This is my last note on The Discourse.

I had to work a bunch of this out with @CasualLaw before I could say anything because it's *really* complicated and there are a lot of shades to it, but it dovetails nicely with what a lot of other people have already said.

Everyone has the right to be upset. Everyone is entitled to their own feelings, and if something causes them distress they are welcome to express that hurt in as strong a language as they like.

Telling people how they can express their distress is tone policing, which is bad.

The reason tone policing is bad is because telling someone who they are or how they should feel is an abuse tactic.

But that goes both ways...

Claiming to know what is in someone's head or heart is violence. Sometimes it's justified violence. Sometimes violence is justified.

Sometimes people tell you what's in their heads. Sometimes they make it obvious. "I am a white nationalist" - okay you're a racist, good to know.

"I hate Buffy's treatment of race."
Perfectly fine. You're expressing your feelings about the show.

"Buffy fucking sucks I hate that every Black character is a shitty stereotype!"
Totally valid. You're still not wrong and you're talking about how it affects you.

"Joss Whedon is a racist!"
This is violence. I mean, you probably aren't wrong, but you don't know what's in his heart. Maybe he doesn't know any better? Maybe (likely) he still deserves it. But that's a moral call you have to make.

*Trying to get Whedon shows removed from a campus media festival*
If you believe that Whedon's work does more harm than good, or that his actions have hurt people, it's valid to take action to protect people (or at least put up a content warning so they know what they're getting)

*Tweeting at Joss Whedon that he is a racist on Twitter*
This is direct violence. It's also likely to be unproductive. Criticizing this is not tone policing. You could express how *you* feel about Whedon's work with very strong language without picking a fight.

*Starting a campaign to get Joss Whedon uninvited from an awards ceremony.*
This is violence. If you think he's actively hurting people, or that inviting him will make people feel unwelcome, it may very well be justified violence.

*Brigading Felicia Day on Twitter to stop personally associating with Joss Whedon*
This is extreme violence; it implies merely being an associate of Joss Whedon makes someone a threat to the community. It might *still* be justified if e.g. Whedon were a known war criminal.

Now, why did I use these absurd examples?

Because frankly, brigading Joss Whedon isn't something our community would do. Not because someone hasn't thought to, but because we simply lack the social power to do it.

Doing social violence online is a flex.

Because doing social violence online is a flex it is extremely tempting for people who spend a lot of time feeling disempowered.

This is not helped by the multitude of *real threats* out there.

There are actual Nazis, and we are absolutely justified in punching them.

But just as we're always more likely to exert social power (or physical violence) against those lower than us on the social ladder, we are much more likely to jump to online violence against marginalized people.

Even if we ourselves are marginalized. Especially if we are.

This is why it's incredibly important to take a moment to consider the ethics of the situation before engaging in social violence.

As proud as I am of how our community has banded together to expel abusers. I'm equally ashamed of the good people we've managed to make radioactive

I wrote this thread because I wanted to help model what I think the community should be doing going forward as it continues to make hard decisions about who to call in and who to call out - and who to throw out.

I mostly wrote this for me, to try to figure out where these lines are.

I've struggled with whether to share this, but I'm sure I'm not the only one trying to figure out where their own lines are on this topic.

Thank you again to @CasualLaw for helping me work through this.