RL Anger

[Thenomain]

@Misadventure said in RL Anger:

Is there anything we can do to change either of those things in the online RP hobby?

Don't put up with cockgobbling elitists, learn how to communicate displeasure without blame, and never assume that everyone is entitled to their own opinion because nothing can come from that kind of echo chamber.

And I'll agree with @Arkandel on this one: Learn when to walk away. Not everything demands your absolute devotion, and there's finite time in the world to get things done. Pick your battles.

[Thenomain]

@Thenomain got a -1! Achievement Unlocked: WTF?

Something you want to say, @Kanye-Qwest, or is this vague displeasure?

[Lithium]

@Thenomain I have said why it is offensive, you are just choosing to disbelieve /why/ that would be offensive to someone else.

It's clear we don't see eye to eye on this because you accuse me of calling a disbeliever the same as an abuser which I never did. I said Tyche was a /part/ of the problem. It's reading comprehension 101. You can be a part of something without being the driving force behind it.

For example: Not all skinheads are racist, but some skinheads are racist to the extreme. When approaching the problem of racism amongst skinheads, by jumping to the point that not /all/ skinheads are racist then the point of the problem, racism amongst skinheads, is being redirected in a direction that is not conducive to addressing the problem at hand.

It's the same thing by going with the 'Not /all/ men' defense.

Firstly, I never said all men did this thing. So by doing that it is a deflection and misdirection to try and turn the fault onto the speaker by making them seem erroneous. Second, it refuses to address the actual issue, turning the topic of conversation /away/ from the problem that needs to be discussed and addressed so that it can be lessened. Third, as @Tyche did by immediately jumping to rapes and such the topic is /again/ changed to only a small fragment.

People will be horrible to one another. It is human nature. All around the world it is happening to women, men, young and old there is no reason to try and use that as a focal point when addessing the topic as a whole. Just because one thing will likely never be snuffed out completely, doesn't mean we should do /nothing/ about the other parts of the problem. It's a bait and switch tactic to try and force discourse away from the subject matter that /can/ and /should/ be discussed.

This doesn't belittle rape victims by talking about sexual harassment as a whole, nor does it demean rape victims to /also/ want to try and fix /other things wrong with the society we live in/.

Already it seems like you (@Thenomain ) are in an us vs them mentality, which is /exactly/ what the 'Not All Men' comment creates, it tries to paint it into an attack on all men, and it is most definitely /not/. Reading through the thread here even those of us who have been abused in the worst ways are not trying to paint /all/ men in a negative light.

If knowing that someone is intentionally attempting to derail, sidetrack, turn a conversation against you isn't offensive... then fuck Theno... I don't now what else to tell you.

This /shouldn't/ be a conversation that is hostile, but certain individuals surely do their best to do that.

[TNP]

It's worth posting this again even though I did so only a few pages ago. It's worth reading. Really.

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

Don't do the things mentioned there.

[Thenomain]

@Lithium said in RL Anger:

@Thenomain I have said why it is offensive, you are just choosing to disbelieve /why/ that would be offensive to someone else.

I can see how that might appear, but you have in the past said that you can't read the connotation in straight-up text. I disbelieve that "someone else thinks it's offensive" is worthy of outright stopping of any behavior. It's vague to the point of uselessness. I've already lived through one era of political correctness, and I'm not about to agree to living through it again.

I'll also note that what "someone else" thinks is offensive isn't the problem. It's never been the problem. Hense: Wora, Swofa, Soapbox. The problem is what the language and action does culturally, it's long-term and very real harmful social effects.

We don't see eye-to-eye because I'm not convinced you have an argument. I clearly think the argument is worth having else I wouldn't be giving you the time of day, and I don't think you're wrong just to say you're wrong but because I don't see you giving your opinion strong merit.

(In more blunt terms: You think the phrase is offensive because someone might think it's dismissive. Not good enough. )

I said Tyche was a /part/ of the problem. It's reading comprehension 101.

Are you sure you don't want hostility to be part of the conversation? Because this? Right here? This is hostile. It's minor, and I can put on my big boy pants, but it undermines the trust needed for such an emotionally charged discussion.

