Discussion: fostering inclusiveness on Tildes
Hi all,
I've been thinking about this for a couple days, and since there's another discussion about the alt-right/racism/offensive attitudes, I figured it was a good time to hopefully initiate the discussion even though I myself don't have much to contribute to it.
What I'm asking for is ideas to foster inclusiveness on Tildes. I personally haven't noticed much on Reddit that's bad, but then again, I'm a young (well, sorta) white dude. What I have noticed is that, as a man, I am the "default" gender on Reddit. People are always calling me "man" on there, even when I have not given any clues about my gender.
As for my race, I haven't noticed anything making my whiteness the "default"--people call me "man" all the time, but they don't call me "honky man," after all--but I unfortunately might not notice that. Anyway, I should stop blabbing, because I unfortunately don't have much to add to this discussion.
My question is, though--and I hope other people agree that it's an important topic to discuss--what can Tildes do to encourage inclusiveness? What can Tildes do to make everyone feel welcome, regardless of their sex/gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, and identity in general? If I were a woman and someone called me, "man," I expect that I would feel less welcome.
Edit: I should clarify that I'm looking for systematic ideas for what to do: if Tildes were as big as Reddit, what policies or structures could be implemented to remind people or encourage them to be more open to everyone? Is there anything that's even possible?
My two-cents:
For me, diversity means being treated with a certain level of respect that everyone deserves, but also to recognize that we may experience different parts of life differently.
Though you've identified as a young, white male, I don't believe this makes you immune to discrimination. Hopefully you don't run into too much of it here, but when we talk about making everyone feel welcome, it definitely includes you too.
Definitely--and I don't see this being a problem on the platform right now. But is it a problem on Reddit (or am I just making too much of people calling me "man")? And is there anything the platform can do to encourage this among people who are more closed-minded?
I definitely don't think you're making too much of it (actually I think it's awesome that you recognized it at all). I wonder if it wouldn't be too forward to make a note of it in the placeholder text for a new comment reply. Just something like "Remember, the person you're replying to might not have the same gender, race, or background as you!"
I don’t personally think it’s a problem. People call you man because statistically your likely to be a man. If I’m on reddit and I’m on r/scrapbooking I don’t automatically think you’re a man because on that sub statistically you are more likely to be a woman. Likewise if I go to r/askamechanic than you’re almost assuredly a man so I’ll assume you’re a man.
I’m open to new things so maybe it’s because I’m old fashioned but I’m just not seeing the issue here
The more I think about this, the more I wonder if my questions were unnecessary, as Tildes seems to already have systems in place to be inclusive and welcoming to all: one of its core tenets is to not allow intolerance. Deimos's reply here makes that clear (as does the general discussion throughout that thread), and maybe that's the best systematic solution. Other sites care about growth more than quality discussion, and if Tildes ends up being a place that truly does not tolerate hate and asshole-ish attitudes, then maybe that's all it needs to foster inclusiveness to all.
Actually, your concerns are still very much valid! It's very possible for someone to be not excluded and still be not included. Take the case of a grade school kid as an analogy: they can find themselves in a situation where they're not being bullied or viewed badly by their peers, but still aren't making friends, often because existing groups are already close-knit and don't exactly offer a welcoming hand. Extending that analogy, the rules @Deimos has put in place help kids who are being bullied, but they don't do anything to help kids who are having trouble making friends. Your concerns and this question you have posed are intended to fill in that gap.
This general problem exists in a lot of areas, especially in academia and workplace cultures, where a white male perspective is the dominant one and often leaves women and people of color (among other less-represented groups) feeling completely out of place. Worse still, impostor syndrome is a problem that many people experience regardless of their varying intersecting identities, and that's only made worse for those who already feel out of place in terms of the general culture of their environment. And hell, often times a lack of mindful diversity efforts ends up leading to some unintentionally racist and very awkward situations, e.g. in the case of Google having some image recognition algorithm that incorrectly identified black people as gorillas, likely due to not considering diversity of skin color when training their AI.
tl;dr - Inclusivity and non-exclusivity aren't the same thing, and questions like yours address the crucial gap between the two.
