Jul 20, 2018, 4:35 PM
@kanye-qwest Rhetorical question
MSB, SJW, and other acronyms
-
@kanye-qwest Rhetorical question
-
@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
I'm still unsure what is compelling you to continue reading a thread that seems to be causing you such emotional strife.
Assuming a lot, again.
I was specifically concerned with one aspect of the forum moderation argument - words like that are definitely disrespectful and intended to harm.
Then say so if you wish to.
It's ok to moderate those kinds of words.
Then say so if you wish to.
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.
The argument you were making was an assertion that 'dogpiling' was part of US political culture. It's not. The person you have issue with is not even in the US.
You've taken issue with me disagreeing with deadculture since I started doing it.
...I have?
Am I not allowed to express my opinions here because you don't like them?
Have I said this? No.
Have I reported you for some improper behavior? No. (Mods can verify 'no', they certainly seem willing to pipe up today, after all.)
Have I asked you to be silent? No.
I asked you to read the thread before you stuck your foot in your mouth, because the sequence of events you described has no basis in the actual reality of this conversation or how it came about.I haven't been rude - I've been a little playful about it, sure, and that's a little dismissive.
Your 'playful' is someone else's rude, just like someone else's 'it's just a word' is someone else's cutting slur. That's why this is complicated.
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.
Because it's, in itself, bigoted to say. I mean, hello, irony?
No one enjoys this. No one, of any political leaning on earth, is immune to being upset by this.
I get that you want me to be quiet and go away.
Again: citation needed.
But nobody is forcing you to read this.
<fingertips lightly tapping on the edge of the desk>
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.
That line between 'playful' and 'rude' you mention... ? As someone who actually has been threatened at gunpoint and assaulted, I really don't find this remotely cute or playful.
I'm having a constructive argument - it's just against the status quo.
You're really not. Certainly not here. If you think 'people who want to call each other cunts because we're super sexist' is the majority here on the forum, you'd be wrong. Hilariously wrong.
-
-
@insomniac7809 said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
Of course, the real point of 1984 is a socialist writing a sci-fi criticism of Stalin.
That's the clearest read of it that should be obvious to everybody who engages with the text, though I agree it's not wrong to dig into it and find aspects of the society it portrays and broaden it out to basically any kind of oppressive totalitarianism. The generalness of it is part of why it's enduring (even if it's hilariously maddening to see American white nationalists pull out the 1984 quotes with no context). It's interesting to watch how vastly different readers transform it to fit their own ideology, regardless of authorial intent.
(I will own that this is off topic but I'd much rather engage with it than the two or three other maddening off topic tangents.)
-
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
This is why I don't like the whole "attack the idea not the person" strategy.
In a forum that's largely about presenting ideas for others to comment in it would be counter-productive to discourage the concept of 'attacking' them. That's what peer reviews are about, after all; you invite conversation, others try to point flaws out, and in the end - hopefully - the original concept is fortified, stronger for having been doubted.
We can't not have that. 'Criticism' is still part of 'constructive criticism'.
Is there a gray line folks on forums are happy to strand or just plain cross? Sure, but again we need to make sure we can have some conversation without stepping on seashells around each other.
Do I wish we were all more civil in general? Damn right I do, but we are still human. I've put ideas out there that got shot down hard - some harder than others - but a thick skin is necessary on the interwebs, which isn't news to anyone reading this.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
In a forum that's largely about presenting ideas for others to comment in it would be counter-productive to discourage the concept of 'attacking' them. That's what peer reviews are about, after all; you invite conversation
Peer reviews are a central part of my job, and I can assure you that not making the other person feel attacked is an integral and essential part of a peer review. Read any of the million articles on effective peer reviews if you don't believe me.
There is a vital difference between a criticism and an attack.
ETA - again I think the civil discourse "rules" get it right here:
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But, remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:
Name-calling.
Ad hominem attacks.
Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content.
Knee-jerk contradiction.Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.
Nobody's going to be perfect at this (including myself) but if we shared that central goal it'd be a lot easier to steer things in a positive direction. Right now, though, we don't.
-
@three-eyed-crow The difference between a Stalinist and a democratic socialist is precisely the emphasis on civil freedoms that the latter has. Orwell not only criticizes Stalin in 1984, but he also points out the inherent contradictions behind the purported intent of would-be revolutionaries and what they really do. But this falls under whether someone has a literal and concrete or a non-linear mindset.
Since I do not disagree that Orwell did criticize Stalinism in the book. Not at all, but I also don't think that's all it is about.
-
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@arkandel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
In a forum that's largely about presenting ideas for others to comment in it would be counter-productive to discourage the concept of 'attacking' them. That's what peer reviews are about, after all; you invite conversation
Peer reviews are a central part of my job, and I can assure you that not making the other person feel attacked is an integral and essential part of a peer review. Read any of the million articles on effective peer reviews if you don't believe me.
There is a vital difference between a criticism and an attack.
On the other hand people that submit things for peer review are, on the whole, expecting criticism and willing to accept and embrace it. Discussion of this kind requires that two-way-street thinking, that many 'average' people don't invest in learning. So we don't see as much of it here.
-
Too much effort to format with quotes and stuff. You get the gist.
Assuming a lot, again.
You keep posting about how stressful this is to you, and how close you are to the edge. What is the takeaway that you want me to have from your posts? I’ve been more than willing to hear your side. I’ve even asked for it three or four times, and had you get frustrated and rude that I dared ask you to elaborate on your point.
