Does the "Be Nice" Policy cover potential rants about general groups of people?

Question

I have some questions about the meaning and the enforcement of the "Be Nice" policy, particularly with regards to this recent question.

According to the policy:

Bigotry of any kind. Language likely to offend or alienate individuals or groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. will not be tolerated. At all. (Those are just a few examples; when in doubt, just don't.)

While I don't believe the OP is intending any harm, the following elements of the question seem problematic to me:

TITLE: How to politely deal with white people wanting to talk to me about racism/race issues

This singles out an entire group of people on the basis of race. There is no way that can be answered, as it shouldn't need to be stated that "dealing with white people" isn't possible because each member of that group is different and split up around the entire planet.

as a black male living in a white majority country (thankfully, not the US)

This quote directly unnecessarily implies that the US is not a friendly place for black individuals. That's a perfectly valid opinion with evidence, but in this context simply serves as dig at an entire country with nothing to back it up and has no reason to even be there.

Talking about racism and race issues with white people can be particularly emotionally draining and frustrating, because of the constant defensiveness, deflections, ignorance and "tonal" arguments.

This quote, while probably true, alienates a race by implying that other races are incapable of being ignorant, defensive, etc. If the OP meant to say "Less-informed" people or perhaps "bigots", then he should be urged to do so. If that us not what he means, it seems bigoted in itself.

If these things do not violate the "Be Nice" policy, then I don't understand that policy, and how it is intended to be enforced.

Answer 1

as a black male living in a white majority country (thankfully, not the US)

I think the "thankfully" part can be safely edited out, to moderate stuff even further. 'Not the US' is certainly not very helpful to me, a more accurate culture/location would be better in my opinion, but it at least rules out some stuff. As far as I'm aware my home-country of The Netherlands are a majority white country, but there are still places (cities/areas) where this is not true.

Talking about racism and race issues with white people can be particularly emotionally draining and frustrating, because of the constant defensiveness, deflections, ignorance and "tonal" arguments.

I think (suspect?) this is the OP talking about their experiences. At least, that's how I interpret it: It's not meant as an absolute statement, it's what the OP experiences when they talk to white people, and what they apparently have never experienced talking to other demographics (there was a comment confirming this before stuff got cleaned up).

All in all, I think this is a case that the community can handle through editing, because we're, as a community, responsible for being nice.

---

Keep in mind that this may be a serious problem for the OP and that any attempt at toning it down may feel like you're forcing them to calm down, that their issue isn't that serious. That's especially hard if it's about a frustration where they were frequently told to calm down during those discussions (because that's what tonal arguments are).

If you feel a hint of people being afraid of being judged in their questions, don't start judging. Edit out the fears, and make them aware that on this site, it is imperative that edits, comments, and answers all stick to the premise of a question.

So, don't make your edit wit a message like 'calm down, no need to be rude'. Explain our Be Nice policy (link to it), how their words may be misinterpreted or lead to the amount of comment crap it led to. Write your edit message in a supportive way, mention that you'd like to see their question remain open and get some good answers on this site.

As far as I can see, after the request for online resources was edited out, all that remained was a good, but rather rudely phrased, question on how to set a boundary and assert that you're not going to talk about this stuff. Just edit it into a more neutral post (which was done for a large part already) and raise a flag, like explained by Catija if you feel this is behavior that needs to be tracked.

Sometimes edits do miss parts, and several edits are needed to get all of the wrong words out of a rude post. Like here, where one observant user noted several hours after I already corrected some of the language, that there were still a few words that slipped through the cracks. Don't be afraid to pile another edit onto it, if that's what's needed.

---

EDIT: as pointed out in the comments by the OP:

You wrote: "I think (suspect?) this is the OP talking about their experiences. At least, that's how I interpret it: It's not meant as an absolute statement, it's what the OP experiences when they talk to white people". No, you're wrong - it's not just me who is fed up of this. There is a book published on this very topic (I linked to it in my post).

It seems this particular sentence upset the OP, apparently, it's not only their experience, but there's reference material to back this up as well. I never intended to imply this was only their experience, and that there was no-one else experiencing the same thing. If there's literature to illustrate that this is a wider problem, by all means, feel free to include that as well. It's good to mention this: you read about the subject, and you've experienced this yourself. Either way, experiences and/or references are needed when making, what was before the edits, a blanket statement: a vague and noncommittal statement asserting a premise without providing evidence (such as specific numbers). If you can, and there are numbers in the book, please include those in a quote as well. Links on SE can get broken, it would be nice if the information remained.

