Here, here AND ...

One subject that understandably gets short attention in the left blogs is community. It's a bit diffuse, and doesn't necessarily lend itself to sharp partisan edges. Still, as I've been saying for a couple of years now, it pays to keep the end game in view. What sort of world, what sort of community would we want to create if we got everything we asked for?

A reminder to update the site FAQ caught my eye over the weekend, and got me to thinking about the horrible pie fight we went through this past spring.

Hoping to avoid opening old wounds, if I understand correctly what people were telling me, at least some of our queer brothers and sisters felt let down because they thought that acceptance of their perspective was beyond question within the community, and that turned out not to be the case. I felt awful because as much as my sympathies were with them, I was constrained to keep things open to as many comers as possible. So as I said at the time, unconditional acceptance wasn't mine to give. Which of course just rubbed salt in, because people thought they could trust me to take their side.

That's the thumbnail. And please, let's not go back to it.

Anyway, it seems like that fight is a good example of something we'll see in political discourse in the next few years. Most people seem to understand that the public square has to be open. The proverbial soapbox in the park has to be available to everybody. That's basic to our political system.

And people understand that in the private realm, things are more arbitrary. You come into my living room and say something objectionable, you're liable to get tossed out on your ear. That's life.

But where does an online forum like Street Prophets fit into that scheme? We're in fact a semi-public square. Unlike my living room, which is essentially invitation-only, just about anybody can show up here. But it isn't the proverbial soapbox: nobody has a right to post here. (Not even me, if you stop to think about it, as long as we're all squatting on Kos' servers.)

It might seem like a trivial question, but actually, there's all kinds of semi-public forums out there. Beyond all the varieties of online experience, there are schools, churches, even shopping malls. What they all share is that speech is neither entirely free nor entirely regulated.

So even though the discussion gets framed in terms of "free speech" or First Amendment rights, the real question is about whose speech gets privileged, and why. Can my subculture take it for granted that its perspective will go uncontradicted here?

It's a thorny issue, not least because information technology has advanced to the point that there aren't very many truly private spheres left anymore. To cite an example that the Religious Right often uses, cable television brings content into your living room that some people find objectionable. You don't really have a "right" to be unburdened by content that doesn't suit your tastes, since you've agreed to the service. But it's understandable that people would be upset by it. If someone insisted on speaking violently or about overtly sexual subjects in front of my children, they'd soon be introduced to the other side of my door. Yet as long as the idiot box is on in our living room, we run the risk of exposing them to just that sort of content.

So it's predictable that as the world shrinks, we'll have trouble learning to live side by side with one another. It's in fact perfectly rational for subcultures to demand that their perspective be privileged in any given "neutral" forum. Beyond the obvious "why shouldn't they?" there's the question of advocacy. While I might be willing to overlook a slight on my own behalf, it's less responsible to overlook it on behalf of someone else who might not be as socially empowered as I am in a given context. Therefore, the logical consequence of providing a more-or-less open forum is conflict, more so than in a not-open or all-open-all-the-time forum.

It sucks, but that's the way it is. What to do about it I do not know, other than encouraging more speech. Sometimes, the only way to get rid of friction is to let things grind themselves down. It gives you a mighty headache, but it works.

This started as a response to a comment in one of the recent threads, but it hit me that what I was saying got to the core of something that's been bugging me for a while.  Quite a while.

The "here" in my title refers strictly to Street Prophets, not the world in general.  So, please click on the link to this picture, and contemplate it for a minute.  Then follow me across the jump.

So here's the deal: Mrs P are outta here tomorrow morning, headed to an ultra-secret location for a couple of days of rest and relaxation. The kids are at respite, and we're flying out as soon as we drop the dog off at the kennel in the morning. We'll be back Monday afternoon.

Until then, no wild parties, no rumpuses, and for crying in the night, no wang-dang-doodles.

Capish?

Play nice and drop one of the admins a line if you run into a problem. I may or may not be able to check in while I'm away.

But I wrote down the mileage on the Caddy and draw lines around the bottles. So don't get any ideas...

How well I know Chris Bowers' story. I used to think I was the only one this irrationally obsessed with ideas, but it seems like there's a lot of us out there.

And no, it's not particularly healthy. (At this point, Mrs Pastor faints from surprise.)

My colleagues at CTS were dumbfounded when I told them how many hours actually goes into creating and sustaining a blog. There was an audible gasp as I answered the question. I'm far from the worst, even: it sounds like Chris is waking up in the middle of the night to blog. I'm not that nuts (nor is Mrs P that forgiving).

Anyway, yes, it's important to have some boundaries. You can't keep yourself going without some kind of refreshment. It's spring, go out and enjoy the sunshine and the crocuses!

