Disclaimer

1 August 2008

3 Comments

JaxCAL needs to clarify a few things. Please read this before commenting on JaXCAL in the future so we can all be clear from this point forward on the types of accepted commentary. Thank you.

Stop Hatin, Y’all.

There seems to be a crucial misunderstanding round these parts. People seem to mistake critical discussion for hatin. I think we would all claim to be independent thinkers, right? Or at the least, we would like to be seen as such. Yet the moment someone questions the accepted order of things, we immediately vilify them.

For example, people got so upset when the Black Kids’ music were questioned. Is it really so shocking? I mean, I think for the most part we’re happy that some local kids have broken out of Jax and found success, but is anyone going to argue that they are musical pioneers? They’re just a really fun pop group. Even the LA times describes them as “Cure aping”. Is the LA Times writer hatin on our friends? Click here for article.

The really ridiculous aspect to this outraged response to critical discussion is that this website is the Jacksonville Contemporary Arts League. Anyone who might have taken an art class should be familiar with a critique and, I would hope, appreciate the value of critiques in becoming better artists.

And to make it easier to distinguish the two:

This is thoughtful criticism:

“my honest take is that it was pretty obvious. dig deeper like local issues maybe? right and wrong kind of thing is cool but i know good people that wear painted on jeans. i’m sick of division. i was much more moved by the kids playing war video games. that was meaningful. this to me was the daily show without the funny.”

This is hatin:

“What you would do in nyc sounds like the wannabe artist that you are. Btw you are not here, you are there, “if” don’t mean shit. I’ll be back in jax for one month and I hope I run into you! As far as me not liking “your” site, thats just your Republican spin. I don’t like you!”

Thinking for yourself means questioning things and having opinions that aren’t always going to be popular. And remember, people who can’t argue the facts will often times attack the one who said them. I’m hoping we never have the type of hatin shown in the last example on JaxCAL again. And just for a heads, any future hateful comments will be moderated. Long live the thoughtful social and cultural criticism that has been ongoing since the birth of JaxCAL. Thank you to all who have been involved in such discussions.

3 Comments »

valuistics said:

I don’t know, I was in the delivery room when JaxCAL was born and there was plenty of hatin’ left all over the floor when we brought home our lil bundle o jaxcal. I think we should strive to always make sure our baby is clean and healthy, but never ever let her get washed away with the the bathwater.

I’m all in favor of moderating harassing comments that use hate speech and attack individuals. There’s got to be another venue for that. Let’s make sure to moderate comments without blocking users entirely, because while the above-quoted example of hatin’ is extreeme, I think we all have to admit we have all (the exception is Mark) done a bit of it in the past. Like for example when I called Ed Gamble “absolutely lousy” a few posts back. That was uncalled for. As he showed later in the thread, he’s not a lousy person, he’s just a person who sometimes makes lousy cartoons. I’m allowed to rant about the demerits of the cartoon, but not rail on the man. And so often we are loathe to admit, at first, sometimes make lousy art or lousy comments about the art of others. If someone made lousy comments and was kicked off and then didn’t have a forum in which to discuss how they may have been wrong or too harsh, that would indeed be a problem.

If I’ve learned anything from being in crits and moderating them now as a teacher, I must say that there is a downright dearth (I say dearth!) of honest criticism (the real term is ‘dialectical thinking,’ but damn is that ever unwieldy) in people- of both the negative and positive variety. We should always be criting. We should always be getting to the crux of the matter. We should always be distinguishing the finer aspects of a thing or an idea. We are allowed to distinguish one thing from another. But we must be accountable in a real way, or this site and all our overlong threads and rants (our primordial stew, our embryonic fluid, so to speak) will be less relevant.

I have a running joke in critiques that students sometimes perk up about. I tell them, “OK. Bring a few one dollar bills to critique. If when we’re critiquing someone’s work and that person NEEDS to hear a strong negative critical remark but no one is voicing it, give them a buck and let it fly in the best way you can. Put your money where your mouth is, essentially.” I had senior photo crits in undergrad where this cash exchange went down and it was the professor who was doling out the singles, fives, and powerful negative criticisms.

I kid you not, the blow of an honest negative criticism is indeed softened with a small cash donation. This shows the group the difference between a thoughtful negative critic and a hater. Haters must have real balls or too much money (or both) to consistently pay people to listen to their usually useless hatin’. And if this ever happened, at least the person getting harshly critted on is getting some cash. Let cash be the true measure of how much a negative word is worth to someone. It keeps useless, flippant or downright mean comments to a minimum. So far, while I have seen this form of crit reimbursement performed, I’ve seen no hater participate in it.

So my thought is that we set up a Paypal system and make a deal with people who shout harsh criticisms that may flirt with hatin’. Obviously ugly downright hatin’ hatespeech about an individual should be shitcanned. But in the case of an unusually harsh comment that sounds like hatin’ to some but perhaps not to others, the commenter can choose to either donate cold hard cash to the site or to the individual they’re hating on, or be moderated.

It’s either that or (and this is probably the less-work route) we the contributors agree on a basic code of conduct and have people read it and check an Agree box before their comment is published. That way if we think its hate, we can moderate it in good faith because the commenter already told us we could if their comment didn’t abide by our code.

Baby stays healthy, but her true grit isn’t washed away with the hatin.

- 3 August 2008 at 1:02 am

contributor (author) said:

Paypal for haters. A brilliant idea.

I actually didn’t write this. Just to clarify it. I can’t take credit for it. And it wasn’t Globatron either. He will forever stay anonymous. Thanks for the input.

I did think he had some great points and felt like it deserved to be heard.

I think it’s pretty obvious what should be moderated. I’ve only moderated one comment since the beginning. I forget what it was but it was pretty bad.

Just to clarify. I don’t think a system is needed but just to put it out there if something is obviously just negative and trying to flame someone’s character then we should have the right to moderate it.

And you know what I don’t think I’ve down right flamed an individual on this here bloggy. I think I’ve tried to keep it as constructive as possible and have always tried to make it clear that it’s only my opinion of which I’m sure is just that an opinion and not fact.

I do think we can learn a lot from approaching all of our running commentary as critiques. I love the dollar bill idea. As often as we get hatin on here which isn’t often I don’t think folks would mind departing with a buck or two in order to blow off a little steam.

Thanks anonymous ghost writer for this thoughtful post. I hadn’t thought of making a disclaimer for this but it’s really a great idea as we can always say see said disclaimer if there are issues with future comments.

- 3 August 2008 at 1:59 am

Chris said:

I believe that any individuals using this site/forum as a platform
for venting and being a “hater” are sadly missing out on the spirit
and original intention with which this was created.
There are many among us who for a multitude of reasons are carrying
around toxic baggage and are looking for a place to dump it, but
rather than dealing with the root causes of their pain and hostility,
maybe they gain some temporary perceived relief from the act of focusing
it on an external target.
We are ALL distinct separate entities, and rather than seeing and
assessing another’s differences as offensive, or a threat, maybe the
real joy is to be found in the diversity and wide range of what each
person’s unique perspective allows them to bring to the gathering.

- 6 August 2008 at 1:05 pm