11 ms·

Ravelry bans support of Donald Trump and his administration

53 points by slater 7y ago

0815test 7y ago
> Ravelry is a place for knitters, crocheters, designers, spinners, weavers and dyers to keep track of their yarn, tools, project and pattern information, and look to others for ideas and inspiration. Knitters-for-The-Donald website going up in 3, 2, 1...
baggy_trough 7y ago
Their tolerance has reached such an impressive level that they have banned slightly less than half the country.
- q3k 7y ago
  Such is the effect of fighting against the paradox of tolerance [1]. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- nl 7y ago
  It explicitly says: You can still participate if you do in fact support the administration, you just can’t talk about it here.
  - masonic 7y ago
    That's like saying, "you can still support the right to abortion in our area, you just can't have one here... so, you see, we are mostly pro-choice."
    - nl 7y ago
      Well, no. The parent post claimed they had banned half the country. They haven't - they have banned a particular topic of conversation. On a knitting website. It seems more akin to the old "don't talk about politics or religion in polite company".
    - happytoexplain 7y ago
      You can't have an abortion in many places that are run by pro-choice people. It would be inappropriate.
- elygre 7y ago
  According to the announcement, they ban behavior. The “slightly less than half the country” can still use the site.
- adamch 7y ago
  18% of the USA voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, which is slightly less than 1% of the international population. I have no stats about the popularity of the Trump administration in the knitting community. But I suspect it is a somewhat fringe view.
- jMyles 7y ago
  Having traveled the country by land for years and discussed this topic frequently, intentionally, and occasionally awkwardly with at least a thousand people, I think that you are not even in the ballpark of correct when you surmise that "slightly less than half the country" supports this administration (or any in my lifetime, with the exception of the brief period following September 11, 2001). The man received about 62,984,828 votes in 2016 out of 330 million people. As an empirical matter, this perhaps demonstrates that a little more than 18% supported him at that time - much more than "slightly" less than half. There is every reason to believe that, since that time, his support has further waned. I'm not giving an opinion one way or another on the wisdom of precluding particular content. But I think that it is wildly out of step with reality to suggest that "slightly less than half the country" support the government at all, much less this particularly unpopular and ineffectual leader.
  - mc32 7y ago
    No one counts elections like that. Not when Dems win and not when Repubs win. It’s disingenuous but it looks good when making a point. Even Saddam or my Kim never got 75% even when they state they received 99% of the vote. It would be very unusual for a US pol to get over 50% of the raw population of their district.
    - jMyles 7y ago
      > Even Saddam or my Kim never get 75% even when they state they received 99% of the vote. I think I need you to more clearly state the point you are making. Are you suggesting that the published elections totals for Trump, Saddam, and Kim understate the popularity of each of them? I have never heard any reasonable person suggest that the elections in Iraq during Saddam's rule, nor any election in the history of the DPRK, are a basis for any particular conclusion about the popularity of those leaders or about how elections might be used to gauge the popularity of leaders.
    - threatofrain 7y ago
      But this person is talking about language to ballpark American sentiment, not how you think people count electoral power.
- TomK32 7y ago
  Ravelry users can found around the globe, also their users tend to be more female than the general population.
- gshdg 7y ago
  They’ve banned discussion topics, not people.
amingilani 7y ago
But Ravelry, why is "[s]upport of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy"? They haven't made that clear at all.
- elygre 7y ago
  I agree, they didn’t. You may have to use other sources for that.
- mc32 7y ago
  Apparently it’s one of those self-evident assertions that need no explanation.
  - amingilani 7y ago
    Ostensibly, I'm sure you mean. But since there are no solid statements from the Trump administration in support of white supremacy, and nothing recently happened that would make Trump a supremacist, I don't understand why a company with 800k users would suddenly take a political stand and alienate a portion of its users.
- aerovistae 7y ago
  They don't have to. Anymore than Reddit owes users an explanation for banning /r/coontown.
  - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
    Speaking of reddit, you should stop acting like that’s the site you’re currently on.
- lemming 7y ago
  They cite the RPGnet forums as an inspiration for this, their thread has a Policy Citations section: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-in-support-of-trump-or-his-administration.835849/ https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-...
- 7y ago
aerovistae 7y ago
Excellent call. Fully support.
bengrunfeld 7y ago
I wonder when they’ll start encouraging executing political rivals, gypsies, and Jews. This is what Nazism looks like. And before you say it, yes, Nazism started with political and religiously targeted boycotts that shredded the concept of freedom of speech and expression.
Waterluvian 7y ago
Honest question. Is Trump genuinely an avatar for white supremacy? I was under the impression that he's a buffoon and white supremacists have subjugated the White House and President by citing his buffoonery.
- krapp 7y ago
  I personally don't think he is, but in the current climate sometimes it's hard to tell. There is circumstantial evidence for his being bigoted, from his public statements and various lawsuits in his past (prior to his campaign) but people disagree about the interpretation of this. He dated a black woman once. Then again, H.P. Lovecraft was an inveterate racist and anti-Semite, and married a Jewish woman. It is true that the white supremacist movement has aligned itself strongly with Trump and see him as "their man," and that his campaign was presented in the press as something of a revolution amongst the "angry white male" demographic, who were rejecting progressivism, globalism and their own demographic minority. Personally I find it odd how such a revolution just sort of sprang up out of nowhere like that, but whatever. Maybe someday we'll get past the partisan bullshit and actually be able to look calmly and clearly at the phenomenon that was this last election cycle and find out just why the neo-Nazis came out of the woodwork for some globalist billionaire huckster best known for playing a parody of himself on television. That day will obviously not come until after 2020 at the least, or 2024 at the latest. But I am coming to suspect that Trump is more the symptom than the disease.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    I really have to object to your implication that the "angry white male" demographic can or should be conflated with white supremacists. Just because you find it rather problematic when a certain Presidential candidate I won't mention by name labels y'all as "the basket of deplorables", doesn't make you a white supremacist.