P.S.: How well I know this story, too.

And as the flames climbed high into the night,
To light the sacrificial rite,
I heard Satan laughing with delight,
The day the music died.

• Don McLean, American Pie

Lotsa shit going down around here, huh?  I see the rubble where somebody done pulled down their house, and I see the cookie tossing has gotten out of hand.  Apparently people are pissed over something.  Whoda thunk?

So anyway, where does absentee landlord #6 (yours truly, that is) stand?

Some of you may recall some of our earlier fights over how inclusive we have to be - whether there are viewpoints that are simply not welcome here.  I was, for example, one of the most forceful advocates for a Thelemic presence (and at one point I think even a lone advocate); because my single criterion for determining whether you stay or go (or more accurately, whether I think you should stay or go) is CIVILITY.  The Thelemites (for those of you who don't know, a highly individualistic creed that rejects the entire premise of "the whole being greater than the sum of the parts") were polite, and tried to engage people about their ideas on the merits.  Others were impolite, and one highly valued member of the community announced that if the Thelemites weren't banned, they were gone.  We wished that community member G-dspeed, and what happened? The Thelemites left.  So we lost our valued community member AND the unique perspective we were trying to welcome.  Figures.

Tying up a few loose ends and perhaps starting a new conversation, I want to make a few points and then hopefully shut up and get the hell out of the way.

1. To a certain extent, I as the site leader/pastor/dictator have to separate content from behavior. That's just a regulatory function. And yeah, I get that it feels unfair when I have to say "advocate for yourself, but only within these limits." I'd just ask that you bear with me or other site moderators, because today it might be you, but tomorrow it's going to be somebody else. For the record, the people I've been hardest on here aren't gays and lesbians or non-Christians, but atheists. The price for admission to this community is pretty minimal: you have to believe, or at least be politely interested, in a progressive faith movement. If you'd like to get on the fast track out of here, just say believers are stupid.

2. Some people have perceived a shift on the issue of full inclusion in the church around here. This is not accurate. I remain an advocate for full inclusion. However, I understand that not all Christians - not even all liberal Christians - share that position or put it at the top of their list of priorities. Therefore, it is not a litmus test for membership in the Street Prophets club. Neither is being pro-choice, though I'm that, too. But because I don't impose a litmus test on the issue, I expect you won't, either. That's why the FAQ currently asks users not to post diaries directly fer or agin homosexuality or abortion. It's not that those aren't valuable discussions, but that I don't believe that arguing about whether people have to come down on one side or another of the issue to be a good liberal is a productive use of our time. I'll lift that reservation if community members want me to, but only with the caveat that I'll hold you to even higher expectations. Having a big tent means having a big tent, including hearing some perspectives that you don't like or agree with. That goes for everybody. Everybody.

3. Please do not read intentionality into who gets troll-rated or responded to. For one thing, it changes. It may take people a while to come back to the thread, or they may have missed something. For another, you don't know what's going on behind the scenes. I might talk to one person by e-mail and another via comments. Please, just let the moderators handle the situation and worry about your own behavior.

4. For God's sake, don't engage in retaliatory troll-rating. It never leads anywhere good.

5. For God's sake, don't call one another names. It's just as wrong to call somebody an anti-religious "bigot" as it is to call them a "homophobe."

6. And for Christ's sake, when you see me in a thread saying "knock it off," knock it off. That means the people I'm speaking to should cease and desist, and it means other commentors should leave the thread the hell alone. Carry on your flamewar via e-mail.

7. As said in my last thread, bringing diverse voices into unity is not easy. Cut each other some slack.

8. Having said all that, I want to affirm that there are valuable lessons to be learned about what it means to be inclusive, in this case particularly about what it means to be fully inclusive of the queer community. I invite them to speak their minds on the issue in a fresh thread, if for no other reason than the previous comment trail is getting mighty difficult to follow.

Community is a rich and spiritually fulfilling thing right up until the point it becomes a royal pain in the *****. Then it stops being fun.

We're at that point with the continuing back-and-forth in Aunt Arctic's thread from the other day. This is a truly difficult place for a community to be: if one side is correct then the other is necessarily wrong. There's not much middle ground to gather on, and people's families (literal or metaphorical) seem threatened.

So what's to do, except have an enormous pie fight?

If you're a Christian, exercise some forbearance. Paul tells the Corinthians how to solve their divisions over the consumption of meat sacrificed to idols:

Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really exists", and that "there is no God but one." Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. "Food will not bring us close to God." We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling-block to the weak. For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed. But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.

In short, be patient with one another even and even especially if you're in the right. For Paul, community trumps all, even Christian ethics.

