Why I Avoid Third-Order Consent Policing

Whenever I write this, you're going to think I'm writing about something going on right now. I promise I'm not! I outlined this over a year ago. And I kept not finishing it for this exact reason. It never seems to be the right time, it is always going to be taken as speaking to some current firestorm. Literally every time since I first thought of it.

But it's clogging up the other things I want to write, so I'm just going to do this.

First-order consent policing

First-order consent policing is something I'm strongly in favour of. That means, if you have the power to do so, banning, officially warning or otherwise sanctioning people who have violated consent. I've written how I think it's absolutely essential to the health of an event or club, and how I think organizers have the responsibility to make those painful decisions, which often have uncertainty and personal loyalty in the mix. But you have to do it.

Second-order consent policing

This is policing about policing. That means criticizing, boycotting, or otherwise pressuring people who have the power to do first-order consent policing, to do better. Examples include pulling out of vending at a con when they refuse to ban a dangerous person, or PMing an organizer about a problem with their consent policy.

This one I think should be approached with caution - although I've done it, several times. Caution because there's almost always more behind a decision than you know about, including often information they are not allowed to share because of confidentiality. This information might change your own judgment.

Plus people make mistakes, especially with all the distractions and energy drains around running an event. So it should be done with empathy. But, sometimes, for the sake of people's safety you have to call out someone's first-order policing, or warn people away.

Third-order consent policing

This is criticizing or pressuring people about their second-order policing. So yelling at them for things like: not participating in the boycott of a con. Not ostracizing the partner of a bad consent enforcer. Not offering their own statement publicly criticizing organizers when a lot of people are.
I avoid this as much as I can, and here's why.

First, making a point of doing this would instantly alienate me from a lot of friends. I don't stay friends with predators, but a lot of my friends don't share the same opinions on how predators should be detected and handled (that is, opinions about first-order policing). Therefore they might choose to support an event that I consider unsafe. People are all over the place on these issues, people who care just as much about preventing consent violations as I do.

Second, it's very abstract what good it does. Second-order policing tries to get organizers to act on consent violations better. Third-order policing could, I guess, help to organize a boycott by getting everyone on board? What exactly is the effect you are trying to achieve?

(note that when organizers commit consent violations themselves, this is a very different story - the term "third-order policing" only applies when organizers are only accused of bad consent policing)

The pressure is very diluted by the time it gets all the way down to say, the person who is directly doing harm. The irony, though, is that you are much more likely to get a reaction to your call-out, when it's to people who are almost completely in agreement with you. People who have values and who struggle mightily with these tough moral questions. Whereas Wolfie McDompants, who is actually assaulting people, could not give a shit about your criticism. This is a dangerous seductive quality of the third-order call-out, that it feels like you're doing something, because it gets a reaction. It has a yummy gossipy feeling to it, whereas condemning rapists feels like shouting into a void.

Third, it really has the effect of dividing the community. Often people say that to shut up accusers, but in this case I think it applies. We shouldn't let ourselves get sorted into teams, or camps, based on who's boycotting which event. People are going to have different opinions about how to handle consent violations, or rather opinions about opinions, and we can co-exist. When someone who did a bad job of first-order policing doesn't have that power anymore, they are not in the category of actual consent violators, and even less so their supporters. And people may have reasons you know nothing about why they need to stay silent or need to attend something.

(that doesn't mean I don't privately question people's judgment of course, especially in the marital bed, always the best place for talking crap. But not publicly)

We all have limited energy for conflict and criticism. I want to put as much of it as possible where it can do the most good - that is, reduce the most harm. And I think that is almost all first and second order consent policing, and almost no third order policing.