Racism on Pricescope

[Indylady]

Oh dear! No apologies needed! Siamese3 and Tekate, great to see you both!!

I certainly didn't intend to seek apologies for folks responding to those messages. Quite the opposite--I appreciate and admire the people that have spoken up against inflammatory posters on the site.

 

[Indylady]

I guarantee admin doesn't have time to read and police every post.
That's what the Report Post button is for.

That's also why I would not address admin in a regular post.
Click the Contact Us thing at the bottom of every page.



... or after posting report your own post and explain why it needs admin attention.
I've done this a few times, and Ella and Andrey have been very accommodating.

You bring up an interesting point. I thought the administrators did read the boards. I'd actually be very surprised if they didn't come across and read these racist and inflammatory posts--there have been so many, and there are so few new threads these days, that they make up a large portion of the activity on hangout.

 

[arkieb1]

I don't think you have to be old to be weary of this @#* people aren't suddenly going to change their views so it gets to a point where there simply is no point in arguing with them.

 

[Indylady]

I've tried. When this baiting got started, I posted a thread calling out the baiting being tolerated and sponsored. I asked those who were feeding the baiters to strongly consider dropping the rope.

I also reported to the Administrator (first/last time I ever did that) the in-thread back-and-forth btw the same 2 posters who were parsing the N-word and why they, as white people, could not use the term. Completely offensive, baiting and disingenuous. Done with the intent to offend, at minimum. All the subsequent apologies from Pricescopers to those two for their martyred complaints were nauseating in the face of those sneering comments.

I was later removed from the posting community here by Ella with some darned harsh words to me by email. (Harsh words unnecessary because seconds after I posted, I deleted my post which is a solid sign of understanding the diagnostic word I used was not correct for Hangout). I did come back solely because had I not, the baiting cabal of 3 wins.

Pricescope, in my observation, is being destroyed from within due to the unfettered access given 1 person here. There won't be more than a shell left, if Rocky Talky and SMTB don't receive a strong population behind it to counterbalance the dwindling jewelry-related community here. I do appreciate the efforts by PS-ers in Hangout who've posted and hosted HangOut-supporting threads.

I came to PS initially for the bling pics and anecdotes---I go to Instagram for that now. Pricescope needs to solidify its relevance in the face of Instagram, Facebook, and Pinterest---the cabal of 3 have brought nothing to the table related to jewelry as an art or a consumer passion.

The above are my experience here and opinion only.

I had no idea! Thanks, AZStonie. Its great to have you here. I agree--the board is really being destroyed by a few posters, and the fact that those posters are allowed to remain here.

 

[Indylady]

I'm somewhat conflicted about whether to respond or ignore. I used to engage kind of a lot. However, after a lot of engaging but never getting anywhere at all, I finally began using the new and improved "ignore" function (after the update). I felt like it was necessary if I wanted my enjoyment of Hangout to continue. I had never, ever used the ignore function previously, and a part of me felt like I was "caving" by doing so, that is was wrong to ignore the racism, sexism, etc etc that I know is going on - I know it's all still here, I just can't see it.

Is that really the right thing to do? I still don't know, but I do know that I get FAR less upset when I come here, and my general enjoyment of Hangout has definitely gone up. At a certain point I realized that there are some people I just cannot positively interact with, so I'd rather not see anything they have to say.

That being said, I agree that it's very important to call out racism when I see it. Sometimes it's just hard to have to see it so frequently, though, which is why I've gone this route.

I certainly don't think anyone who calls out racist posts needs to apologize for anything! At least now you all know why I don't respond to those inflammatory posts anymore (bc I don't see them! Lol).

I don't think that the question is whether one should engage and ignore--rather--I think the question is:
Why is this behavior permitted on Pricescope?

 

[arkieb1]

Because these people claim they are not racist at all and that anyone that calls them out are a pack of overly zealous liberals that discriminate against them.....

 

[katharath]

I don't think that the question is whether one should engage and ignore--rather--I think the question is:
Why is this behavior permitted on Pricescope?

I do understand your point, and I agree - but I think those who disagree will just claim the old "but that's my OPINION, and I'm entitled to it" argument. And so we circle, round and round.

 

[kenny]

You bring up an interesting point. I thought the administrators did read the boards. I'd actually be very surprised if they didn't come across and read these racist and inflammatory posts--there have been so many, and there are so few new threads these days, that they make up a large portion of the activity on hangout.

