. If that is true, then profanity is perfectly acceptable given modern application of the rating system. It just seems odd that Paizo allows much of the vitriolic discussions that appear in the forums, yet draws a line with profanity used as a non-targeted descriptor or adjective. Its as if no one at Paizo has ever seen the "Seven Dirty Words." Words are not profane. Usage is profane.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I normally try not to compare these sorts of issues, but I remember learning a lot from learning about white fragility--in particular, about how getting mad or dramatically upset at someone for calling your behavior racist is actually, itself, a very racist response formulated to protect white people from having to care about Black people's feelings.

You know, like say you're asking a coworker if you can touch her hair, she tries to explain to you how racist that is, and you start crying and complain to HR about "how could she say that about me, she doesn't even know me, this is borderline abuse by her, she's always bullying people and starting fights". Suddenly the Black coworker, who didn't ask to deal with any of this, is at best being judged as disruptive and hostile, and at worst being told to apologize for attacking her white coworker unprompted.

Like I said, I don't like making comparisons, but I think as a general concept it's very useful to understand. Being criticized for bad behavior is not an attack on you. Taking it as an attack is just a self-defense mechanism for you to avoid having to listen and learn and be humble. I urge those who default to it to recognize where it comes from and try to grow away from it.

[Dancing Wind]

I often respond to posts that I think break the community guidelines, in addition to flagging them for future moderator attention. I recognize that my posts are temporary, only useful until the mods have time to adjudicate the posts I have flagged.

a) I take into account the length of time before a moderator is likely to see the post. So, during the week, during Paizo office hours, I am much more comfortable flagging and moving on, since it is likely that a moderator will be looking at and making a decision about, that post fairly quickly.

If it is after office hours, especially if the weekend has started, I flag and comment.
I do not believe that it creates a healthy community to leave posts that are harmful visible without any responses. It creates the impression that this behavior is OK with the rest of the community. It also creates the impression that the community does not care about the targets of the bullying.

b) I take into account how harmful I believe the post is to an obviously targeted forum poster or to a class of people who are frequent targets on these boards. I use empathy to try to understand how the post might be harmful, based both on my own experiences and on what I've learned from the experiences of people who aren't like me.

The more harm I think is being done, the more likely I am to post a rebuttal.

c) I take into account the previous behavior of the person posting the rules-breaking comment. I do not operate in a vacuum whereby all my previous observations about someone's behavior get forgotten the moment they post something new. If I've seen you behave like a bully in the past I remember it when I see you post that kind of comment again.
And if you cheered on some other bully from the sidelines by favoriting one of their posts, I remember that too. If you don't want me remembering that you supported bullies in the past, don't publicly support bullies by handing out favorites.

d) I take into account how much work people who are directly harmed have already had to do around this topic recently. I want to share some of the hard work of pointing out harmful behavior, and the hard work of maintaining civility when you are being directly targeted by bullies.

The longer these attacks have been going on, and the more "faves" I see on hateful posts, the more I feel it is my responsibility to support the people who have been making the most effort to keep the boards a welcoming place for those the bullies are trying to marginalize.

I totally disagree that the best response when moderators are not available is to let the community be harmed even further by allowing hate go unremarked. When hate becomes unremarkable, the community is no longer healthy.

[TwilightKnight]

thejeff wrote:

This is a pattern that has been weaponized by the right wing over the last 5-6 years and I still don't have a good answer for dealing with it.

As a right-leaning moderate, I used to argue against generalizations like that as there should be a distinction between the radical left/right and the general left/right. However, as you indicated over the past 5-6 years, the reach of the radical ends has dramatically increased and even someone who is as fundamentally supportive of unqualified freedom of expression as I am has to admit the civility of our public discourse has significantly reduced.

[TwilightKnight]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I normally try not to compare these sorts of issues, but I remember learning a lot from learning about white fragility--in particular, about how getting mad or dramatically upset at someone for calling your behavior racist is actually, itself, a very racist response formulated to protect white people from having to care about Black people's feelings.

