MSB, SJW, and other acronyms
-
@friendlybee I'd actually prefer not to hear from you enough I'm considering ignore, so not sure where you're getting that idea. I value my time, and you seem keen on wasting it with what I consider really juvenile trolling that isn't even very good or creative.
-
-
@surreality said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee I'd actually prefer not to hear from you enough I'm considering ignore, so not sure where you're getting that idea. I value my time, and you seem keen on wasting it with what I consider really juvenile trolling that isn't even very good or creative.
That's your choice obviously. I'm not trying to waste your time, I was mostly talking to/poking at the guy that thinks a private forum asking users not to use the c-word is akin to Fahrenheit 451 level censorship.
And making fun of the idea that 'multiple people disagree with me!!' is a reason to be upset.
Sorry you were bothered, you actually seem fine. If unsure what you're after in conversations sometimes.
-
-
@auspice said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
The "ftfy" imo fell into attack on idea rather than person.
Which goes back to my: learn to tell the difference.This is why I don't like the whole "attack the idea not the person" strategy.
Because the root of the concept is still attack. People don't respond well to attacks, and particularly when the idea is some deeply held belief, or the attack is "that's f-ing insane" then it's really really hard for even an even-keeled human being to respond to it rationally.
I prefer the The Universal Rules of Civilized Discourse mantra of Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree.
We don't need to attack ideas (or people) with over-the-top baiting remarks or vulgar insults. We can be better, if we choose to be.
-
@faraday I tend to agree, at least in the context of a forum on the internet that doesn't matter. In reality, though, I don't ever want to not be able to argue with someone simply because what I'm arguing against is a strongly held belief. The stronger the hold, the stronger one's ability to defend should be.
He/Him
-
@tinuviel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
In reality, though, I don't ever want to not be able to argue with someone simply because what I'm arguing against is a strongly held belief. The stronger the hold, the stronger one's ability to defend should be.
I agree. All I'm saying is that I'd prefer for people to argue respectfully.
ETA: You can disagree with my strongly-held beliefs all day long and not bother me until (generic)you start diving into "you're an idiot" or "that's the most insane thing I've ever heard" territory.
Alas, with strangers on the internet, that seems to be a bridge too far without pretty strenuous moderation.
-
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@tinuviel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
In reality, though, I don't ever want to not be able to argue with someone simply because what I'm arguing against is a strongly held belief. The stronger the hold, the stronger one's ability to defend should be.
I agree. All I'm saying is that I'd prefer for people to argue respectfully.
Alas, with strangers on the internet, that seems to be a bridge too far without pretty strenuous moderation.
Absolutely agreed. That's pretty much the point of my (admittedly, at times semi-disrespectfully irreverent) argument.
-
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@tinuviel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
In reality, though, I don't ever want to not be able to argue with someone simply because what I'm arguing against is a strongly held belief. The stronger the hold, the stronger one's ability to defend should be.
I agree. All I'm saying is that I'd prefer for people to argue respectfully.
Alas, with strangers on the internet, that seems to be a bridge too far without pretty strenuous moderation.
one of the main issues with "respectfully" (aside from the fact that I think it's silly to expect one person to be respectful if the other isn't being respectful) in online discourse is that text lies with its appearance, and I might say something that looks respectful, but is really just me being sarcastic, and vice versa, and people interpret my honest comments sarcastically.
That's why when I'm being disrespectful, I try to be very clear about it.
-
@friendlybee That's part of the issue.
This thread isn't meant for 'poking at people'. It's supposed to be constructive. Trying to rile or upset or mock people in this way to stir the pot? Generally not constructive or productive or informative.
Again... you do you.
If you're well-intentioned, read up on whatever before commenting. The situation is, unfortunately, not simple. If it was, it would have been resolved ages ago.
I didn't create the thread. I didn't ask for the thread to be created. In the thread that spawned this one, I am sighing and wincing and asking people to not do this.
Now, I'm sighing and wincing because people are doing this, because SunnyJ and Tempest were lolwhut'ing at Seraphim74 politely asking that we not use the word, and Coin explaining in simple language why the word is problematic.
We are all arguing to no good end, and the two people who spawned the conversation with their lolwhuts are nowhere to be found, and probably not even interested.
-
@tinuviel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@insomniac7809 said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@deadculture said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
After all, that's what 1984 is about, the totalitarian point of view in which the potential of a word to hurt means it has to expunged from the lexicon outright.
That is not what 1984 is about.
It's a valid reading of the text. Anything that 'hurts' the governmental machine is removed. Emotions, words, people, etcetera.
I often wonder how Orwell would react to the wide spectrum of ideologies that want to coopt 1984 as a screed against The Other Side. Though it's not as lulzy as its iconography being used by corporations to sell computers and shit I guess.
-
@three-eyed-crow Oh that's easy, he'd say "did they pay for their copy? Good. They're wrong." Regardless of who it was.
-
@surreality said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee That's part of the issue.
This thread isn't meant for 'poking at people'. It's supposed to be constructive. Trying to rile or upset or mock people in this way to stir the pot? Generally not constructive or productive or informative.
Again... you do you.