    - krapp 7y ago
      >I really have to object to your implication that the "angry white male" demographic can or should be conflated with white supremacists. You can object, but it isn't my implication. You should direct your objections to the white supremacists who successfully took control of and steered the narrative in that direction. I didn't just sit here and decide there was a connection between that demographic and white supremacy, self-identified members of that demographic fervently and enthusiastically declared across the internet that theirs was a racially motivated cause, and the phenomenon was widespread enough to have been covered throughout the media. Actually, you probably should have objected years ago when that was happening, and you were being warned. >Just because you find it rather problematic when a certain Presidential candidate I won't mention by name labels y'all as "the basket of deplorables", doesn't make you a white supremacist. Funny you should mention that, because it actually does, but not for the reason you've been led to believe. Let's look at the actual "basket of deplorables" comment, verbatim, and see if when it was said, it was referring to (and condeming) all Trump voters, as people like yourself seem to believe: You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. Now... who are the "deplorables" being referred to here? All Trump supporters? No. Literally half? No, she made a gross generalization and later apologized for it, but obviously it was a generalization. The reasonable, non-racist Trump supporters? No. All white people? No. All poor white people? No. The lower classes? No. The Trump supporters Hillary was calling deplorable are the oones you should consider deplorable - "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic," the people who are responsible for the implications you object to. She put her point across poorly, and it's become a thought terminating cliche at this point, but her thesis was correct. Also, a brief look at your comment history reveals you like to associate progressives and Democrats with racism, support for eugenics and mass murder, while having nothing but praise for Republicans and conservatives. Decorum precludes me from telling you precisely where you can shove your hypocrisy, partisan nonsense and feigned outrage, but you could find it with a mirror if you tried.
palgraham 7y ago
who cares
colechristensen 7y ago
>Ravelry is a free site for knitters and crocheters. Seems like it would be pretty good for the quality of a community having problems with politics. Trump support on social media is pretty toxic and I challenge anybody to find something existing which they would argue would be a valuable addition to a knitting community.
gridlockd 7y ago
> "We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy." Big if true.
mc32 7y ago
If they have a problem with political discussion becoming problematic they should ban all politics rather than singling out one side of politics. It comes across as intolerant and partisan.
- archagon 7y ago
  When one party is flagrantly fascist, defies more of the law with each passing day, and is beating the drums of war, it is not only okay, but a moral imperative in my book. I am happy to see that others agree. The absolute bullshit going on in DC must not be normalized.
  - _dps 7y ago
    You say fascist about Trump. The republicans say socialist about Obama. Round and round we go until everyone but corporate-approved opinion is banned.
    - archagon 7y ago
      Yes, except one of those sides is a) never arguing in good faith, b) usually lying through their teeth, and c) wrong. Not even worth engaging. And anyway, this is simply a wonderful example of that Free Speech™ they love yelling about. As if any of them cared (or knew) about this random knitting community before today.
      - _dps 7y ago
        Both sides believe this about the other side.
        archagon 7y ago
        Two equal sides believing things does not make both of those things equally true.
    - flukus 7y ago
      Maybe we need to start a register of apolitical companies and avoid the ones that start taking overtly political stances.
hirundo 7y ago
This story from the knitting community seems to be politically consistent with this one: https://quillette.com/2019/02/17/a-witch-hunt-on-instagram/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/17/a-witch-hunt-on-instagram/ I wonder if there is much overlap of the people involved. And what is it about knitting attracts people with a particular political valence?
- 0815test 7y ago
  It's not really about knitting, this crazy politicization has infected everything at least on some parts of the internet. You can think of it as the equivalent of people asking you why you still haven't been "born again" by accepting the Lord God So-And-So as your lord and savior, placing all faith into Him and living your life in accordance with the sacred texts, and telling you how anyone who doesn't do that won't get into their religion's variety of Heaven. The underlying self-assurance and proselytizing mentality is exactly the same.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    In my experience, in casual forums, most discourse from people that involves explicitly voicing support for Trump in a general sense also follows the attitude you're describing. It's near-universally accompanied by very strong expressions of hatred for one of a few named groups. And of course such behavior naturally provokes the same attitude to be returned. In that sense, it makes sense to ban it outright.
TomK32 7y ago
Ravelry user here (I picked up crochet to look busy at the playground and not think about programming more than I should) and though it would have been nice if they had given a few examples for why the policy was necessary, I understand and welcome it. Ravelry is a place for crochet and knitting, if you want to discuss politics, especially politics as erratic and divisive as Trump's, there are other places more suitable.