---

Prompted by the comments, another late addition:

So, I do like your answer in general, but something has been nagging at me, and after some thought, I think it's that you have the general suggestion to edit (and how to describe the edit to the OP to make it go well) but didn't really say much about what kind of editing is and isn't okay. There was an extended edit war here, including forms of the question that removed significant details from the question, and trying to make a question "neutral" when it involves unpleasant experiences caused by others is tricky at best, so addressing that a bit more directly seems important.

It's hard to formulate guidelines that will fit every question, but for this specific question, these are my thoughts:

What happened in edits 9 and 10, although well intended, indeed removed significant details from the question, going so far as to even remove parts proving the OP did not only have negative experiences talking about race with white people. In hindsight, I personally would have rephrased the bits that were edited out, but would have left the facts that OP is aware that not every white person is bad and OP did lose friends/acquaintances due to these issues.

Only in the final few edits, people actively tried to edit out 'white people' and 'black people', and replace it with more generic things like 'majority' and 'non-majority'. I am personally not fond of this approach, because there's probably a certain power balance involved between black/white that may be different across races, also due to cultural/societal norms and expectations on the behavior of these kinds of people. I'm seeing them more as a description than a form of name-calling.

So, what kind of editing is or isn't okay in this case?

• Edits should not remove relevant personal experience entirely. Even if not phrased in an entirely optimal way, don't just delete it all. Never delete personal experience, unless it's completely irrelevant to the question.
• Edits should not remove details that provide stuff like information on cultural/societal norms, relevant background or power-balances (which black-white does). IPS has a history of always asking people about this, and we close questions that don't include it as too broad.

Answer 2

This is a difficult balance to strike, no doubt about that.

I think we ultimately have to acknowledge that all of these things are real parts of the OP's experience as a black person, and we cannot completely disallow them without denying the OP's ability to accurately describe their situation and feelings, which are of course a core part of the question.

We can possibly look at ways to edit, to add in disclaimers, to preface with "I feel that", and so on, if we tread carefully. But we can't say that these things are completely unacceptable or irrelevant, or we end up alienating the OP based on their race and associated experiences.

So I would say that the "thankfully" in "thankfully not the US" comment could likely be trimmed as irrelevant to the question (sidestepping the "Be Nice" part - the OP is in general entitled to be happy to live elsewhere and say so!), but that the OP's description of their experience discussing racism with white people not only is acceptable but is a key part of the question.

I think that the title containing "white people" is in fact a fair summary of this, and have no objection to the OP using it. The absolute most I would consider doing would be editing to simply ask "How can I deal with people wanting me to educate them about racism/race issues?". I do not see this as a necessary edit to avoid Be Nice violations, though, just a clarification of what's described in more detail later to avoid misunderstanding.

I believe there have been two variations of the title:

• "How to politely deal with white people wanting to talk to me about racism/race issues" - I think this is fine, as described above.

• "How to politely deal with constant attempts to draw me into conversations about race" - this has unfortunately removed substantial key information; at this point it could be totally different situations, like black people wanting to commiserate about racial issues or encourage activism.

I'm sure there are other possible phrasings (no writing is ever perfect), but the existing one is already acceptable, both in terms of Be Nice and in terms of summarizing the question, so I don't think that painful debate over phrasing is the most productive use of our time.

---

What about alienating the white people? Well, here's the thing. They're the ones in the position of privilege* in the context of the question, and awareness of privilege can be uncomfortable - all of that is real feelings! But that doesn't mean they should be allowed to leverage that discomfort in a way that keeps them happy, but preserves the alienation of people of color by preventing them from discussing their unpleasant experiences as marginalized racial groups. In the end, in order to match the spirit of Be Nice and create a welcoming environment for people in marginalized groups, members of privileged groups have to sometimes be willing to live with a bit of discomfort.

* In this context, "privilege" simply means advantages (often a lack of disadvantages) for one group compared to another.

Answer 3

Respectfully, this has nothing to do with the "Be Nice" policy. It's a question about interpersonal skills, and I don't see how it can be asked without the background included.

The "Be Nice" policy is about personal attacks and vitriol, not candid discourse, and I don't think the OP's question rises to that level. If you read that in the question, then I would suggest that you're simply being too sensitive about your own personal issues.

I don't claim to know anything at all about the underlying racial tension. I have had exactly one discussion about it with a black friend, who described issues that the black community feels very deeply about in a way that I hadn't thought of before. I don't relate to it very well, because I haven't lived it, nor do I see much chance of my ignorance getting any better, given the tenor of questions like this one (if it is, in fact, representative of black people's attitudes generally).

Regardless, that tenor still doesn't rise to the level of not being nice.