You can be a part of something without being the driving force behind it.

I'm being given a negative social condition by accident of my birth. How can you not see the outright irony of saying this is okay? I'm not parading Men's Rights here, I'm parading Human Rights. If you want everyone to be treated equal, then for fucks' sake, treat everyone equal.

That's my "social justice". That's my justification for my opinion having merit. What's yours?

For example: Not all skinheads are racist, but some skinheads are racist to the extreme. [...] It's the same thing by going with the 'Not /all/ men' defense.

W... wait. Are you saying the classification of "men", a genetic lottery draw, is the same as the classification of "skinhead", a philosophical choice? This is false equivalence, and I will have no part of it.

Firstly, I never said all men did this thing. So by doing that it is a deflection and misdirection to try and turn the fault onto the speaker by making them seem erroneous.

I have offered my defense. You chide me for failing reading comprehension, yet you make this statement in spite that I have already addressed it. I am not misdirecting, I am saying that your statement is erroneous. This is a straightforward accusation.

Let me state this in another way: "Women can't drive." Is this clear that I'm not talking about all women? No, it's not. You would be justified to call me out on this bullshit statement for being overgeneralized. This is the classification of statement that I'm arguing against.

"Men behave thusly". No, no, they don't. My objection is not opinion, it's cold, hard, logical fact. If you think "not all men" is dismissive, perhaps it is. It's dismissive to an overgeneralization that needs dismissed. Instead of getting offended, clarify. If you don't mean "all men", then what do you mean?

I personally find it downright idiotic to not consider the self as part of the problems in conversation, whatever that problem may be! You can bet your blue bippy that I've been doing heavy self-editing to make sure I'm as clear to you specifically as I can.

Second, it refuses to address the actual issue, turning the topic of conversation /away/ from the problem that needs to be discussed and addressed so that it can be lessened.

Yet you're not addressing the issue, either. You're debating the quality of the debate instead of having one. You're doing what you're objecting about, but I'm not going to be insulting to read your mind and say that you are being intentionally misdirecting. I think you're getting emotionally caught up in circles, or reciting talking-points, or otherwise lost in the rabbit warrens of conversation that we all get in.

That is, I trust you have some well-meaning, but you can't expect me to carry the responsibility of miscommunication. I will help, but it only goes so far.

Third, as @Tyche did by immediately jumping to rapes and such the topic is /again/ changed to only a small fragment.

Then as part of the discussion, it is just as much your job to inform as it is to debate. If a conversation has gone off the rails, you can either try to put it back on the rails or you can move on. It's pointless to try and lay blame as to who shoved it off the rails.

I'm personally kind of insulted that you think that I'm trying to derail your point, when I invited you to make it. If this is how low you consider my opinion, then I'd much rather you not try to engage me at all. Hell, I think talking about derailing itself is derailing! Why are you doing that! Why do you think this discussion is more important than the one you were having? Nobody, nobody forced you to reply that way.

Incidentally, this is my model of communcation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication#/media/File:Transactional_comm_model.jpg

This is very simplified, but don't say that I'm not giving you feedback. We're both exchanging roles of the medium.

It's a bait and switch tactic to try and force discourse away from the subject matter that /can/ and /should/ be discussed.

Yes! Yes! This is why I find Anita Fucking Sarkeesian to be such a fraud! To be poison to the discussion we should be having! I find her methodology to be cultish, filled with pseudo-terminolgy, and steps away from Hate Speech.

And what are we talking about? Well, I thought we were talking about why "Not All Men" is or is not offensive, but we've both become emotionally wrapped up in the differing viewpoint that we're now pointing fingers and going "no you". Yes, you've been participating in this, in spite of your objection to same.

This /shouldn't/ be a conversation that is hostile, but certain individuals surely do their best to do that.

Yes.

Please stop.

Both please stop being hostile, and please stop giving the hostility of others importance.

[Lithium]

@Thenomain Then quit fucking defending that hostility Thenomain.