53 points by slater 7y ago

> Ravelry is a place for knitters, crocheters, designers, spinners, weavers and dyers to keep track of their yarn, tools, project and pattern information, and look to others for ideas and inspiration. Knitters-for-The-Donald website going up in 3, 2, 1...

baggy_trough 7y ago

Their tolerance has reached such an impressive level that they have banned slightly less than half the country.

q3k 7y ago
Such is the effect of fighting against the paradox of tolerance [1]. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
nl 7y ago
It explicitly says: You can still participate if you do in fact support the administration, you just can’t talk about it here.
- masonic 7y ago
  That's like saying, "you can still support the right to abortion in our area, you just can't have one here... so, you see, we are mostly pro-choice."
  - nl 7y ago
    Well, no. The parent post claimed they had banned half the country. They haven't - they have banned a particular topic of conversation. On a knitting website. It seems more akin to the old "don't talk about politics or religion in polite company".
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    You can't have an abortion in many places that are run by pro-choice people. It would be inappropriate.
elygre 7y ago
According to the announcement, they ban behavior. The “slightly less than half the country” can still use the site.
adamch 7y ago
18% of the USA voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, which is slightly less than 1% of the international population. I have no stats about the popularity of the Trump administration in the knitting community. But I suspect it is a somewhat fringe view.
jMyles 7y ago
Having traveled the country by land for years and discussed this topic frequently, intentionally, and occasionally awkwardly with at least a thousand people, I think that you are not even in the ballpark of correct when you surmise that "slightly less than half the country" supports this administration (or any in my lifetime, with the exception of the brief period following September 11, 2001). The man received about 62,984,828 votes in 2016 out of 330 million people. As an empirical matter, this perhaps demonstrates that a little more than 18% supported him at that time - much more than "slightly" less than half. There is every reason to believe that, since that time, his support has further waned. I'm not giving an opinion one way or another on the wisdom of precluding particular content. But I think that it is wildly out of step with reality to suggest that "slightly less than half the country" support the government at all, much less this particularly unpopular and ineffectual leader.
- mc32 7y ago
  No one counts elections like that. Not when Dems win and not when Repubs win. It’s disingenuous but it looks good when making a point. Even Saddam or my Kim never got 75% even when they state they received 99% of the vote. It would be very unusual for a US pol to get over 50% of the raw population of their district.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    > Even Saddam or my Kim never get 75% even when they state they received 99% of the vote. I think I need you to more clearly state the point you are making. Are you suggesting that the published elections totals for Trump, Saddam, and Kim understate the popularity of each of them? I have never heard any reasonable person suggest that the elections in Iraq during Saddam's rule, nor any election in the history of the DPRK, are a basis for any particular conclusion about the popularity of those leaders or about how elections might be used to gauge the popularity of leaders.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    But this person is talking about language to ballpark American sentiment, not how you think people count electoral power.
TomK32 7y ago
Ravelry users can found around the globe, also their users tend to be more female than the general population.
gshdg 7y ago
They’ve banned discussion topics, not people.

