@TurtleMat said in #794:
> I've been away from this thread for a while but I kept reading.
>
>
@QueenRosieMary thanks for your decision of deleting these ugly provocative messages. The decision between leting them unchalelnged or wasting my time to answer them was a hard one, and I think I'm not the only one who faced this dilemna.
>
> I think it was important to let them express their opinion, but it was equally important to shut them down when it became obvious that they didn't want a constructive exchange (anymore?).
>
> Now on this thread we have less quantity and more quality, that's a win win!
>
> It's also a really good example of how taking measures (might they *seem* radical) can produce immediate and significant results. I can see how silencing someone is a hard decision to take, and how it's often sociallly seen as a wrong way of doing things. But the spamming of uninformed and intolerant opinions on the subject also silences people who want to express themselves but can only do so in a safe environement.
>
> I guess I wanted to insist on this point because it's a fundamental mechanism of structural violence :
> the violence produced by the status quo are ignored, while actions of those who try and defend themselves against it are seen through a really strict prism. We have examples of that across all the *isms.
> For me, it means two things :
> - It's important to familiarise oneself with the hidden violences
> - it's important to loosen one's perspective on acceptable forms of "self-defense".
>
> While I'm at it, i'll add a random thought :
> Sexual violences can only florish in a sexist context. no one in their right mind would harass or agress a woman (in this case, but again, true across the *isms) if they weren't facilitated to do so. by advertisment presenting women as objects, by examples of dominations (it's a scale) in the close social surroundings, and by all other mechanisms of sexism that devalue and dehumanise women.
> I know i'm using words that makes it sound dramatic. but it kind of is (dramatic), and anyways to examine the mechanism, one has to use the actual words.
> I find this point really important, because it shifts parts of the problem from "some men are pigs" to "the sexsit context produces violence". And while it's true that "some men are pigs", that's just a symptom. They are not born that way, they are made that way. and as long as we don't adress the context that made them that way, they will keep coming.
>
> Once again, I'm not sure if I said too much, too little, or even if my ramblings interests people, but there you go, my (summerised) take on basic theory about the *isms :p
>
> On a more pragmatic note, thanks again to all those who shared their stories. I know that it helps a lot of people. And it for sure *Breaks the silence* !
Thanks for this constructive and thoughtful comment
@TurtleMat. It wasn't an easy decision to delete all posts from certain disruptive users, but I think with hindsight it has proved constructive. Yes, it was important to let them have their say, but it became apparent that it was becoming non-constructive. Some people had told me the levels of trolling and negativity were putting them off commenting. It is a hard balance to strike between overly harsh censorship and it being a free-for-all. Some of these people came back to comment after order was restored, which was nice.
Your ramblings are very welcome!