I suspect, however, that this particular fight isn't about ethics so much as it is about self-definition. Which is not to say that the folks on either side of the divide aren't sincerely arguing their positions. It's just a question of priorities or boundaries: are we the kind of site that puts the church community before the community bestowed by sexual orientation, or are we the kind of site that puts the needs of a group still facing significant oppression before the need of church unity?

The answer is neither, and both. We are a community dedicated to exploring how it is that we live in the both/and, at least as I understand it. That means that civility to one another is of the highest priority. Wherever you come down on any question at this site, I expect you to be loving to one another. Users who cannot do that - no matter what the cause - will soon find themselves sent to their room without any supper.

And before anybody starts, I don't care who started it, or who did it worse.

The rule applies to everyone, always, as evenly as humanly possible. The application, by the way, is a shared responsibility. I'm checking into the exact number of troll-rates trusted users get, but even with one, don't be afraid to say it to one another: this is unacceptable. Whatever the means, you can and should hold one another to high standards.

And before anybody starts, take a good look in the mirror.

If I've learned nothing else from all the dKos Pie Fights I've been through, it's that a hell of a lot of pie could be saved if people would just walk away instead of taking it one more round.

To put all of this in a perspective that even non-religious folks can endorse, we've all got families of one stripe or another. And as somebody said during the original Pie Fights, it's never a good idea to attack somebody else's family.

Even beyond that, you have your family, I have mine. But the standard when you're on this site is that you also have a family in this community. Which means that when you attack one another, you attack your family - and mine. I don't know about you, but that's not something I'm willing to put up with.

So either step up, take responsibility for helping to create the kind of community you want to see, or step off. There's nobody here but you and me, and we're the only ones that can make Street Prophets the Baby Blue Oasis of our dreams.

One more thing: as Mrs Pastor points out, at the end of the day - literally - I am sometimes just a tired pastor, husband and daddy. That means I don't always have the patience I ought to when dealing with this kind of stuff. If I get kind of short, forgive me, and take it as a sign that I would rather be paying attention to the family sitting at my dining room table.

I actually don't mind much of the thread in Aunt Arctic's diary from yesterday. Like I said there, as long as the diaries stay within a broadly acceptable range, I don't really care much what people post. And yes, things change, and it's okay to talk about them changing, even to lament the change.

That's all fine.

But - and I know this is probably a futile request, but I'll make it anyway - can we please do these things without a whole lot of speculation on my intentions? I do have hopes and plans for Street Prophets, but I've also tried to let things develop organically, and they have a way of taking their own direction sometimes. All of which is to say that there are moments when I know as much as you do about where this community is going.

So, please, can we not assume that it's obvious that I intend for X Y or Z to happen? I'm not that organized, folks.

Thank you.

A quiet Friday night seems like a good time to throw out a couple of points I've had rattling around loose in the back of the rusty old station wagon that is my brain:

1. Things that happen on the Great Orange Pumpkin stay on the Great Orange Pumpkin. I know it can be disconcerting to get into it with someone at one site only to encounter them in another context. But the rule here has always been that you get a fresh start here. At the same time, I seldom disagree with Kos and his moderators. So you get a second chance, but if you use it the same as your first, you're liable to get the same results. Along those lines, if you've been involved in fractious conversations at Big Orange and you know you're likely to run into the same people here, why would you start the conversation all over again? We're different sites, let's leave it that way.

2. People sometimes write in to tell me that such-and-such a user is being a royal jerk. That's nice. But unless there's something seriously amiss, there's not much for me to do. I can't resolve personality differences, especially if I don't have any evidence that there's a problem. So: we've given you community moderation tools. Use them. If somebody's being a jerk, troll rate them. That lets me and the other front pagers know that there's a problem. More important, it lets us show problem users where they're getting into trouble. We're a long way from the kind of flame fests they have at the Great Orange Pumpkin, so don't be shy about using The Power of the Donut. Appropriately.

And now, for all the reasons why I'm wrong: your turn.

As of 7:50 SPST (Street Prophets Standard Time, aka the Central Time Zone), we have collected $998. That's close enough for shooting purposes.

Two caveats:

1. Rain has to have the time to go. She'll have to speak to her situation for herself, but there's a chance she won't be able to attend.

2. Everybody who's said they'll contribute will actually have to do so. I'll put up a reminder thread if one is needed.

If - God forbid - Rain can't go, we'll transfer the scholarship to another Street Prophets representative. Mrs Pastor suggests that we send someone who hasn't gone before. That sounds good to me. They'll just have to agree to be chained to the table the entire time. No biggie.

If you haven't given yet, it's not too late. We'll inevitably have some contributions fall through, and if we wind up with some extra, I'll buy the SP Caucus some Shiner Bock.

Oh, and one more thing: WOOT!