EDIT: You're so focused on being /right/ that you don't seem to give any actual fucks as to the feelings of others, you're putting it off on /me/ as if I am somehow the problem. So fuck you Thenomain. You 'Win' because I am sick of your nonsense. I explained, MULTIPLE TIMES as to why it is something, and you just fucking discount it entirely.

You're disingenuous to the extreme, I find it /amazing/ I ever once respected your opinion at this point... because I can't respect your opinions or modes of 'discussion' on this subject.

[Thenomain]

@Lithium said in RL Anger:

@Thenomain Then quit fucking defending that hostility Thenomain.

I'm not.

I am separating the discussion from the hostility, and addressing that.

What, do you want me to shun @Tyche because he's @Tyche? Sure, I can do that. Or I can use his comments as a jumping-off point for something that's not hostile, which is what I've been doing; removing the hostility and seeing what's left.

I think what's left is a critical part of investigating this current cultural phenomenon. Also pretty damn interesting.

EDIT: You're so focused on being /right/ that you don't seem to give any actual fucks as to the feelings of others

To the contrary, I'm often twisted in a knot of stress when I worry that I might hurt someone. I am not always good at determining when that's going to happen; this being a pretty strictly text environment, I think you can understand.

I may believe I'm right, but I'm always looking for evidence to challenge my understanding. Dissecting your viewpoint, I didn't see anything that looked like standing evidence beyond "someone might get hurt". Pain is worth avoiding, but who, and how likely? How can you determine as a reasonable human being what you should and should not do?

These are rhetorical questions right now. I'm still hoping that someone can tell me what situations make a response of "Not All Men" taboo, possibly via a web link toward an explanation that is even to both men and women. Probably best if it was in PM, at this point.

You're disingenuous to the extreme, I find it /amazing/ I ever once respected your opinion at this point... because I can't respect your opinions or modes of 'discussion' on this subject.

If this is what you strongly believe, I'm not going to argue it. I believe you're wrong, but in the cosmic scheme of abuse and hate, it's not worth adding to the stress that's causing you to lash out like this.

[Lithium]

@Thenomain You're not doing that, you were presuming there was hostility when there was none and in so doing not only discounted much of what was said, you marginalized it to the point of saying it was meaningless.

I refuse to believe that you are not intelligent enough to know that when you deflect away from a topic of discussion in what appears an attempt to change the topic into something else, how that is rude, and offensive to the topic at matter.

It puts forth that the topic isn't worth discussing lets talk about this other thing instead, it shifts the focus from one topic to another. THAT is OFFENSIVE.

It marginalizes the original topic, by taking discussion away from it. It changes the focus to paint the original topic as a false problem.

You're smart enough to know this. This is why you are being disingenuous. This is why I am so pissed off at you right now. Because you know better, but instead you're dismissing it out of hand as only being offensive to 'some' people.

Guess what @Thenomain it /is/ offensive. Just like sexual harassment is offensive. Just like any negative activity is offensive.

It's /offensive/ that you find sexual harassment and abuse of others an 'interesting' cultural phenomenon also.

If you were so twisted in a knot of concern and stress you'd have realized that @TNP has ALREADY posted /exactly/ how you were derailing the thread, and how the hell can you possibly say that "What someone else thinks is offensive isn't the problem".

I literally have no words to explain how fucked up that is.

If you don't want to 'be engaged' by me, then figure out a way to block indvidual users, or ban me, or whatever else you feel is necessary to do but don't act like you get to tell me not to respond to what is absolutely bullshit.

[Ganymede]

@Thenomain said in RL Anger:

I'm still hoping that someone can tell me what situations make a response of "Not All Men" taboo, possibly via a web link toward an explanation that is even to both men and women.

Here's how it works, friend.

When women make a point to mention that men are part of the problem, they are directing the focus of the discussion towards the somewhat-ingrained misogyny that men are inculcated with on a daily basis. The focus of attention -- that is, what those women are trying to convey -- is that men, as a population, need to be aware of the problem.

The defense of "not all men" is beside the point, and adjusts the focus towards the erroneous nature of any generalization.