True. Though not allowing bullying or abuse based on "differentness" seems like it's foundational for anything else. It's a huge part of why I could eventually see getting more comfortable here than reddit (which is a big part of my life still). I consciously avoid even indicating I'm a woman on reddit because of the lack of such safeguards. My fellow mods know of course, but why would I target myself with a "Hey, troll I just banned, please PM me really extra graphic & creepy shit!" invite in my user history, letting my guard down in 2XC?
Knowing that's not tolerated here, I'm going to try to be more open, and see how it goes. At worst, I delete this account & beg a friend for another invite code. Don't imagine I'll need to though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ At best, I get comfortable & invite other women/minorities who've avoided other sites because of the hate & bullying.
@dubteedub had mentioned inviting more minorities, and I agree that's huge for making sure multiple voices & POVs are represented. As there become more women & POC & other minorities here, I'd think demand for specific/tailored ~ spaces would be likely to bubble up organically.
I suppose there might be something else that could help, but i'm leery because too many "inclusivity" efforts (beyond invites & welcoming environment) come off as weird or pandering.
Example: I went to an overwhelmingly white, male military school that had a "minority outreach program" that only seemed to draw attention to the women & POC's other-ness. It was well-intentioned but strange & awkward. Then it started catering so hard to one minority (with special events, dinners, etc) that other minorities felt alienated even from that minority-outreach program. Now it was run by the Army, so of course it was about as clunky in execution as possible... but it still a cautionary tale to me about how good "inclusivity" measures can go wrong.
All most people want, no matter who we are, is to be able to express ourselves without getting shit on for who we are (provided we're not shitting on others). I don't feel I need something tailored for me or "minority women." Just someplace where it's ok to be one. As this place gets bigger, sure a ~women or something might be a nice space (or whatever ~s for various minority experiences). But more important for the site RN, seems fostering trust we could really use those without the headaches that come from using their parallels on other platforms.
I definitely agree with the point you're making about attempts by majority groups to be "inclusive" that end up just making people feel more "other". I think it would be pretty important for the relevant, affected groups to have input, if not total control over new features that would be designed to increase inclusivity.
There are a lot of things we can do individually to foster an inclusive space. One thing that I think is very important is to express community disapproval towards people that would both make and defend bigoted comments. Oftentimes there is a desire to 'keep the peace', but if we're going to break out of the bad habits that build up in so many online spaces, it is imperative to move past that desire.
I'm not encouraging outright rudeness, but a comment explaining to someone how they are out of line would be appropriate, or votes for said comment, can show where the community stands on these issues. POC users have messaged me and told me that they notice these kinds of actions and appreciate them.
Edit: the way this thread is going is a really good sign. The first post ever locked on Tildes was about the same topic, and it...um...did not go well. It seems like a lot of the people who made that thread take a U Turn have disinvited themselves.
I think this is good in that implicit in your comment is the idea that "inclusiveness" necessarily excludes non-inclusive behavior, which is indeed what prejudiced commentaries are (be they in any way racist, homophobic, misogynist, and so on).
This is also where the fine line comes into play between what people are referring to (in a misinformed way, often) as 'political correctness' and the desire to be / practice of being inclusive. If one does not moderate their language in what are really rather simple ways (not saying "man" so much, as OP mentions, not assuming the other is one thing or another) then they demonstrate that they value their own perspective over those of others, a standpoint which is to a small extent unavoidable but which in these cases usually is much more than "to a small extent."
The effort to keep this (internet) space of Tildes as one which is open and inclusive I see as one of the most important and most difficult jobs of the community here. I am here to do my part and am curious to see how it plays out. I will remain hopeful. For it to function I do see that it has to remain one of the core tenets of the site and any slow slippage will ultimately lead to its demise (as this sort of inclusive space).
The simple fact that we are all communicating in English is naturally going to exclude most of the world.
That's good to hear. I look forward to the day I see comments written in Zulu, Urdu, Dutch or any other of the myriad languages spoken around the world.
Fun fact: there was a foreign languages thread :)
You've already let the Aussies and the Kiwis in, and while there might only be a couple of us, I think we've already lowered the tone of this place to the point where just about anyone should feel welcome.
As a woman, who's been on this site for a few weeks, I haven't actually stumbled upon the kind of sexism that is casually rampant on Reddit. It's hard to say what needs to be done further until a negative event happens. Invites and disallowing the alt right seems to be a great start.
I think inclusiveness implies empathic and considerate communication, and some general observations in communication may as well be of benefit for people here. I'd like to speak from my own experience, although I'm by no means an expert in these matters.
