Reluctant Reactions Regarding Ravelry

 

While today's Mallard Filmore's comic message {which is a headline from Business Insider} is not exactly the truth of the matter, it is the way many folks are interpreting Ravelry's zero tolerance policy regarding hateful speech, texts, pictures, avatars, etc. from their members, toward their members.  So yes, while they do focus on Trump supporters as an example of this sort of behavior, their policy has been contorted beyond belief with many folks up in arms because this is a very emotional issue, with lots of fear and shame involved.  Tempers flair, anger and blame erupts, and the original point is lots in all the recriminations and voices wanting to be heard.

So, to be fair, Ravelry does specifically target those who post their support of Trump in their recent policy.  {“Note that support of President Trump, his administration, or individual policies that harm marginalized groups, all constitute hate speech.”}  However, they go on to clarify what the policy means, including "You can still participate if you do in fact support the administration, you just can’t talk about it here."  I think in large part, the overwhelming Trump relevant posts in the past have been focused solely on exclusion, hate, and intolerance.  This tends to incite the verbal, text, visual, and virtual equivalent of riots as things escalate quickly into the heated realm of personal attacks, threats of actual violence, and further destructive division.  So Ravelry's admin stepped in and adapted a policy that specifically addresses this type of nonproductive conflict.

I have mixed feelings regarding this.  My first reaction, a gut level, emotion driven response was a resounding sense of relief and a vague sort of victory.  This was quickly followed by a wry "yeah, but this is going to have lots and lots of backlaah".  And then my "let's think this thru" parts spoke up with reluctance, which is different than my "yeah, but" parts that are very tentative at voicing differing opinions when I know they will not be well received by those who I generally agree with.

However, my tribe where I feel I truly belong gets it, they might not agree with it, but they totally support that I have a right to my opinions and so for that reason alone, most are willing to listen to and think about what I have to say.  True belonging allows you to voice dissension and still be accepted and embraced, so long as you express your own points of view in reasonable ways without personal attacks and while respecting others.  Many shy away from conflicts, voicing differing opinions is often associated with huge confrontations, because that is what their experience has been, even within families, with friends, and other loved ones who responded with rejection or intolerance.

This ties directly into Ravelry's decision to specifically cite Trump supporters.  While I completely agree that intolerance and hate are futile and destructive, I'm not amiable to acting against hate and intolerance with further hate and intolerance.  Seems counterproductive and hypocritical.  I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but I am pretty sure this is what it is not.

We cannot foster discourse that allows us to learn, understand, and clearly communicate with an aim to unite when we reject and ban others from the conversation by expelling them from the gathering altogether.  I understand that for the most part, these postings on Ravelry were not fruitful discussions, as most of them were hate~mongering; but to respond to those individual cases with a generalized discrimination of an entire group by equating all Trump supporters with hate, bullying, and intolerance is itself promoting self selection and sweeping intolerance.  So while I understand the good intentions, I think the actions may have been off kilter and missed the mark.

What are your thoughts?  Comment below and share!