Learn the difference between candor and rudeness, between engagement and attack. Understand that politeness (and insisting on it) can simply be a veil for "civilized" dishonesty. You don't want that, trust me. Candor is better.

Answer 4

The way I see it, the question has a goal of avoiding a specific interaction with specific people. Now by its nature that's a somewhat disagreeable goal. But it's a legitimate goal that you might have all the time. Consider:

How to politely deal with religious people wanting to talk to me about spiritual issues?

or:

How to politely deal with people wearing terrible superhero costumes wanting to take pictures with me for money?

I wonder if those questions would seem less offensive to you? In both cases, the motivation of the third party (religious people or superhero buskers) is clearly at odds with the asker. In that light, the goal of the question isn't to distance the asker from other people, but to avoid having other people's' wills imposed upon them. In the same way, being asked about racism when you don't want to talk about it is a conflict between wills and not just an attempt to avoid people or whatnot.

Context is obviously important in these contexts. The current manifestation of the question does not have the line about "not the US", so that issue is not pressing on us. But I would argue that the US has a unique history of racism that does indeed matter to this question.

I suppose there's an element of prejudice in assuming that white people will be especially emotionally draining to talk to. But the askers perception that white people are more frustrating when it comes to race dialog seems to be the crux of the question. The guy dressed as Spiderman in Hollywood might not ask for money, but I'd still like to avoid talking to him. In any case, the question makes clear this is in the OP's experience. Maybe he's just had bad luck?

Looking at the revision history, I see an author struggling to present his situation honestly and respectfully. This is inherently a difficult issue and the current edition of the question seems like an artifact this site ought to be proud of. Yes, the enforcement of "Be Nice" is subjective. I consider that a feature, not a bug as long as we all assume good intentions as a first instinct.

Answer 5

While Meta is certainly the place to discuss specific disputed wording, I want to push back on the implication in this post that the underlying question itself is, in some way, a violation of our "be nice" policy because it is about race.

Unless questions about race are off-limits entirely, that can't possibly be the proper interpretation of the rule.

This may be a touchy subject, but it is well documented that minorities often have to deal with uncomfortable questions about race from (hopefully) well-meaning people. OP linked to one on-point reference (a non-fiction book written on this very subject), I'm sure I could find others with 30 seconds of searching:

Google: your black friend is not a representative

More than that, though, this is a reality that OP has explained clearly that they deal with all the time, and wish to find a better way to handle. Any implication that they are either wrong about their own experience or don't have the right to deflect questions they don't wish to answer is frankly a part of the problem.

I think G. Ann's answer, "I'm not a spokesman for my race." is an excellent, on-point response, and at the same time points out the problems inherent in the question.

Answer 6

Interpersonal Skills SE, by its very nature, deals with sensitive subjects. And in today's world, mediating intercultural conflicts is an increasingly important subset of interpersonal relationships. So the question, broadly speaking, is on topic. There's also no indication that it is meant maliciously, or that its primary purpose is other than as described, to help the OP negotiate a frequently reoccurring interpersonal conflict.

As a member of multiple minority groups (in the US), I can personally attest that the OP's experience is common, if not universal, when negotiating relationships of any sort (from casual or professional to personal or intimate) across a societal power imbalance. It is, in fact, the rule, rather than the exception, when dealing with people who have (a) never been on the low side of a power imbalance for any length of time and (b) have not voluntarily gone through the intensive and demanding process known as consciousness-raising. And while these sorts of power imbalances do not always revolve around the fiction known as race, the black-white power differential is both common and widespread enough to explain (if not entirely excuse) the OP's use of it as a shorthand for the situation he or she faces.

For all those reasons, I would assume good will on the part of the OP, and counsel against blunt-force instruments such as flagging for abuse or nominating for deletion. With the aforementioned power differential as background context, moves like those cannot help but come across as both repressive and regressive. Instead, if you feel the post is infelicitously phrased, suggest edits to improve it, request changes to the language in the comments (as is typically done for most posts) and try not to take any of it personally. Flags and deletions are typically reserved for cases of malice, bad faith and the truly unsalvageable, none of which seems to apply in this case.

Answer 7

(thankfully, not the US)

You are correct, this is unnecessary. "Not the US" is useful context, but "thankfully" is cruft. It's not particularly offensive - yeah, it's a subtle jab, but life is full of them - so the best course of action here is to simply edit the post and remove it. If this sort of thing is a persistent problem with the user, cast a moderator flag to ask the moderators to have a deeper dig into it.

Talking about racism and race issues with white people can be particularly emotionally draining and frustrating, because of the constant defensiveness, deflections, ignorance and "tonal" arguments.