I guess we'd have to ask them whether they read every post in every thread in every forum every day.

Then again, being the police they'd have good reason to NOT admit that the answer is, no, if the answer is no.

 

[AGBF]

I don't think that the question is whether one should engage and ignore--rather--I think the question is:
Why is this behavior permitted on Pricescope?

I do not mean to challenge you in a negative way, Indylady, because I think this thread you started is exceedingly good for Pricescope. I do, however, want some help from you. I know that you are an attorney and can pin down what you mean. When you say, "this behavior", exactly what are you referring to? What are the behaviors that Pricescope should outlaw that they have not already outlawed in their rules? Or what action do you want to see taken by the owner/administrator that is not part of current written policy? Is it something that can be articulated as general Pricescope policy or are you saying they should just intervene more as "common sense" dictates?

Deb

 

[cmd2014]

I don't think that the question is whether one should engage and ignore--rather--I think the question is:
Why is this behavior permitted on Pricescope?

I guess the even bigger question is why is this behavior permitted anywhere? But you have a good point, and it's one I hope is given some consideration at the admin level.

 

[VapidLapid]

It is bad, not just here but across the country. People seem to feel authorized to be conspicuously, recklessly lax with their own responsibility to be ethical, and not lazily stupid. On the one hand one would like to engage them and help them discover the residual racist, classist, sexist attitude they inherited unquestioningly; how radically dissociated it is from any study of the histories of oppression and wealth. How it relates tho their own daily lives! But trolls are trolls just as ayn rand was not a philospher; neither are open to critical thought or learning, they are only there to troll.

 

[Indylady]

I do not mean to challenge you in a negative way, Indylady, because I think this thread you started is exceedingly good for Pricescope. I do, however, want some help from you. I know that you are an attorney and can pin down what you mean. When you say, "this behavior", exactly what are you referring to? What are the behaviors that Pricescope should outlaw that they have not already outlawed in their rules? Or what action do you want to see taken by the owner/administrator that is not part of current written policy? Is it something that can be articulated as general Pricescope policy or are you saying they should just intervene more as "common sense" dictates?

Deb

Pricescope's policy states that discussions regarding race are prohibited. I think that racist, xenophobic, homophobic and discriminatory posting should also be prohibited. I think it should be both policy, and a matter of common sense and basic courtesy for the posters.

Pricescope is a business--the moderators do profit from the advertisements on the boards, and the many, many referrals and purchases that occur as a result of everyday posters that carefully document and share (for no compensation) their experiences buying diamond jewelry. From a purely commercial standpoint, I think that the moderators should take care to protect their biggest asset.

From a humanitarian standpoint, I think we shouldn't accept racist, xenophobic, or homophobic insults from anyone, and that the moderators ultimately have the power, authority, and duty to stop disseminating hateful speech through this platform.

 

[lovedogs]

oh dear. Thank goodness that garbage about Michelle Obama was posted while I was on a short hiatus from Hangout (due to precisely this nonsense). I might have lost it and gotten myself a perma-ban.

I sometimes respond to the blatantly ignorant posts, but when they become too much I need to step back before I say something I'll regret. I agree that I'm not entirely sure why some of it is allowed to continue, but I do use "report" when I feel like things go beyond ignorance/hate and veer into racist/sexist/xenophobic,etc.

But it is really sad to see hangouts suffer because of the actions of a few.

 

[AGBF]

Pricescope's policy states that discussions regarding race are prohibited. I think that racist, xenophobic, homophobic and discriminatory posting should also be prohibited. I think it should be both policy, and a matter of common sense and basic courtesy for the posters.

I hate having an opposing position to yours, Indylady. Maybe, if we clarify our positions, it will turn out that I do not.

However, when the ban on the discussion of politics was lifted, obviously the ban on the discussion of race was lifted, as all of us members wanted and understood. Those of us who wanted to discuss politics at all, wanted to be free to do so without restraint. We did not want to have to omit the topic of riots in Ferguson, for example.

Had we not decided to discuss race, the guidelines would have been clear. What would not have been clear then and is not clear now is how "racist, xenophobic, homophobic and discriminatory" posting can be defined. But maybe it need not be defined. Maybe all that needs to happen is that a sentence be added to Pricescope policy outlawing the behaviors you mentioned. Then if a member sees someone engage in what he believes falls into this category, he can alert the moderators and they can take action. I would be very happy indeed if that became policy.