I try to avoid that by just having no empathy and disliking everyone equally. :-P

[Grankless]

I'd like to politely note that when I referred to bigots as "freaks", I was directly quoting Ixal there, though oddly he seemed to not think that was an accurate description. :)

[TwilightKnight]

Dancing Wind wrote:

I remember that too

More power to you. I often cannot remember what I had for breakfast. :-P

[Brian Bauman]

Culturally, Americans are conditioned to always think of people as good or bad, both in media and in real life. Bad people do bad things, and good people do good things. People also like to think of themselves as good. So someone coming along and saying something relatively innocuous like "You did this bad thing," becomes an attack on their intrinsic goodness, their value as a person, and their entire identity.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

Goodness and love require the person have the best intent and wishes of the OTHER in mind when they interact. Being a bigot does neither of these and thus is not good or love.

[Losonti]

TwilightKnight wrote:

I can only speak for myself (not Ixal). First, let me be clear, I do not support bigotry. However, I also support everyone's right to say whatever they believe as long as it does not explicitly incite violence. I simply cannot support any foundation that allows an individual or a small group to decide what is/not appropriate speech.

At the fundamental level, we have to decide whether we want a free society or we want a controlled society.

A society that allows fascists, racists, and other bigots to run amok with no checks is not a free society at all.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

In addition to Brian's point, there is a subset of society that has been indoctrinated to believe that only 'their' Good is actually Good. Whether it be via religion, politics, or family upbringing, this subset outright refuses to accept that any other thing could be Good.

Having dealt with that subset for several years, it became increasingly obvious that they only wanted 'their' Good to prevail in discussions, real life, and other situations.

Slight Side Tangent:

This came up during the PF2 Playtest, and the discussion about what became the Champion class. There was a subset of that discussion that insisted that only Lawful Good could be Good defenders of people -- which gave the implication that Neutral Good and Chaotic Good were 'lesser' Good.

Thankfully, PF2 expanded the defenders of Good to cover a lot more bases, and I think personally made the game stronger as a result -- and derailing any bajillion number of arguments of folks who felt it was nearly an obligation to 'knock' the 'bestest Good' off their high holy pedestal.

Usually folks who are in the above mentioned subset of society are insulated -- not necessarily 'privileged' but simply have not been exposed to a free society and how it should function.

So when they get called on bigoted/racist/sexist/etc ideas, they immediately raise the shield wall and hunker down, because they are being attacked at their core and they can't relate to their attackers.

[gwynfrid]

I’m going to try to answer to those who responded to my post (thanks). It's going to make for a longish post, again.

To vagrant-poet:

vagrant-poet wrote:

gwynfrid wrote:

Being challenged after a provocative post is in fact the result a troll hopes for.

Not necessarily, they also want to have and share their hate-filled nonsense in public spaces as if it were legitimate, or or value to discuss. Leaving it unchallenged only achieves leaving it unchallenged.

I leaves it scrubbed away, if moderators are active. I will admit that leaving it in the open for hours is not good. I don’t think that challenging it makes the thread better, however. It may have the virtue of making the challengers feel better: I don’t want to neglect that, it’s a valid feeling. If the moderators are OK with removing twenty or a hundred posts instead of one, then I’m not going to tell them they’re wrong. In the meantime, however, the thread isn’t really fulfilling its initial purpose. I have been on forums where the policy is flag and move on (and it's enforced - it's not just a suggestion). When an offensive post isn’t immediately scrubbed, that stinks. But if it gets buried under a couple dozen of on-topic posts, then its pollution feels less toxic. This is all subjective of course, and I can understand you have the opposite feeling.

vagrant-poet wrote:

Sorry, but absolutely wrong-headed to suggest that countering hate-speech causes these things, once the hate-speech exists, these criteria are met.

I certainly didn’t suggest that. I suggest, however, that aggressive responses make the thread even worse, overall. At least, it’s the way it makes me feel.

vagrant-poet wrote:

Hate speech existing in a public place gives it exposure, and completely ends ANYTHING like suggesting an atmosphere is welcoming and inclusive. As long as it exists, the forum cannot be "welcoming and inclusive" challenging it does not degrade and atmospshere that doesn't exist in the presence of hate-speech.

