I don’t see myself as part of a racially marginalised group, and I’m no expert on racial issues. (I’m just a translator with some bg on Linguistics).
I’m also from LatAm. I expect most readers here to be from CA/USA; be aware that racial marginalisation works through different ways in both sides.
Because of both please take what I say with a grain of salt. I hope that I’m contributing.
I like where this text is going. As such, my criticism here is mostly on better ways to convey some points, plus additional info.
Title + Intro
Subbing “start making” for “make” highlights better that every little change matters, and is easier to read.
In this context “more welcoming” says the same as “less toxic”, but the former should be better to “sell” to the readers the idea that they can and should contribute. (Plus the word “toxic” is bound to make some people roll eyes and ignore the message.)
Listen more to more Black people
It would be great if your text addressed people who shut up marginalised groups while claiming to speak in their names; it sounds a lot like “I’m an ally so chrust me, you don’t need to listen to [group], lissen to ME! ME! ME! instead.” I’ve seen this too often in social media, including here. Black people probably have a lot more to talk about this than I do.
Post less – and think before you post
Simply saying “post less” is bound to rub off people the wrong way, specially when removed from context (plenty people won’t read the section past that), as plenty people are aware that the Fediverse needs more content.
Sadly I’m not certain on a good way to rephrase this without erasing the message. (Perhaps merge it with #1? Just an idea.)
Stop asking Black people for evidence [… whole paragraph]
I believe that the conclusion within this bullet point is accurate and moral, but the whole package needs some serious rewording.
IMO a better approach here is to highlight that all those “excuuuuse me, where are the proofs that you’re subjected to racism in the Fediverse?” are a form of sealioning, regardless of the intention of the people asking it. Black person be asked once, they provide the bloody proof; be asked twice, they roll their eyes but still do it; be asked for the 1000th time, they get pissed and leave.
I’m saying this because, the way that this point is currently worded, it sounds fallacious (inversion of the burden of the proof). And even if most people can’t quite identify fallacies, it still ticks a lot of them off, they know that “something” is wrong.
Stop telling Black people that they’ll experience less racism if they change instances […]
It’s actually worse: it’s a form of racial segregation. It’s like telling them “you won’t experience racism if you sit in the back of the bus”.
Black people should feel comfortable to use the same spaces as everyone else.
Stop saying the fediverse […]
I think that this bullet point is perfect as it is. Just commenting on the underlying issue:
A lot of people here confuse personal experiences with general statements. Even if the Fediverse, in general, was friendlier or nicer towards marginalised groups, it doesn’t really matter when someone is pissed and trying to vent their bad experience, you know?
Also ablism
Just highlighting a typo. No issue with the message.
Another point that I’d like to highlight is that a lot of the racism in English is proxied through linguistic prejudice, due to the existence of racial varieties like the African-American Vernacular English ones. For example, picking on people who use habitual-be, or specific words/expressions common among AAVE speakers. It is racist and I’ve seen it here [in Lemmy] quite a few times.
Thanks very much for the feedback, I really appreciate the time you put into it and. you bring up a lot of very good points. For “start making” vs “making” and “less toxic” vs “more welcoming”, I’m intentionally choosing the weaker forms to emphasize that these are only the very first steps. I know it’s a harder sell this way but it’s important to set expectations. It’s a good point about how some allies saying :“listen to me!” take space from marginalized groups, I kind of feel like I’ve got that covered by betweent the combination of #1 and #2 but maybe it’s worth making more explicit.
Agreed that the discussion of repeated questions could be more explicit. (It’s not necessarily sealioning, although sometimes it is; often it’s the same one or two reasonable questions from a huge number of people.). But that’s not actually the key point I’m trying to make. Instead, to relates to this:
the way that this point is currently worded, it sounds fallacious (inversion of the burden of the proof)
Many people react that way but think about it a little more. It’s a fact. Mutliuple Black people have proven it repeatedly. There is no further burden of proof, it’s only whiteness’ denial that makes it seem like an open question and entitlement that makes it seem like Black people should produce more evidence. The annoyance factor is a big deal too, but it’s secondary.
Choosing weaker forms sounds sensible - my criticism is which ones.
Many people react that way but think about it a little more. It’s a fact. Mutliuple Black people have proven it repeatedly.
Yup, I know that it’s a fact. You aren’t being fallacious, but the way that you phrased it sounds like that fallacy, so it’s a matter of clarity.
It’s the same deal as the “post less”, you know? People are misunderstanding you.
[from the other comment] That’s a great point, can I quote you on having seen it on Lemmy quite a few times?