Deb

 

[lovedogs]

Had we not decided to discuss race, the guidelines would have been clear. What would not have been clear then and is not clear now is how "racist, xenophobic, homophobic and discriminatory" posting can be defined. But maybe it need not be defined. Maybe all that needs to happen is that a sentence be added to Pricescope policy outlawing the behaviors you mentioned. Then if a member sees someone engage in what he believes falls into this category, he can alert the moderators and they can take action. I would be very happy indeed if that became policy.

Deb

I think this would be incredibly helpful to everyone. Deb you are totally right that I think one of the issues is how hard this stuff is to define. There have been times when I think posters are acting in a way that is racist and offensive, but when I point it out to them they are quick to say, "But I'm not racist!". So it's obviously a matter of definition here, which will depend on the person. But I think that type of sentence being added to the policy would allow posters to report what they feel is offensive behavior, and allow the mods to make the final choice.

 

[Indylady]

I hate having an opposing position to yours, Indylady. Maybe, if we clarify our positions, it will turn out that I do not.

However, when the ban on the discussion of politics was lifted, obviously the ban on the discussion of race was lifted, as all of us members wanted and understood. Those of us who wanted to discuss politics at all, wanted to be free to do so without restraint. We did not want to have to omit the topic of riots in Ferguson, for example.

Had we not decided to discuss race, the guidelines would have been clear. What would not have been clear then and is not clear now is how "racist, xenophobic, homophobic and discriminatory" posting can be defined. But maybe it need not be defined. Maybe all that needs to happen is that a sentence be added to Pricescope policy outlawing the behaviors you mentioned. Then if a member sees someone engage in what he believes falls into this category, he can alert the moderators and they can take action. I would be very happy indeed if that became policy.

Deb

Excuse me for that, I didn't realize the ban was lifted! I should have known otherwise. Its still posted on the forum policies. https://www.pricescope.com/content/forum-policies It seems they should be updated. This is what policy #8 states:

1. Discussing RELIGION or RACIAL/ETHNIC issues are not allowed. This includes prayer chains, religious debates, or threads that turn into antagonistic discussion on different religions. It also includes posting links/references to other sites/sources dedicated to religion or ethnic discussions. POLITICS are allowed in limited form, at the discretion of the moderator.

As for your solution, I agree entirely. Perhaps an addendum could be added to the forum policy, which can serve as a basis for posters to report posts that are hateful in nature, whether based on racism/homophobia/xenophobia, etc.

 

[Matata]

Racist speech is protected under the 1st Amendment whether we like it or not. It would be difficult to prove that there is inherent harm caused to PSers by those who post their racist thoughts here. That harm, if proved, would be reason to ban or censure a poster under the law I believe. The ongoing debate about whether to ignore posters such as Ruby or engage them for some noble purpose seems moot to me. Ruby and her ilk won't be swayed by what is said here. New posters who are scared away by reading a negative post here without doing due diligence to determine the overall characteristics of PS are not, IMO, a loss to PS. I'm not suggesting that racism, homophobia, misogyny et al should not be condemned when it occurs here. Perhaps that is a job better suited to PS posters rather than PS admin.

Tacori E-ring presented a cogent assessment (IMO) of Ruby as a psychologically damaged person who has been deeply hurt in a thread about the women's march against Trump. Ruby was incensed by Tacori's comments and I feel as though I'm treading on thin ice bringing it up. Tacori's assessment resonated with me. Those who engage with Ruby in an attempt to educate her or others who may be swayed by her words reveal more about themselves than they reveal about Ruby and so I have, much to my dismay, stopped reading their attempts. I have Ruby on ignore because, for me personally, it is the humane thing to do.

 

[Indylady]

Racist speech is protected under the 1st Amendment whether we like it or not. It would be difficult to prove that there is inherent harm caused to PSers by those who post their racist thoughts here. That harm, if proved, would be reason to ban or censure a poster under the law I believe. The ongoing debate about whether to ignore posters such as Ruby or engage them for some noble purpose seems moot to me. Ruby and her ilk won't be swayed by what is said here. New posters who are scared away by reading a negative post here without doing due diligence to determine the overall characteristics of PS are not, IMO, a loss to PS. I'm not suggesting that racism, homophobia, misogyny et al should not be condemned when it occurs here. Perhaps that is a job better suited to PS posters rather than PS admin.