This is true. All I’m saying is it’s possible to do better than the current never-ending flame war. This requires a very robust moderation policy (and resources) which isn’t the case on this forum at this time.

vagrant-poet wrote:

gwynfrid wrote:

A solution to overnight/weekend moderation limitations is to temporarily lock those threads known to be at risk (they're not hard to identify), and reopen them come morning. This is what was done last night on the leadership announcement blog thread. That was a wise move. In the worst case, moderators should consider locking an entire subforum during times when moderation isn't available to react quickly. Sure it's heavy-handed, and hopefully won't have to be done in a routine manner forever, but it's a safe way to go, unless Paizo finds a way to vastly increase moderating resources.

I mean, the real answer is to increase moderation resources, or at very least have a no or low tolerance to bigotry or bigotry dogwhistles. That involves suspending bigots. And I'd like to see where a rigorous effort to do so leaves us in a few weeks.

On this, we agree. It appears that the moderators recently (re)discovered a better technical solution to do so (by the way - that looks real bad for Paizo as an organization…). If the situation improves over the next few weeks, I will happily conclude that you were correct.

To Kobold Cleaver:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

gwynfrid wrote:

This is where I don’t agree. Having a post deleted has a clear meaning: That the post was in violation of the community guidelines. Maybe we don’t want to call that “punishment” if we find the word too loaded with moral intent. But it is definitely enforcement, or in another word, it is discipline. It’s a consequence of undesirable behavior, and it needs to be seen as such by all forum participants. This is the only way the moderation policy can be applied for the betterment of the forum.

This actually isn't quite true. Many posts are deleted not because they violated community guidelines, but because they were caught in the crossfire of mods deleting posts. A lot of posters get very angry about this, and seem to have a punishment mindset--"Oh, so we aren't allowed to quote anyone?"--but it's not actually rational to treat it as a punishment for bad behavior at all. Nobody's ever going to get suspended for replying to a bad post, intentionally or unknowingly.

Having thought about this a little bit, I realize that our disagreement comes from talking about two different things. I was trying to talk about the moderation policy and enforcement as it should be (in my opinion at least). You’re talking about the moderation policy and enforcement as it currently exists on this forum.

So, then… Well, under those terms, I agree with you. Under the current policy, posts are sometimes deleted simply because they are in the middle of a firestorm and the moderators can’t afford to be super-precise with the hammer. They try, though. I sometimes feel they should have removed even more.

But I think this is one of the reasons why the moderation policy, and the way it’s enforced, needs to improve – possibly, to change radically. I mean, I don’t think anyone is happy with the current state of affairs.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Moreover, the problem with treating deletion as a punishment is in line with Rysky's criticism elsewhere--it's not really punishment at all, for the same reason it's not really moderation at all. It's just cleanup. It can happen for any number of reasons--posts being off-topic, baiting, interacting with deleted posts--and on its own, it's not discipline.

I completely agree. This is why I suggested earlier that mere removal is a bad solution. It doesn’t teach anyone anything. Instead, the post should be edited to explain why it’s not appropriate. That would be discipline.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yesterday, a lot of us Flagged--and emailed about--a poster who was using blatantly racist, transphobic rhetoric and dogwhistles. Moderation didn't suspend them--moderation just deleted some posts. That poster proceeded to ignore the deletions and just keep on trolling.

I don't blame moderation for this. It was after-hours and they're always doing their best. But can you see why, the system of "flag and move on" having failed, a lot of us felt pressure to show our dissent?

Yes, I can see that. In fact, I can feel the same urge to respond, myself, even as a cis person. I think responding, including with profanity, insults, and terms that maybe aren’t insults but propagate the fire just the same, is a valid way for you to alleviate that pressure. I don’t think it helps with anything else – but maybe achieving this is good enough.