This is not a statement of fact. It's presented as one, but it's not - it's the opinion of the post's author. While that doesn't mean we should tolerate people being four-letter-words to each other in the name of opinion, it is useful context. Since it's not intended to be insulting, but rather as a remarkably calm and measured proposition, there's no violation of Be Nice here.

---

Side note: This meta post is rather ironic. It's a defensively phrased deflective argument against the question because you felt it alienated white people... which is precisely what the question's author is finding frustrating about talking about race issues with white people. Food for thought.

Answer 8

This meta is a seriously ill-conceived question that, itself, does harm to a user of this site.

The premise of the question is that the OP does not want to discuss race and racism issues with people from a dissimilar background, because it requires him to perform a disproportionate amount of emotional work.

Because you've taken objection to it, and apparently because you have pre-existing issues with enforcement of a site policy, you've now forced the OP in this meta to do precisely what he doesn't want to do in the world: take on the emotional burden of discussing racial issues in order to justify his lived experiences (experiences that, as the OP notes, are common enough to be the subject of an entire award-winning book).

Much as you say you "do not want this page to be about discussing racial issues," discussing racial issues is inherent to the objections you raise. You've picked over his question to cite ways you believe it alienates white people, and so you've placed the burden on the OP to justify his experiences about race, something he has now had to do repeatedly. It's impossible to have a real discussion about whether the OP's question is racially bigoted, as you charge, without discussing race. And within that discussion, your use of the phrase "zero-tolerance" is not conducive to an effort to understand his experiences (ones which, again, he does not want to discuss), but rather to dismiss his question as something which cannot be tolerated.

The OP has a problem. He doesn't want to discuss race with white people because it's emotionally draining for him. You've come along on behalf of "alienated" white people to discuss race.

Answer 9

Edit: I believe most white people are likely to deal with the unpleasant facts of white history without being offended. If some are not able to deal with that rationally; then that is understandable, but it is not excusable and I don't think it merits additional protection in the form of policy enforcement.

---

The "Be Nice" policy applies to individuals. It does not necessarily imply that you must speak nicely about other groups of people, especially if what you say is not unfairly disparaging.

Opinion: The question we're focusing on does not disparage white people. It doesn't say they are lazy, stupid, etc.

It does point out the uncomfortable truth about centuries of dominance by white people over other races.

It's not pleasant, but that does not make it "not nice".

Answer 10

The be nice policy states that "Language likely to... alienate individuals or groups based on race..." is not allowed. Based on that, I'm surprised that this question is tolerated in its current form (revision 20) since it is soliciting advice on how to avoid discussion with people based on their race.

Though I don't quite understand how, I'm willing to concede that the specific race of the problematic people in question is important. However, the current phrasing of this question seems likely to alienate people based on race, which is explicitly disallowed. This may be a legitimate question, but it seems at odds with the policy and so one, or both, needs revision.

Answer 11

The question should be revised.

(The question would have been much better if color were left out, the the author simply identified himself as a minority, not wishing to engage with the area's local majority. However, I'm about to argue that even that doesn't raise the bar to a very recommended level.)

Clearly the reference to "white people" is non-complimentary and is a judgement that is based on race. If we want to promote certain values, such as tolerance of certain differences such as physical characteristics that are unrelated to personal character and morality which people may have more control over, then it makes sense that we may also wish to impose views on requiring certain actions, such as promoting peace by supporting open lines of communication. This question, as written, is expressly opposed to that.

If an answer actually provides instructions how to accomplish that, then the answer would be providing instruction on how to close down communication about an important social issue. This seems contrary to universal values like peace.

The question could have been written with direct reference to the actual problem: communication with inexperienced people who are uneducated about a topic can be draining. "How do I politely communicate that I believe the person lacks some fundamental knowledge that I don't wish to expend the effort to share?" Such a question doesn't negatively single out any group of people based on unchangeable characteristics, and answers may even be able to apply to parallel situations based on topics other than the one this poster was focused on (physical racial characteristics).

As is, the question is written in a terrible way, which I find all too common in IPS. The basic premise is, "How do I manage to get what I want, without experiencing undesired effects that I think would be likely?" Such a question ought to be invalid because it suggests that another person shouldn't have the personal right/power to be offended. Depriving other people of such a right is a notion that frequently seems offensive. So the question often boils down to, how do I manage to do something bad without consequence?

Some questions shouldn't be answered without revision, and I believe this is one. People can debate all they want about the fine points on whether a specific line is crossed by specific words. I suggest that, instead, we just demonstrate how things could be changed so that they are clearly acceptable and a positive example of what we would like to see.