amingilani 7y ago

But Ravelry, why is "[s]upport of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy"? They haven't made that clear at all.

elygre 7y ago
I agree, they didn’t. You may have to use other sources for that.
mc32 7y ago
Apparently it’s one of those self-evident assertions that need no explanation.
- amingilani 7y ago
  Ostensibly, I'm sure you mean. But since there are no solid statements from the Trump administration in support of white supremacy, and nothing recently happened that would make Trump a supremacist, I don't understand why a company with 800k users would suddenly take a political stand and alienate a portion of its users.
aerovistae 7y ago
They don't have to. Anymore than Reddit owes users an explanation for banning /r/coontown.
- Chris_Chambers 7y ago
  Speaking of reddit, you should stop acting like that’s the site you’re currently on.
lemming 7y ago
They cite the RPGnet forums as an inspiration for this, their thread has a Policy Citations section: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-in-support-of-trump-or-his-administration.835849/ https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-...
7y ago

aerovistae 7y ago

Excellent call. Fully support.

bengrunfeld 7y ago

I wonder when they’ll start encouraging executing political rivals, gypsies, and Jews. This is what Nazism looks like. And before you say it, yes, Nazism started with political and religiously targeted boycotts that shredded the concept of freedom of speech and expression.

Waterluvian 7y ago

Honest question. Is Trump genuinely an avatar for white supremacy? I was under the impression that he's a buffoon and white supremacists have subjugated the White House and President by citing his buffoonery.

krapp 7y ago
I personally don't think he is, but in the current climate sometimes it's hard to tell. There is circumstantial evidence for his being bigoted, from his public statements and various lawsuits in his past (prior to his campaign) but people disagree about the interpretation of this. He dated a black woman once. Then again, H.P. Lovecraft was an inveterate racist and anti-Semite, and married a Jewish woman. It is true that the white supremacist movement has aligned itself strongly with Trump and see him as "their man," and that his campaign was presented in the press as something of a revolution amongst the "angry white male" demographic, who were rejecting progressivism, globalism and their own demographic minority. Personally I find it odd how such a revolution just sort of sprang up out of nowhere like that, but whatever. Maybe someday we'll get past the partisan bullshit and actually be able to look calmly and clearly at the phenomenon that was this last election cycle and find out just why the neo-Nazis came out of the woodwork for some globalist billionaire huckster best known for playing a parody of himself on television. That day will obviously not come until after 2020 at the least, or 2024 at the latest. But I am coming to suspect that Trump is more the symptom than the disease.
- 0815test 7y ago
  I really have to object to your implication that the "angry white male" demographic can or should be conflated with white supremacists. Just because you find it rather problematic when a certain Presidential candidate I won't mention by name labels y'all as "the basket of deplorables", doesn't make you a white supremacist.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >I really have to object to your implication that the "angry white male" demographic can or should be conflated with white supremacists. You can object, but it isn't my implication. You should direct your objections to the white supremacists who successfully took control of and steered the narrative in that direction. I didn't just sit here and decide there was a connection between that demographic and white supremacy, self-identified members of that demographic fervently and enthusiastically declared across the internet that theirs was a racially motivated cause, and the phenomenon was widespread enough to have been covered throughout the media. Actually, you probably should have objected years ago when that was happening, and you were being warned. >Just because you find it rather problematic when a certain Presidential candidate I won't mention by name labels y'all as "the basket of deplorables", doesn't make you a white supremacist. Funny you should mention that, because it actually does, but not for the reason you've been led to believe. Let's look at the actual "basket of deplorables" comment, verbatim, and see if when it was said, it was referring to (and condeming) all Trump voters, as people like yourself seem to believe: You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. Now... who are the "deplorables" being referred to here? All Trump supporters? No. Literally half? No, she made a gross generalization and later apologized for it, but obviously it was a generalization. The reasonable, non-racist Trump supporters? No. All white people? No. All poor white people? No. The lower classes? No. The Trump supporters Hillary was calling deplorable are the oones you should consider deplorable - "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic," the people who are responsible for the implications you object to. She put her point across poorly, and it's become a thought terminating cliche at this point, but her thesis was correct. Also, a brief look at your comment history reveals you like to associate progressives and Democrats with racism, support for eugenics and mass murder, while having nothing but praise for Republicans and conservatives. Decorum precludes me from telling you precisely where you can shove your hypocrisy, partisan nonsense and feigned outrage, but you could find it with a mirror if you tried.

