'White supremacy': popular knitting website Ravelry bans support for Trump

[laylalex 7,252]

Just now, Boiler said:

There were transgender and nonbinary people in 2017, they did not suddenly come out of thin air.

 

I thought there were a lot of members sharing designs and promoting pussyhat's? Despite the offence caused to PoC and other Minorities the site did nothing. 

That's not my recollection of what was going on in the forums on Ravelry at that time. At all. There were people who thought it was dumb and silly. Yes, it is kind of silly! But that's the point -- the silliness of wearing a pink hat draws attention to the message. I do not recall anyone talking about being offended that they were pink, and anyway the pinkness was about how femininity is associated with the color pink in America, and not about the color of genitalia. Just like blue is associated with boys. Surely you're not saying that that color association comes from an association with genitalia? I mean, there's an obvious joke there, but that's not why the association is there, unless I'm totally wrong.

[yuna628 9,533]

I think none of this really matters...  Raverly is a private website, just like VJ, and it can ban, restrict, or remove any content it wishes to. The user agrees to this via the TOS. Hypocrisy matters very little. Of course someone is always going to find hypocrisy in the removal of some content vs the allowance of other content.

[Boiler 43,595]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I think none of this really matters...  Raverly is a private website, just like VJ, and it can ban, restrict, or remove any content it wishes to. The user agrees to this via the TOS. Hypocrisy matters very little. Of course someone is always going to find hypocrisy in the removal of some content vs the allowance of other content.

It is important to call out hate where we see it however, just because it is a private web site they should be immune.

[laylalex 7,252]

So it's okay to call me an intolerant liberal on the basis of me not liking my ex-husband's politics but it's not okay for Ravelry to say please, no Trump? Really? Gosh, I should point him in this direction, he'd agree with that. 😠

[yuna628 9,533]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

It is important to call out hate where we see it however, just because it is a private web site they should be immune.

They are sort of though. Disagreeing loudly with the TOS or removal practices of this website would likely send you to ban jail, would it not? Other than that, what good would it do you to 'call something out'? Calling something out in a public space? Sure. Otherwise there's not much point. As a moderator, I hated having to enforce TOS rules which were all skewed toward the private owner's person belief system and so I'd often try and tamp down any potential arguments quickly, because I'd hate to see good honest people go. He virtually excluded any discussion by any person of a different faith or non faith. Questions were not allowed to be asked. Deep thinking or respectful dialogue just wasn't possible. Kids would get so mad they'd be banned, they'd make 20 more accounts. They'd cry hypocrisy, others would threaten to sue. Ultimately a private site and TOS gives an owner immunity to institute whatever practices they want. They virtually own all your content - images, or even personal stories you upload. I've seen users launch lawsuits against private owners (big and small), and lose every time.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

 

Please don't tell me what my motives are. I had an entire marriage full of a man telling me what my motives were. 

 

3 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Perhaps.  But I think the motives are way different.  That's why I am asking her, since she obviously felt inclined to participate.  I have never met anyone in person who would have done that, so I am curious to learn more of the motivation behind HER participation. 

Really?  Can you explain to me how you interpreted my asking for your reasons for attending, and what motivated you to do so (which you did, thanks for that) as me *telling* you what your motives were?  

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by ALFKAD

[laylalex 7,252]

9 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

 

Really?  Can you explain to me how you interpreted my asking for your reasons for attending, and what motivated you to do so (which you did, thanks for that) as me *telling* you what your motives were?  

 

That's not how I read it at all. I read that you were presuming to know my motives before I even posted what they were. And then I posted what they were. If that is not what you meant to say, I apologize for misreading it. I tend to get a little emotional sometimes when I think about this time in my life, it was such a mess.

[Boiler 43,595]

21 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

They are sort of though. Disagreeing loudly with the TOS or removal practices of this website would likely send you to ban jail, would it not? Other than that, what good would it do you to 'call something out'? Calling something out in a public space? Sure. Otherwise there's not much point. As a moderator, I hated having to enforce TOS rules which were all skewed toward the private owner's person belief system and so I'd often try and tamp down any potential arguments quickly, because I'd hate to see good honest people go. He virtually excluded any discussion by any person of a different faith or non faith. Questions were not allowed to be asked. Deep thinking or respectful dialogue just wasn't possible. Kids would get so mad they'd be banned, they'd make 20 more accounts. They'd cry hypocrisy, others would threaten to sue. Ultimately a private site and TOS gives an owner immunity to institute whatever practices they want. They virtually own all your content - images, or even personal stories you upload. I've seen users launch lawsuits against private owners (big and small), and lose every time.

As I think everybody here knows the VJ ToS is my Bible, so that sort of situation is beyond my comprehension.

 

The issue here is that they went after one marginalised group but did not want to provide a safe space for other marginalised groups. I think it does matter if you are to have a ToS that it is consistently applied otherwise why have one at all?

