In the interest of creating a commenting zone where all voices and opinions are respected, including the voice and opinion of the blog writer, the following comment policy is implemented:
Disagreements with blog writer and fellow commenters is to be expected and is even encouraged. However, the philosophy of this blog is one of building, growing, nurturing and community/group work. Thus, disagreements will be made in a way that respects that philosophy. That is, rather than disagreeing through the process of deconstructing an idea or person, disagreement will be made through a process that recognizes the work put into creating an idea and building with and on that work.
As such, if you feel that you disagree with a stated position, you will be asked to use the following steps to state your disagreement:
1. Detail *exactly* where you see a critical issue that should be discussed. Pull the exact quote. Highlight the exact passage. Reference the exact comment. Be as precise as possible. All you need to do is copy and paste–but be sure you have the *exact* space where you have a problem–so that we all know and YOU know the language you have an issue with. Many times when heated discussions are happening, we ALL sort of skim over posts or comments and take issue with something we THINK was said rather than what REALLY WAS said. This step will be used to 1. Slow us all down as commenters and 2. Make sure we all know and agree on what was said. Once you have copy and pasted or otherwise referenced the passage that you have a specific problem with, proceed with your critique. All critique should reference the stated passage. If you must critique the author of stated passage, the critique should be in reference to the role of the author in connection with the stated passage (i.e. a white woman talking about a woman of color in that way is offensive because….Or, as an organizer, the author should know that …., etc).
2. After you have made your critique, give suggestions as to how the idea/passage could’ve been done or said differently.
3. Give us a timeline/guide as to how and when you will implement your suggestions.
So what this will all look like when all is said and done:
bfp writes the following post about gang girls:
wendy, a gang member, describes being shot at by a different gang and being protected by her own:
We were standing in that corner there–I was pregnant. And they were shooting at us. And everybody jumped on me–cuz I was pregnant, ya’ no? And everybody who was on my stomach, they were all shot.
They said they was gonna kill me.
I’m still here.
Just one person can kill you, ya’ no? But I’m still here–And I insulted they neighborhood and all.
END NOTE:
Department of Social Services took away Wendy’s child because she was being beaten by her boyfriend
and she was a drug user.
Tami is offended by this post because she feels it is exploitative of the gang girl, Wendy. Tami would then write the following comment:
I really have a problem with how you have used this girl to make a point for your own personal walking program. In particular, I have a problem with this section:
Just one person can kill you, ya’ no? But I’m still here–And I insulted they neighborhood and all.
Because I feel like it plays on tired stereotypes of what gang girls talk like.
If I were writing this post, I wouldn’t have included that section. Or I would’ve paraphrased the girl or had a video clip of it instead. That way Wendy represents herself.
Having thought critically about this subject for a few minutes now, I am going to go post about representation and gang girls on my own blog now! (or, I’m going to research ways that other non-gang girls have written about gang girls and post the links in comments, or here is a website where gang girls represent themselves, or, I work with gang girls and I’m going to take this blog post in for them to talk about and see what we can do with it, or….etc. The choices are endless.).
Give a very honest critique. This comment policy is not intended to silence critique, but to improve the quality of critique and make space available for a wider range of people to make different sorts of critique.
Suggestions on what you would’ve done differently do not include: never writing the blog post to begin with, throwing blog post into the sea, walking the blog writer off the docks, etc. Likewise, telling how YOU are going to help to implement your suggestions or make your suggests a part of the overall discourse does not include things like, “I will now stop reading your blog.” If you have decided to stop reading this blog as a result of your critique–then there is no need to tell us all. Just delete our website from your reader and move on.
What is guiding this new policy:
1. We hope that the role of the blog writer will be decentralized/deemphasized. That is, in recognizing that commenters have just as good, if not better ideas than the blog writer, we hope that the idea of “blogger personality” whereby the personality of the blogger becomes bigger or more important than the idea s/he is writing about is challenged. One blogger will never write one blog post (or 250 million blog posts) that will change the world. It takes a base of power to build a mass movement. Let’s start modeling our writing/blogging in a way that respects that truth.
2. Respect the work of a writer. If a post is the shittiest, most offensive piece of Ann Coulter based garbage you have ever read–it still required the writer to take time out of his/her life to think through the essay and then sit down and write it. It still took courage on the part of the writer to post his/her final thoughts and leave space for critique. Too often commenters are well practiced in the skill of deconstruction and totally dismantle an entire essay just because that’s what they’re good at. You would not find this sort of mentality accepted in many other professions, jobs or hobbies. For example–A knitter would not completely unravel a fellow knitter’s work, a grill cook would not unmake a fellow cook’s hamburger, etc. In those hobbies/professions, workers work together to make a stronger product or they work individually because that’s what they enjoy doing. Those who deliberately sabotage work done by others are ostracized, kicked out of the community, etc. This blog will follow those examples. Worker solidarity is the name of the game.
3. Respect the work of the commenter. Too often bloggers have the power of a name and personality that is well recognized and “liked” by other bloggers with similar amounts of power. Trolls and people with legitimate critiques are often melded together by bloggers that don’t like what a legitimate commenter has to say. Bloggers have the power to really target that legitimate commenter by writing mocking blog posts that focus exclusively on the commenter’s words. By giving space to commenters to leave their own links and otherwise show how they actually have backed up their own words with action, a blogger’s ability to mock and not take words seriously is minimized. Worker solidarity is the name of the game.
We will follow these guidelines strictly to the TEE on hard hitting, high quality, deep posts (i.e. (re)thinking walking posts, guest posts, etc). We will be more generous and lenient with these guidelines on softer, less intense posts (i.e. open threads, radical hott off’s, etc).
Yes, we realize we are asking a lot of commenters, and yes, it sucks have a five page long commenting policy, and oh, yes, do we take ourselves quite seriously.
But we take you, dear commenter, seriously as well. So, rather than feeling insulted, feel honored, and come join us in creating empowering and world changing discourses of writing!
Sincerely,
The Flip Flopping Joy Writing Team