Tacori E-ring presented a cogent assessment (IMO) of Ruby as a psychologically damaged person who has been deeply hurt in a thread about the women's march against Trump. Ruby was incensed by Tacori's comments and I feel as though I'm treading on thin ice bringing it up. Tacori's assessment resonated with me. Those who engage with Ruby in an attempt to educate her or others who may be swayed by her words reveal more about themselves than they reveal about Ruby and so I have, much to my dismay, stopped reading their attempts. I have Ruby on ignore because, for me personally, it is the humane thing to do.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law limiting free speech--it actually does not govern the actions of the Pricescope moderators. The First Amendment is of no consequence here. Pricescope moderators are free to, and often do, ban posters that cause problems on the board. Some are given short 'time-outs' and some are banned for life.

As for proving harm, I think this thread is proof of it.

 

[minousbijoux]

I'm somewhat conflicted about whether to respond or ignore. I used to engage kind of a lot. However, after a lot of engaging but never getting anywhere at all, I finally began using the new and improved "ignore" function (after the update). I felt like it was necessary if I wanted my enjoyment of Hangout to continue. I had never, ever used the ignore function previously, and a part of me felt like I was "caving" by doing so, that is was wrong to ignore the racism, sexism, etc etc that I know is going on - I know it's all still here, I just can't see it.

Is that really the right thing to do? I still don't know, but I do know that I get FAR less upset when I come here, and my general enjoyment of Hangout has definitely gone up. At a certain point I realized that there are some people I just cannot positively interact with, so I'd rather not see anything they have to say.

That being said, I agree that it's very important to call out racism when I see it. Sometimes it's just hard to have to see it so frequently, though, which is why I've gone this route.

I certainly don't think anyone who calls out racist posts needs to apologize for anything! At least now you all know why I don't respond to those inflammatory posts anymore (bc I don't see them! Lol).

Beautifully written, Katharath, this is EXACTLY how I feel.

I, too, could no longer deal with that toxic, troll-like individual and blocked them. For a long time, I felt that Hangout was a fun, safe and supportive community and then in the past year or two, things started changing because of her (and one or two others). No one should apologize for trying repeatedly to have civil discussions with her, and to try and explain to her why her posts are so ignorant, narrow minded/bigoted. Thank you to all of those of you who've weighed in on these threads, and stayed to repeatedly explain/defend what is right. I admit I just got tired and felt it was a futile endeavor. But a shout out to Elliot86, Arkie, Azstonie, Tekate, E B, Monnie, Jaaron, AGBF, soxfan, StephanieLynn, Calliecake, siamese3, and of course, Indylady, as well as all the others who have made such valiant efforts.

 

[Matata]

I believe the thread proves discontent at and intolerance of perceived racism on PS. What harm has been done? If the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to PS (I'm assuming because it's a private entity -- is that correct?) then no harm is done under the law. We can be upset, incensed, disappointed, irate but racism here does not interfere with anyone's rights, correct?

This is an interesting thread in light of people's reactions to what happened at Berkeley with Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. I was pleased that both were prevented from speaking but also concerned about how sanitized we want the world to be.

 

[AGBF]

Those who engage with Ruby in an attempt to educate her or others who may be swayed by her words reveal more about themselves than they reveal about Ruby

Well, although I do not feel I fall into either of these categories, since I see myself as engaging in discussions, not "educating" or "being swayed by" ruby, I am sure you include me under this umbrella.

Therefore, I will speak in my own defense.

You say I reveal more about myself than about ruby when I speak? Well I would hope so! It is my brain that processes my thoughts, not ruby's brain! Why on earth would my speech reveal anything about ruby? Have you had too much single malt tonight?

Deb

 

[SMC]

If we want the poster to go away can we all agree to ignore her? It's possible that she will stop or lessen the offensive postings if she isn't getting the attention she wants.

 

[Indylady]

I believe the thread proves discontent at and intolerance of perceived racism on PS. What harm has been done? If the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to PS (I'm assuming because it's a private entity -- is that correct?) then no harm is done under the law. We can be upset, incensed, disappointed, irate but racism here does not interfere with anyone's rights, correct?

This is an interesting thread in light of people's reactions to what happened at Berkeley with Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. I was pleased that both were prevented from speaking but also concerned about how sanitized we want the world to be.