I was mostly informed by the psychologist, Carl Rogers, who encouraged us
Of course, what I wrote about principles or policies, but personal-level stuff. I understand that here we have many people with community moderation experiences (see @phedre's recent thread) and they'll have more to say about site dynamics, rules, and measures.
Just joining in (on this site and in this thread), but I was just thinking about this especially as a source of sustainability for the continuation of the site.
I have to say, the very first thing I noticed is that Tildes seems to have a tone of formality. This may be due to the current topics being discussed, the initial source of the user base, or just everyone getting used to the website and following the leader. (I'm also aware that this post is following this tone.) While this isn't a huge barrier for entry, it does mean that in order to foster diversity of expression the tone is going to have to shift.
This doesn't mean a more casual tone can't be developed, but I wonder if waiting for #BlackTwitter to come in and start adding more flavor to the pot will actually pay off when the current language is so starkly different.
We are of the same vintage and habits. The subject matter dictates how I write, serious and technical topics I am much more formal than in conversational topics. I suspect that style of writing was hard wired into us as kids and difficult to break.
There is one topic to inclusiveness that I haven't seen mentioned yet, that is the one of agism on both ends of the spectrum, for boomers and for millennials. I am hopeful this doesn't become an issue here as I have seen on other forums with yet another avenue of broad hateful and prejudicial attitudes.
This thread has also given me the confidence to out myself as female. I normally keep my gender and age neutral in discussion forums after some extremely nasty experiences over time in addition to my observations over time in how debates differ when it is known I am female. That I think has thankfully changed somewhat over time.
That tone of formality you speak of could certainly become an obstacle to inclusion. I don't think everyone here is an academic, but we might be mistaken for schoolteachers given the amount of highbrow analysis, correct formal grammar, long sentence structures, collegiate vocabulary, and other class markers we're tossing around.
I work with a couple of people whom I think would be interesting leavening here, but one is dyslexic; another though brilliant, received such poor schooling that his written English isn't correctable with Grammarly; and a third is a late ESL learner who's ashamed any time she makes a mistake.
Every serious forum I've ever participated in is hugely intimidating, and often punishing, to those who don't articulate perfectly in writing. And that's a problem, as it pushes people who have difficulty expressing themselves towards the unserious, or actively malignant, places.
I've noticed that, too. In general, it suits me, but I also feel like I'm not supposed to break from that formal tone, which makes for a lot of pressure. And it's not just a feeling I get--the GallowBoob thread is some direct evidence that a lot of people here strictly want the formal tone. I kind of think that we need to lighten up a bit, allow any tone of content, and simply let the tags/comment tags do their job (once they are implemented). But the consensus seems to be the opposite. * Shrugs *
I have pretty mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I do sometimes really enjoy pure silliness and ultra-informal dialogue like you might find in reddit/4chan/discord/irc, but there's no shortage of those spaces.
Once a forum that starts off more formal and "high effort" begins to allow or encourage informal/"low effort" dialogue, it seems to be a one way street as it becomes very difficult to shift the cultural norms back towards formality (maybe impossible, I don't think I've ever seen it happen).
Right now, I find that the more formal tone of Tildes encourages me to put more effort into my thoughts, similar to how I felt about some older forums or when writing email. Hacker News has a similar effect, which I think goes a long way towards making that site work even with so few moderators.
There's a point at which it becomes too much of a barrier even for me, sites like Quora or Wikipedia have high enough expectations that I usually don't even bother, so there's certainly a balance to be struck.
Right now, I think Tildes hits a sweet spot that is hard to find elsewhere and I'd be sad to see that go.
I think the biggest distinction for me is this very common phrasing that's being used as too large of an umbrella. This "high effort/low effort" concept seems to be part of the backbone of Tildes but is not the same as tone. This very important distinction is a big part of the barrier for entry that was standing out for me. You can put plenty of effort into structuring and articulating your thoughts while still responding in a tone that's more culturally/casually appropriate for you.
An important concept in this discussion is code switching, which is becoming more and more a textual thing as well as a verbal thing. An intellectual and high effort reply is not synonymous with formal interview tone, especially if you're factoring in trying to bring diversity to the group. If the larger attitude is frowning on dialects that seem more casual or less educated to this fairly homogenous group, regardless of content, I just don't see that drawing in enough people to make this project really work.