Much like the "All Lives Matter" response to "Black Lives Matter," proponents of the latter are justifiably offended by the adjustment of the conversation away from what is perceived to be the actual problem. Yes, all lives matter; however, the proponents are protesting the fact that, empirically, black lives are treated quite differently.

So, to apply that rule here: yes, not all men are misogynistic; however, please realize that "civilized" society is inherently misogynistic, and that's what the conversation should be focused on. And the reason why men "are part of the problem" is because they are the beneficiary of those misogynistic institutions that keep such beliefs at the forefront of policy.

Hopefully, this explanation makes sense.

This isn't to say that I find @Lithium's attempts to explain satisfactory or effective; rather, I found the opposite. But I do understand why it's upsetting, and, much like the importance of black lives, I can understand why a woman would take extreme umbrage to the misunderstanding.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede

It makes as much sense as I'm probably going to make of it. In the case of Black Lives Matter, I can understand the issue of someone focusing the issue away from fixing a specific social issue. I'd be pretty ticked off too.

What I don't know is the statement that comes before "Not All Men". I regret that I don't have the social language to comprehend what is being said, but those instances where I would use the phrase involve being labeled unjustly. This is, in the sense of this thread, something that triggers an emotional response.

So no, it doesn't really make sense to me, but I have a better understanding of what doesn't make sense; the ground state of the conversation being attempted by those who object to the response.

[Lithium]

@Ganymede It's not just that either. It's the fact that people are attempting to make a generalization out of what /wasn't/ a generalization.

Men who do this thing are bad.

Full stop.

Period.

There doesn't need to be a comment of 'Not All Men Do That Thing'.

It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and has no bearing on it at all.

It distracts from the topic that is of relevance, that those individuals who /do/ those things, are bad and need to be stopped, held accountable, etc.

That's it. That's all there is.

That's why Not All Men is so offensive, because it distracts and marginalizes the original point.

I don't know why I am apparently failing to convey that point. If I am going to far to try and 'prove' it, because I've been successfully baited, or whatever.

When I hear the comment "Women Can't Drive" I don't automatically assume that applies to me, some women can't drive, in fact I know a few who have given up their licenses, willingly, because they were /that/ bad at it. Do I roll my eyes at the generalization? Sure I do, but it doesn't evoke a real emotional response out of me.

If /you/ (Random Male Gamer) don't do those things, then why would you feel defensive about comments that are not directed /at/ you, but at a larger problem as a whole?

[faraday]

@Lithium said in RL Anger:

When I hear the comment "Women Can't Drive" I don't automatically assume that applies to me, some women can't drive, in fact I know a few who have given up their licenses, willingly, because they were /that/ bad at it. Do I roll my eyes at the generalization? Sure I do, but it doesn't evoke a real emotional response out of me.

If /you/ (Random Male Gamer) don't do those things, then why would you feel defensive about comments that are not directed /at/ you, but at a larger problem as a whole?

Quite a lot of women would be offended by a comment "Women Can't Drive" (justifiably, IMHO). So I can understand a male gamer would be offended by someone saying "Men Gamers Treat Women Badly."

But umm... I didn't see anybody making a broad-sweeping generalization like that? Maybe I missed it. Saying that the industry/hobby has a widespread problem isn't the same as saying everyone does it.

@Thenomain - It's pretty easy to take the "I haven't seen it/It's not me" argument as implicit dismissal. Using an analogy again to the Black Lives Matter movement... if you're listening to someone complaining about prejudice they've experienced, and your response is "Well, I'm not a racist. Not all white people are racists. I haven't seen discrimination." All of those things may be true, but that's kind of a unsympathetic, dismissive and hurtful thing to say, don't you think?

[Ninjakitten]

Another issue with the 'not all men' response is: when your reaction to hearing about a problem is "but I don't do that!", you're taking a discussion about something that seriously affects a group of people who are already usually in a marginalized position and making that discussion about YOU, the person already usually in the privileged position.