I still believe, however, that it contributes to the overall tension in the atmosphere: The more yelling there is, the harder it is to hear. So, OK, I understand your need to fight this fight, but it would be preferable if the moderation policy made this unnecessary. Since it works that way in other places, I believe it can work that way here (insert required caveat about resources, again).

I will conclude by saying that if any of the above made anyone feel aggrieved in any way, then it’s my bad and I will have to rethink my approach. My goal here is to suggest evolutions in the way the forum is moderated, not to reproach anybody about their reactions to toxic posting.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

They’ll come at you sideways. It’s how they think. It’s how they move. Sidle up and smile.
Hit you where you’re weak. -- Shepherd Book, Serenity

That's kind of the feeling I've been getting the past couple of months. It makes trusting good faith efforts difficult, to say the least.

And I'm not the direct target of the dog-whistles, I just happen to hear a little bit in the range.

Thank you for trying to break down where you were coming from, gwynfrid.

[Storm Dragon]

Brian Bauman wrote:

Culturally, Americans are conditioned to always think of people as good or bad, both in media and in real life. Bad people do bad things, and good people do good things. People also like to think of themselves as good. So someone coming along and saying something relatively innocuous like "You did this bad thing," becomes an attack on their intrinsic goodness, their value as a person, and their entire identity.

This isn't really an American thing, just a "people" thing.

People put ideas at the core of their identity. If any facet of those ideas is challenged, it is taken as a personal slight.

I'd also say it isn't even a matter of "good" and bad", just a matter of "is" and "isn't".

If someone "is" one thing, that conditions them to dismiss anything that "isn't". Likewise if something challenges the validity of something they "are", even a very small, seemingly insignificant from the outside factor, that part hardens, and the people who "aren't" become not just wrong, but AGGRESSORS.

It's the whole core of heritage wars worldwide, and nationalism in general.

The deep South and the usage of the Confederate flag are a good example (hopefully using an American example doesn't undermine my general point too much).

People here in the South "are" Southern. It is the culture, and it's something many people are proud of.

People from above the Mason-Dixon line "aren't" Southern, and thus are considered quaint at best, alien and wrong at worst. This works in reverse, as well, mind you.

The flag "is" to many people, simply a symbol of Southern pride. It declares that one "is" a part of the stereotypical culture that has evolved down here, both good AND bad.

That identity, and the flag that represents it, is seen by many people as...neutral, at worst.

Any attempt to educate people on why it might be harmful to others is seen as an attack, and a very clear sign that one "isn't". Not a mere black and white of bad or good, a mark of "otherdom". Those who "aren't" cannot understand, and are by proxy attacking the very way of life for those who "are".

Is this a reasonable stance to take? No. But identities are rarely based on reason, they are based on emotion.

For abject clarity, because I know someone is going to try to take this out of context and twist it if I just post this as-is: No, I do not support the continued use of the Confederate flag. The baggage that comes with that is harmful to a lot of people. But understanding the basic idea is, I think, important.

Challenging someone's ideas, who they "are", and telling them that who they "are" is wrong is always going to result in reflexive anger. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it should be the response you EXPECT, and changing their mind on the matter is a vain goal.

A forum like this is not the proper medium, nor would I argue it's the proper place to try and "deprogram" people, because chances are you are not going to be able to change who someone "is", no matter how well reasoned and correct your arguments are.

Understanding why someone thinks the way they do is important, but shouldn't be an excuse to keep around people with harmful ideas in the hope that their identity can be changed.

That, in general, is the core of a toxic environment. Not just a clash of ideas and personality, but a clash of inherently incompatible identities.

These types of identities will never reconcile, and so a stance needs to be taken as to which type of identity Paizo wants to foster in their community.

Presumably, the identity Paizo wants their community to have and project to the world is not that of the bigots and the intolerant, which leaves a fairly clear course of action for them to take with such individuals.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Gwynfrid, I think you've come at this very respectfully, and I appreciate that. I'm afraid I don't have the energy to reread and write a reply tonight, but I wanted to say that much.