If you're well-intentioned, read up on whatever before commenting. The situation is, unfortunately, not simple. If it was, it would have been resolved ages ago.
I didn't create the thread. I didn't ask for the thread to be created. In the thread that spawned this one, I am sighing and wincing and asking people to not do this.
Now, I'm sighing and wincing because people are doing this, because SunnyJ and Tempest were lolwhut'ing at Seraphim74 politely asking that we not use the word, and Coin explaining in simple language why the word is problematic.
We are all arguing to no good end, and the two people who spawned the conversation with their lolwhuts are nowhere to be found, and probably not even interested.
I'm still unsure what is compelling you to continue reading a thread that seems to be causing you such emotional strife.
I was specifically concerned with one aspect of the forum moderation argument - words like that are definitely disrespectful and intended to harm. It's ok to moderate those kinds of words. The person I was talking to was explicitly saying it's not ok to censor those words. I poked at their argument for why it was bad to censor those words.
You've taken issue with me disagreeing with deadculture since I started doing it. Am I not allowed to express my opinions here because you don't like them? I haven't been rude - I've been a little playful about it, sure, and that's a little dismissive. I even admitted that I shouldn't've pointed out, in my first post, that conservatives tend to be the ones who get very upset when they get told what they're doing is uncool.
I get that you want me to be quiet and go away. But nobody is forcing you to read this. If they are, please let me know and I'll be on the phone with the police immedaitely so that they can track down the man with the gun that's forcing you to read and reply here, or is preventing you from using the ignore button if you really think I deserve that.
I'm having a constructive argument - it's just against the status quo.
-
@tinuviel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@insomniac7809 said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@deadculture said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
After all, that's what 1984 is about, the totalitarian point of view in which the potential of a word to hurt means it has to expunged from the lexicon outright.
That is not what 1984 is about.
It's a valid reading of the text. Anything that 'hurts' the governmental machine is removed. Emotions, words, people, etcetera.
Well, first off, that's really stretching the analogy when we're going from "removing things that hurt people" to "banning things that 'hurt' the hold of a totalitarian regime."
Second, the point in 1984 isn't really removing the anti-Party concepts so much as it is to keep them as something that's constantly abused, degraded and tortured ("boot on face" etc) for the sake of glorifying the Party. Removing hurt isn't the point in 1984, inflicting it is.
-
@insomniac7809 They inflict hurt while nominally talking about removing it. What's the purpose of Emmanuel Goldstein, if not to be a foil to the frustrations of a society that is forbidden from engaging in courtship rituals, kept from absolute mastery of their own language by replacing it with a government-approved construct and the careful censorship and disappearance acts of anything that might hurt the party line and allow people to have individual opinions?
-
@deadculture said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@insomniac7809 They inflict hurt while nominally talking about removing it. What's the purpose of Emmanuel Goldstein, if not to be a foil to the frustrations of a society that is forbidden from engaging in courtship rituals, kept from absolute mastery of their own language by replacing it with a government-approved construct and the careful censorship and disappearance acts of anything that might hurt the party line and allow people to have individual opinions?
It's certainly not an attempt to protect disadvantaged groups within the culture!!
-
@insomniac7809 said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@tinuviel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@insomniac7809 said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@deadculture said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
After all, that's what 1984 is about, the totalitarian point of view in which the potential of a word to hurt means it has to expunged from the lexicon outright.
That is not what 1984 is about.
It's a valid reading of the text. Anything that 'hurts' the governmental machine is removed. Emotions, words, people, etcetera.
Well, first off, that's really stretching the analogy when we're going from "removing things that hurt people" to "banning things that 'hurt' the hold of a totalitarian regime."
Second, the point in 1984 isn't really removing the anti-Party concepts so much as it is to keep them as something that's constantly abused, degraded and tortured ("boot on face" etc) for the sake of glorifying the Party. Removing hurt isn't the point in 1984, inflicting it is.
Like I said, it's a valid reading. That doesn't mean it's the only one. An element in the Party's ability to cause harm is its ability to expunge harm done against itself. A rather vital element, I would argue.
But this isn't really the literary discussion circle.
ETA: Also I wasn't judging the analogy, just the analysis of the text.
-
@deadculture They don't talk about removing harm. That's really hammered on in O'Brien's whole speech to Winston. Trying to compare "if you criticise the government they torture you until you'll believe 1+1=3" with "if you want to call women cunts I'd rather you do it somewhere else" is either disingenuous or rather missing some key points.
Of course, the real point of 1984 is a socialist writing a sci-fi criticism of Stalin.
-
Here's an example of Two Minutes Hate, starring Emmanuel Goldstein. Straight from the proverbial horse's mouth:
"Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack upon the doctrines of the Party—an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the revolution had been betrayed—and all this in rapid polysyllabic speech which was a sort of parody of the habitual style of the orators of the Party, and even contained Newspeak words: more Newspeak words, indeed, than any Party member would normally use in real life."
I wonder, if somebody you're taught to hate, viscerally hate, espouses some ideas, would you be more or less opposed to them?
-
@deadculture said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
I wonder, if somebody you're taught to hate, viscerally hate, espouses some ideas, would you be more or less opposed to them?
do you actually wonder this