[Rosalind F 178]

46 minutes ago, Boiler said:

It is important to call out hate where we see it however, just because it is a private web site they should be immune.

I believe it is wrong to use the word "hate" to describe restrictions on vocalizing support for Trump administration. The guidelines make it very clear that the site policy is "not endorsing the Democrats nor banning Republicans".

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

43 minutes ago, laylalex said:

So it's okay to call me an intolerant liberal on the basis of me not liking my ex-husband's politics but it's not okay for Ravelry to say please, no Trump? Really? Gosh, I should point him in this direction, he'd agree with that. 😠

Not my intent, but I did say it, it truly was not me calling you out, I was trying to think of how he might have perceived your attitude towards his political beliefs. That was wrong of me, and for that I apologize, I should not interject myself into something I was not part of.

 

I find the methods of that March as offensive, personally I did not like explaining what the women were wearing to my 7 year old, but call me old fashioned. It would not have mattered if i.was in agreement with them, the delivery was for me over the mounds of tasteful.

[laylalex 7,252]

1 hour ago, Randyandyuni said:

Not my intent, but I did say it, it truly was not me calling you out, I was trying to think of how he might have perceived your attitude towards his political beliefs. That was wrong of me, and for that I apologize, I should not interject myself into something I was not part of.

 

I find the methods of that March as offensive, personally I did not like explaining what the women were wearing to my 7 year old, but call me old fashioned. It would not have mattered if i.was in agreement with them, the delivery was for me over the mounds of tasteful.

Thank you for your apology, it really does mean something to me. My ex and I had what my boyfriend now calls a "tumultuous" marriage. On paper, we looked like a great couple and in public we looked it too. We got married too young and we were both willing to overlook really incompatible stuff about each other. The political thing really didn't show up as a problem until about 2015. 

 

Why did you feel you had to explain exactly what some -- not all -- people said the hats stood for? I'm just curious, because one of my friends brought her daughter who was about 6 at the time, and asked the same question. Her mom told her that it was about women standing together with other women in strength and power. I think that's a pretty good and age-appropriate explanation. There were also a lot of kids on the March that day with their parents (moms and dads) and I didn't hear any discussion about sex or sexual assault or genitalia. I think it's hard for people who weren't there to understand what a positive and even happy experience it was in LA that day! There was a lot of hugging and smiling and strangers talking to strangers. Personally I needed that at that time. It was a very powerful and empowering experience. I remember that there were no arrests that day and there were by some counts three-quarters of a million people there. https://www.thewrap.com/los-angeles-la-womens-march-no-zero-arrests-attendance/

[Boiler 43,595]

2 hours ago, Rosalind F said:

I believe it is wrong to use the word "hate" to describe restrictions on vocalizing support for Trump administration. The guidelines make it very clear that the site policy is "not endorsing the Democrats nor banning Republicans".

I was referring to the treatment of PoC, Trans and non Binary.

[laylalex 7,252]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I was referring to the treatment of PoC, Trans and non Binary.

Isn't it okay for friends and allies to disagree with each other from time to time? My understanding from reading that article you posted earlier is that while some trans women and people of color objected to the hats, not all did. No one is requiring people to wear the hats. Every group and sub-group is always going to have members who disagree strongly with what the main group or subgroup is doing. Talking about these issues is good!  

[Rosalind F 178]

22 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I was referring to the treatment of PoC, Trans and non Binary

Oh, sorry about that. 

But I am still confused - are you saying that wearing pink hats is hateful towards minorities? 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

48 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Thank you for your apology, it really does mean something to me. My ex and I had what my boyfriend now calls a "tumultuous" marriage. On paper, we looked like a great couple and in public we looked it too. We got married too young and we were both willing to overlook really incompatible stuff about each other. The political thing really didn't show up as a problem until about 2015. 

 

Why did you feel you had to explain exactly what some -- not all -- people said the hats stood for? I'm just curious, because one of my friends brought her daughter who was about 6 at the time, and asked the same question. Her mom told her that it was about women standing together with other women in strength and power. I think that's a pretty good and age-appropriate explanation. There were also a lot of kids on the March that day with their parents (moms and dads) and I didn't hear any discussion about sex or sexual assault or genitalia. I think it's hard for people who weren't there to understand what a positive and even happy experience it was in LA that day! There was a lot of hugging and smiling and strangers talking to strangers. Personally I needed that at that time. It was a very powerful and empowering experience. I remember that there were no arrests that day and there were by some counts three-quarters of a million people there. https://www.thewrap.com/los-angeles-la-womens-march-no-zero-arrests-attendance/

I answered him because he asked, the hats were rather graphic is some cases. Genitalia whether symbolic or actual have no place in a public demonstration that is widely shown and discussed. I would have been equally angry had it been male rather then female

 

Thank you for accepting my apology.