OK, I guess avail on req is closed, thanks for correcting. It's not lifted from the book tho so it's less labour — that's the point I wanted
Many communities are self-selected and even though gatekeeping can be bad if done badly it can also be good.
-
-
If done well, of course.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sure, if transparent, as you say. I guess the line has to be drawn at the extremes, but dissenting voices can be good for group cohesion.
-
I think it's even more complex than that.
-
"Dissent" (rhetoric, propaganda) that involves excluding URMs is only good for cohesion if you redefine cohesion to "just us white bros".
-
It can redefine cohesion boundaries. If the way the boundary is going *as a group* is bad, exclude the dissenter (total over-simplification)
-
Yeah, but that not in my experience how this manifests ever.
-
What usually happens, in my exp, is that a bigot is usually not really that much debated against or told to shut up.
-
And even though the group in their minds might think "it's OK" if they were not target, the URMs think "ugh not for me" and speak less.
-
All these thoughts are either explicit or usually implicit, meaning that less speaking up occurs without URMs & others realising exactly why
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.