It's not only in discussions of sexism; it happens in discussions about other forms of oppression as well, all the time. Constantly. Not the same phrase, obviously, but the same reaction: but I don't do that, but we don't all do that! We/they know it's not everyone, but when people are trying to discuss and make visible the kinds of mistreatment they regularly face, it's kind of a dick move to demand they instead spend their time and effort reassuring members of the privileged class that oh no, we don't mean YOU, we know YOU'RE one of the good ones. And that's one of the things 'not all men' does.

[Sunny]

Thank you to those of you who have more patience than I do for explaining why 'not all men' is so offensive and frustrating. This is why I don't have these conversations even with people I know and like; some pretty nasty hurtful stuff gets said, and I just don't have the energy to keep up an argument about it anymore.

[Arkandel]

There is just enough of a smudge of passive hostility in response to the very hint of disagreement with you @Lithium that it makes me not want to engage you in conversation. You seem to recite talking points and resort to petty attacks ("reading comprehension 101", really?) instead of trying to honestly talk to others who go out of their way to have a reasonable discussion with you.

I realize it's an emotionally charged issue. I realize you have strong opinions. That shouldn't stand in the way of a civilized conversation. If you can't talk here with well meaning individuals without the implied suggestion they just can't understand - or, worse, are on the other side of the argument if not potentially against it, even while they invited it in the first place - then there isn't enough trust to make it worth anyone's time.

You are alienating me. Perhaps others. Why?

[Kanye Qwest]

@Thenomain said in RL Anger:

@Thenomain got a -1! Achievement Unlocked: WTF?

Something you want to say, @Kanye-Qwest, or is this vague displeasure?

It's the derailment, dismissiveness, and the arguing about tone instead of arguing about the argument that got you the -1 from me.

"Not all men" is exactly the same thing as "all lives matter". But you've been told that in this thread several times, responding with more tone-policing.

Arkandel got one too, don't feel lonely!

[Arkandel]

@Kanye-Qwest said in RL Anger:

Arkandel got one too, don't feel lonely!

You sure showed us.

[Thenomain]

@faraday

I did try to clarify what conditions I was responding to. Twice, even. Let's say I'm a male gamer. Let's say that someone said that I exist in a group that is being said to do something that doesn't always, doesn't even usually happen. Now it's "Asian women can't drive."

Here, at least, we're getting to a place where it's easier to see that my understanding and experience could be to blame. Or at least that different people are framing the discussion differently.

I did /try/ to clarify my frame of reference. Something shitty happened to a female gamer. That's shitty. I agree. Are we still talking about similar instances? I wasn't. I am sorry if that's the core of the complaint against me , and I can understand why hackles would be raised.

It does answer my specific question, tho, about the conditions that Not All Men is a problem, so I won't complain. Well, not about that. I appreciate the candor.

[deadculture]

All of this just makes it crystal clear to me that if someone wants to talk about their prejudices suffered, I am not the best person to be listening. I can help a friend with problems, but I won't help a friend by feeding into their grievances or victim complex. If you're not a billionaire, if you've ever lived in a violent city where going out is a matter of statistics of whether something bad will happen to you, then you've been oppressed, too, regardless of your sex/orientation/race/social conditions.

Then again, I don't think I would want to be friends with a Black Lives Matter supporter, either. I tend to be a bit picky about my company.

[Apos]

@Arkandel said in RL Anger:

I realize it's an emotionally charged issue. I realize you have strong opinions. That shouldn't stand in the way of a civilized conversation.

While that's coming from a reasonable place, it's kind of dumb. Okay, a lot of people in this thread have been assaulted (they've mentioned it in the past). This is a lot like going to a particularly angry member of Black Lives Matter and going, "Well, I know your brother was shot for no reason by the police, but not all police are bad, and your tone isn't constructive."

But it's a lot better than @Tyche who is pretty much like, 'Oh yeah you guys being assaulted is bad and shit but you shouldn't talk so much about it and I doubt it happens nearly as much as you think and your experiences aren't valid. Whelp glad we wrapped up the systemic problems of sexual assault in one curt dismissal, let's move on.'