You're absolutely correct. Racism does not interfere with anyone's rights under the law. But Pricescope moderators can, and should, keep racism out of the board. Pricescope is not a democracy--it is a business, that is controlled by the moderators. They can remove anyone they'd like, as stated in policy, and as has been practiced.

Removing racist posters isn't 'sanitizing'. Its a baseline for respectful discourse. I am not encroaching on the 'feelings' or 'opinions' of those posters--they are encroaching on my body and personhood.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I believe the thread proves discontent at and intolerance of perceived racism on PS. What harm has been done? If the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to PS (I'm assuming because it's a private entity -- is that correct?) then no harm is done under the law. We can be upset, incensed, disappointed, irate but racism here does not interfere with anyone's rights, correct?

This is an interesting thread in light of people's reactions to what happened at Berkeley with Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. I was pleased that both were prevented from speaking but also concerned about how sanitized we want the world to be.

I don't see it so much as sanitiztion. You can be a provocateur and still be a funny/interesting/intelligent one. I do have standards, even for trolls.

But I don't see this so much as a discussion about what we think is outright racism, or trolling, but where does PS draw the line? What if any is the standard?

 

[Matata]

Well, although I do not feel I fall into either of these categories, since I see myself as engaging in discussions, not "educating" or "being swayed by" ruby, I am sure you include me under this umbrella.

Therefore, I will speak in my own defense.

You say I reveal more about myself than about ruby when I speak? Well I would hope so! It is my brain that processes my thoughts, not ruby's brain! Why on earth would my speech reveal anything about ruby? Have you had too much single malt tonight?

Deb

I think people who repeatedly do this , which is what some of them do when they attempt to educate her and sway her thoughts are showing a bit of hubris -- as though the cogency and rationality of their discourse has the power to sway her toward reasoned thought -- inspite of the fact that there is no change. Remember the definition of stupidity -- doing the same thing over and over expecting (or for this particular poster, hoping for) a different result? It frustrates me to see intelligent, eloquent posters so I simply stopped watching. My prerogative. I have had 2 glasses of wine after 8 hours of hard hiking so I may be exhibiting dim-bulbness.

 

[OreoRosies86]

And it's not just racism, it's classism too, with certain long time members constantly categorizing those who live on the poverty line as being lazy, uneducated, and unwilling to go be rich.

 

[AGBF]

I think people who repeatedly do this , which is what some of them do when they attempt to educate her and sway her thoughts are showing a bit of hubris -- as though the cogency and rationality of their discourse has the power to sway her toward reasoned thought -- inspite of the fact that there is no change.

Yes, I will cop to being full of hubris. What gall I have to attempt to engage in a discussion with someone once you have given up, Matata. It shows a huge amount of arrogance on my part to think that I could possibly have a conversation where you failed to have one. That is the time when I was supposed to cease my discussion with ruby, right? Once you decided you had had enough? I was supposed to play follow the leader? And you were the leader?

Pardon me for thinking too much of myself. Oh...and you do not like it that I use cogent and rational thought? I should not attempt to use reasoned dialogue? Perhaps irrationality and a thought disorder would be more to your liking? Would those show humility? If so, then I suggest you not pick on ruby for being irrational. You can't seem to decide which you want: irrational or rational!

Remember the definition of stupidity -- doing the same thing over and over expecting (or for this particular poster, hoping for) a different result?

Most people consider that to be the definion of "insanity", but I can see that could fit "stupidity" as well.

 

[Indylady]

And it's not just racism, it's classism too, with certain long time members constantly categorizing those who live on the poverty line as being lazy, uneducated, and unwilling to go be rich.

That too!

 

[Matata]

I don't see it so much as sanitiztion. You can be a provocateur and still be a funny/interesting/intelligent one. I do have standards, even for trolls.

But I don't see this so much as a discussion about what we think is outright racism, or trolling, but where does PS draw the line? What if any is the standard?

Gotta say dearest Elliott whom I adore, I assumed the standard was set when particular agitators weren't censured.

 

[Matata]

Actually, that is the definition of insanity, but since you are drunk as a skunk I will not fault you for it.

Love you,
Deb

I am not drunk as a skunk, perhaps tipsy as a loon, and I showered so I for sure know I do not stink. And I looked up the quote before I posted it so perhaps insanity and stupidity are one and the same. Topic for another thread.