That being said, so far I'm really appreciating the dialogue that has been created here, despite me giving up hope that the internet could still be such a place.
You're right about the "high/low effort" thing; we'll all most likely be better served by being more specific.
I think in my case I was using it as a kind of proxy for something like "taking the time to think through what you want to say, making sure that what you want to say is going to contribute/further a conversation, being considerate of the other participants/readers, and trying to write clearly and unambiguously with reasonably correct English (or other language as appropriate, of course)". I agree that that is way too much to try to hang on one label like "high effort", and I don't believe that aspiring to that is exclusionary.
Having (hopefully) established that as a baseline, I think there's still a lot of room for different "tones" to be acceptable. Pick three random books off the shelves of a library and you'll likely find three wildly different tones and styles, but (assuming they're within the scope of Tildes topics and well edited) paragraphs from those books will, most likely, not feel out of place on Tildes itself.
You mention code switching, and elsewhere in the thread there's talk of the style being a kind of class marker. I can understand a concern that someone might feel their style or vocabulary doesn't fit into what's acceptable at Tildes, or that they have poor English skills, and that they might feel discouraged from contributing. I agree that should be something we strive to avoid, but the solution, I think, is not to lower the aspirational standard but to help encourage people to dive in anyway and reach for that standard.
There's no rule here that requires correct grammar, or spelling, or even that we speak in complete sentences, but the example of the language in existing posts and comments provides a passive signal that a would-be participant should at least try to do those things. I think that's a good thing.
It's okay if someone misses the mark, and we should strive to be gracious and not shove unasked-for criticism down the throats of any who dare enter the sanctum unprepared. I would hope, for example, that a young person who spends a long time reading and writing on Tildes would come away feeling that their ability to communicate and carry a dialogue has improved (and that they felt welcomed and encouraged at the beginning so that they do spend a long time here). We certainly can, and probably should, match that passive signal with active encouragement for people who feel out of place or who lack confidence in their English or education on any topic to dive in and start writing, but the expectation should be that everyone makes an effort to reach those implicit community standards.
My two-cents, I'm honestly not looking for a "women" space, and though I may like the idea of ~women superficially, I sort of feel like, if done prematurely, it'll be a bit like putting ourselves in a corner.
I know I'm not proposing any solutions, but I just want to be included as part of the whole in any discussion about/with people, not just women issues.
I hope this make some sense.
It makes sense to me. People who don't want to see what they think are issues focused on women would make sure they're not subscribed to ~women and would get angry when their expectations are dashed as all these ladies are talking about issues that seem like they should be going in ~women. What the hell ladies, get back in the kitc- err, ~women space.
I've already been on the receiving end of something like this with ~lgbt. It's not pleasant, and it doesn't feel welcoming.
Good idea. Let's create ~kitchen and keep them all in there. Also, while they're there, they can cook me some eggs and make me a sandwich.
Yes, these are exactly my feelings. Thanks for helping me clarify.
We're planning an invite thread to bring in more users sometime this week. How can we best recruit a diverse group of people? It's usually just a free-for-all where whoever comments before the thread is locked gets an invite (unless there's evidence of bad behavior in their account history).
The initial survey that was done here confirms that. That said, I feel like I see posts here that are more inclusive and feature more women's voices than I do on reddit for example. I think that a bias towards text posts helps with this; there is no room for otherwise unremarkable posts to be sent to the front page because they feature an attractive woman.
I feel that too, though this is a pretty low bar in general online. Having said that, this is the only online community (that isn't women only), that I've identified as a woman. Though I have notice a slight jump in hostility with every onboard batch...
There was actually a post about this a long while ago, ...and it went terribly. Might go digging for it later, but basically @Deimos just doesn't necessarily have the direct connections to minority communities to do so, but of course we're all welcome to.
Here you go: Does/Could Tildes make an effort to recruit minority voices?
Thanks!
A lot of those minority communities are still drawing from the same populations with the same interests and culture.
The international communities would be more likely to create actual diverse content.
I very much agree that we should be inviting those of different viewpoints to this site, including minorities, women, and right leaning folks. We don't want this place to become yet another echo chamber, so I'd suggest inviting on the basis of more than just skin color or sex but also political affiliation.