palgraham 7y ago

who cares

colechristensen 7y ago

>Ravelry is a free site for knitters and crocheters. Seems like it would be pretty good for the quality of a community having problems with politics. Trump support on social media is pretty toxic and I challenge anybody to find something existing which they would argue would be a valuable addition to a knitting community.

gridlockd 7y ago

> "We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy." Big if true.

mc32 7y ago

If they have a problem with political discussion becoming problematic they should ban all politics rather than singling out one side of politics. It comes across as intolerant and partisan.

archagon 7y ago
When one party is flagrantly fascist, defies more of the law with each passing day, and is beating the drums of war, it is not only okay, but a moral imperative in my book. I am happy to see that others agree. The absolute bullshit going on in DC must not be normalized.
- _dps 7y ago
  You say fascist about Trump. The republicans say socialist about Obama. Round and round we go until everyone but corporate-approved opinion is banned.
  - archagon 7y ago
    Yes, except one of those sides is a) never arguing in good faith, b) usually lying through their teeth, and c) wrong. Not even worth engaging. And anyway, this is simply a wonderful example of that Free Speech™ they love yelling about. As if any of them cared (or knew) about this random knitting community before today.
    - _dps 7y ago
      Both sides believe this about the other side.
      - archagon 7y ago
        Two equal sides believing things does not make both of those things equally true.
  - flukus 7y ago
    Maybe we need to start a register of apolitical companies and avoid the ones that start taking overtly political stances.

hirundo 7y ago

This story from the knitting community seems to be politically consistent with this one: https://quillette.com/2019/02/17/a-witch-hunt-on-instagram/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/17/a-witch-hunt-on-instagram/ I wonder if there is much overlap of the people involved. And what is it about knitting attracts people with a particular political valence?

0815test 7y ago
It's not really about knitting, this crazy politicization has infected everything at least on some parts of the internet. You can think of it as the equivalent of people asking you why you still haven't been "born again" by accepting the Lord God So-And-So as your lord and savior, placing all faith into Him and living your life in accordance with the sacred texts, and telling you how anyone who doesn't do that won't get into their religion's variety of Heaven. The underlying self-assurance and proselytizing mentality is exactly the same.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  In my experience, in casual forums, most discourse from people that involves explicitly voicing support for Trump in a general sense also follows the attitude you're describing. It's near-universally accompanied by very strong expressions of hatred for one of a few named groups. And of course such behavior naturally provokes the same attitude to be returned. In that sense, it makes sense to ban it outright.

TomK32 7y ago

Ravelry user here (I picked up crochet to look busy at the playground and not think about programming more than I should) and though it would have been nice if they had given a few examples for why the policy was necessary, I understand and welcome it. Ravelry is a place for crochet and knitting, if you want to discuss politics, especially politics as erratic and divisive as Trump's, there are other places more suitable.