Feel free to do so! However keep in mind that I didn’t really keep track of them, so if someone says “do you have proofs?” I have no way to back it up.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Readers, beware
I don’t see myself as part of a racially marginalised group, and I’m no expert on racial issues. (I’m just a translator with some bg on Linguistics).
I’m also from LatAm. I expect most readers here to be from CA/USA; be aware that racial marginalisation works through different ways in both sides.
Because of both please take what I say with a grain of salt. I hope that I’m contributing.
I like where this text is going. As such, my criticism here is mostly on better ways to convey some points, plus additional info.
Subbing “start making” for “make” highlights better that every little change matters, and is easier to read.
In this context “more welcoming” says the same as “less toxic”, but the former should be better to “sell” to the readers the idea that they can and should contribute. (Plus the word “toxic” is bound to make some people roll eyes and ignore the message.)
It would be great if your text addressed people who shut up marginalised groups while claiming to speak in their names; it sounds a lot like “I’m an ally so chrust me, you don’t need to listen to [group], lissen to ME! ME! ME! instead.” I’ve seen this too often in social media, including here. Black people probably have a lot more to talk about this than I do.
Simply saying “post less” is bound to rub off people the wrong way, specially when removed from context (plenty people won’t read the section past that), as plenty people are aware that the Fediverse needs more content.
Sadly I’m not certain on a good way to rephrase this without erasing the message. (Perhaps merge it with #1? Just an idea.)
I believe that the conclusion within this bullet point is accurate and moral, but the whole package needs some serious rewording.
IMO a better approach here is to highlight that all those “excuuuuse me, where are the proofs that you’re subjected to racism in the Fediverse?” are a form of sealioning, regardless of the intention of the people asking it. Black person be asked once, they provide the bloody proof; be asked twice, they roll their eyes but still do it; be asked for the 1000th time, they get pissed and leave.
I’m saying this because, the way that this point is currently worded, it sounds fallacious (inversion of the burden of the proof). And even if most people can’t quite identify fallacies, it still ticks a lot of them off, they know that “something” is wrong.
It’s actually worse: it’s a form of racial segregation. It’s like telling them “you won’t experience racism if you sit in the back of the bus”.
Black people should feel comfortable to use the same spaces as everyone else.
I think that this bullet point is perfect as it is. Just commenting on the underlying issue:
A lot of people here confuse personal experiences with general statements. Even if the Fediverse, in general, was friendlier or nicer towards marginalised groups, it doesn’t really matter when someone is pissed and trying to vent their bad experience, you know?
Just highlighting a typo. No issue with the message.
[Replying to myself to avoid editing the above]
Another point that I’d like to highlight is that a lot of the racism in English is proxied through linguistic prejudice, due to the existence of racial varieties like the African-American Vernacular English ones. For example, picking on people who use habitual-be, or specific words/expressions common among AAVE speakers. It is racist and I’ve seen it here [in Lemmy] quite a few times.
That’s a great point, can I quote you on having seen it on Lemmy quite a few times?
Thanks very much for the feedback, I really appreciate the time you put into it and. you bring up a lot of very good points. For “start making” vs “making” and “less toxic” vs “more welcoming”, I’m intentionally choosing the weaker forms to emphasize that these are only the very first steps. I know it’s a harder sell this way but it’s important to set expectations. It’s a good point about how some allies saying :“listen to me!” take space from marginalized groups, I kind of feel like I’ve got that covered by betweent the combination of #1 and #2 but maybe it’s worth making more explicit.
Agreed that the discussion of repeated questions could be more explicit. (It’s not necessarily sealioning, although sometimes it is; often it’s the same one or two reasonable questions from a huge number of people.). But that’s not actually the key point I’m trying to make. Instead, to relates to this:
Many people react that way but think about it a little more. It’s a fact. Mutliuple Black people have proven it repeatedly. There is no further burden of proof, it’s only whiteness’ denial that makes it seem like an open question and entitlement that makes it seem like Black people should produce more evidence. The annoyance factor is a big deal too, but it’s secondary.
And, good catch on the typo, thanks!
Choosing weaker forms sounds sensible - my criticism is which ones.
Yup, I know that it’s a fact. You aren’t being fallacious, but the way that you phrased it sounds like that fallacy, so it’s a matter of clarity.
It’s the same deal as the “post less”, you know? People are misunderstanding you.
Feel free to do so! However keep in mind that I didn’t really keep track of them, so if someone says “do you have proofs?” I have no way to back it up.