[Grankless]

gotta say, sure has been much calmer today. thank you moderators!

[Vardoc Bloodstone]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I am thinking through a lot of things, and I am troubled by the concept of calling other forumites bigots. I can see calling out their actions or posts as bigoted, but... There has to be a better way. I can understand your stance of not wanting to let a bigoted post go unchallenged, though my personal mode is to flag and move on. I realize though that others feel differently, especially with so much hatred being posted. And hey, you're correct that I may be coming from a privileged enough background where I can see something nasty and just flag it and move on. I'll try to be better about being the advocate I want to be.

But in my mind, shouting back at someone and telling them they are a bigot just makes them shout back and then it's another flame war that makes everyone feel crappy and makes a lot of work for the mods.

I agree with this 100%.

I wrote something longer, but deleted it as being too “abstract”. Simply put, I’m in the “two wrongs don’t make a right” camp.

It also falls under the old “don’t wrestle with a pig” advice. You both get dirty - but the pig likes it.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Storm,

The Confederate Flag?

Or the The Confederate Flag?

[Kobold Catgirl]

I mean this with full respect towards all of you, and not to single any individual out, but I think it's something to genuinely think about.

Trans people deal with transphobic trolls a lot. Like, a lot. We see transphobes targeting us, our friends, and our communities on a not-infrequent basis. We tend to know how they work better than cis people--not least because many of us used to think we were cis, so we're often working with the experiences of both worlds under our belts. Is all that fair to assume?

So, assuming it is... doesn't it give you pause that basically all of us disagree with you on this? That basically all of us disagree with the "if you engage with the troll, that's just what he wants" take?

The idea that trolls just want attention is really dated. It's a specific kind of troll that, honestly, doesn't even really exist anymore the way it used to. Alt-right and transphobic trolls have an actual agenda, and they want to promote it. They don't want to be challenged. They want minorities to be small and helpless and silent while people from the majority group are indoctrinated by their dogwhistles.

Reading this recent thread really hit home for me, because I've had that exact experience. I've been in this position:

SecretGamerGirl wrote:

The other server, nobody says a word, it's still up, pretty sure a few others laughed. I would imagine, to a majority of people present, things still look nice and cool, with a safe friendly atmosphere, but from where I sit, this is very much not the case.

Also? I am sure as all damn hell not going to say a word about it. Because as is always going to be the case when people let this sort of thing slide, this is just the latest in a long list of little incidents like that in that server. At least one regular is fairly plainly a white supremacist, constantly testing how far he can push things without getting outright banned (and it's real damn far). I'm actively aware that's the sort of person watching, so if I pipe up, I'm outing myself as an active target to people who very much mean me harm, on top of generally having to cause a scene over what, to most people, I'm sure reads as "a harmless joke."

I'm not trying to "pull rank" or say you can't have an opinion, but I feel like some of the issues we're discussing are ones trans people just tend to understand a lot better, and it's frustrating to keep having to say, "No, I'm not just 'giving him what he wants'. Yes, I, too, was around in the early 2000s. No, that's not how transphobic trolls work. I feel like I would know."

[Storm Dragon]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Storm,

The Confederate Flag?

Or the The Confederate Flag?

The one that is referred to in 99% of circumstances. While an interesting bit of history I actually didn't know about, it's not particularly relevant to my point.

There's a particular flag that is used, referred to, and understood to be "the Confederate Flag" even if it is not technically accurate.

Consider it a form of linguistic drift.

I do like that guy's video, particularly the part about halfway through. That people are "searching for an identity" and ignorantly latch onto something prominent, if not correct. It fits my point pretty nicely.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

KC, that is well-spoken, and I do trust you to know your own community and its dangers. I do not mean to debate ketchup vs mayonnaise when you are talking safety.

On the other hand, looking around the forums tonight has been a wary pleasure. Up until now, I have felt that my flagging was the equivalent of shouting,

"Quick, Henry, the Flit!"

I think the mods sprayed a lot of flit today...