Then say so if you wish to.
Have been saying it.
Then say so if you wish to.
I have been! Not sure what more I can do to express that opinion other than express that opinion.The argument you were making was an assertion that 'dogpiling' was part of US political culture. It's not. The person you have issue with is not even in the US.
Yep, I walked that back. Twice now. You’re correct, it was unnecessary.
...I have?
You’ve certainly started targeting me and my posts, telling me that you want me to stop posting, that what I’m saying isn’t appropriate for vague reasons, and threatened to put me on ignored. Yes.
Have I said this? No.
Have I reported you for some improper behavior? No. (Mods can verify 'no', they certainly seem willing to pipe up today, after all.)
Have I asked you to be silent? No.
I asked you to read the thread before you stuck your foot in your mouth, because the sequence of events you described has no basis in the actual reality of this conversation or how it came about.I didn’t stick my foot in my mouth, I even admitted that my reading was, perhaps, biased and backed down somewhat on the rhetoric. You’ve refused to recognize that, which is also fine.
Your 'playful' is someone else's rude, just like someone else's 'it's just a word' is someone else's cutting slur. That's why this is complicated.
Agreed! That’s why we have discussions about it. Like this one, that I’m participating in.
Because it's, in itself, bigoted to say. I mean, hello, irony?
No one enjoys this. No one, of any political leaning on earth, is immune to being upset by this.
I already retracted that. Twice.
Again: citation needed.
You’ve told me that I’m on the edge of being put on ignore. Do you need me to go back to the post you made 20m ago and cite it to you as an example of you not wanting to see what I’m saying? Or the other posts where you repeatedly tell me to be quiet or that I’m ‘putting my foot in my mouth’ because we disagree on something?
<fingertips lightly tapping on the edge of the desk>
I don’t get this reference.
That line between 'playful' and 'rude' you mention... ? As someone who actually has been threatened at gunpoint and assaulted, I really don't find this remotely cute or playful.
I apologize if it was at all triggering for you to read that, it wasn’t my intent. It’s common on a lot of forums that I’ve been to over the years to make that sort of playful joke at the expense of someone who is very negatively affected because they’re choosing to read a thread.
I suspect, however, from the rest of your posts that this isn’t incredibly genuine on your part and that’s a bit frustrating. I’m more than willing to drop it though, and won’t make that sort of reference again.
You're really not. Certainly not here. If you think 'people who want to call each other cunts because we're super sexist' is the majority here on the forum, you'd be wrong. Hilariously wrong.
I absolutely am. My arguments weren’t 100% about dogpiling – there were some earlier comments that were and I walked that back and said I shouldn’t’ve spoken up about them. I have made fun of the idea that ‘multiple people disagreeing with you’ is a grave sin a few times, but the majority of my argument was actually about censorship vs. forum policies. You’ve remained doggedly latched onto side tangents while trying to convince me not to keep making the other arguments.I’ve.. resisted your lazy attempts at controlling the narrative.
-
@friendlybee @surreality could you please take this feud to personal messages or other threads?
-
@arkandel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee @surreality could you please take this feud to personal messages or other threads?
Sure! This slapfight isn't likely to go anywhere anyway. @surreality can PM if they want to continue.
-
@arkandel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
Is there a gray line folks on forums are happy to strand or just plain cross?
Then do something other than quarantine the thread when people cross them.
Seriously, man, you know I
you, but other than moving threads from productive territory to 'abandon all hope for productive discussion on this subject all ye who enter here'? Not much going down. Not going to generate productive or constructive discussion.I'm more than happy to drop that discussion; I have no idea who this person is or why they're intent on playing games or persisting in their nonsense behavior.
-
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@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.
I'm going to echo this. The 'idea not the person' moderation policy is bullshit and doesn't work.
Because you can absolutely construct an attack to target an idea while still vilifying a person. This is what @surreality is complaining about here: that she stated her political views, and then another poster attacked those views by depicting them as equivalent to (what @surreality clearly believes) to be a much more negative set of beliefs. So it does both things: it attacks her by attacking her ideas in a very severe way and by means of comparison. If I tell a person (who I know to be a liberal in the US) that their idea 'sounds like something Trump would say' that is a personal fucking attack regardless of how much it might be grounded in the ideas at hand.
This was also what happened with me in the OC thread, obviously: sure, it's attacking my ideas to compare preferring certain RP partners to homophobia, racism, and sexism... but it's also a ludicrously extreme comparison that serves double-duty as personal defamation.
So your moderation rules don't fucking work, and it's pretty obvious that they don't work, as every garbage pile of a thread demonstrates. You can make the standard 'actually be nice and civil' and fucking enforce that, or you can deal with civility being nonexistant.
-
@bored It didn't help that the post served no other purpose. It's not like it was one comment among many being singled out in a lengthy post. Other than the insult, it was completely content-free.
-
@arkandel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@lisse24 said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
That being said, dogpiling does happen on this forum, a lot.
It does. And I want to come up with a way to address it that's not worse than the original problem.
Having been dog-piled on, on former iterations of the board, for game stuff, not social stuff, I'm not entirely sure not dog-piling is possible. I mean the very first versions of the board were ostensibly made to post about the shitty / stupid things staff were doing on WoD games so people could mock and laugh at them. Dog-piling has been in every form of the forums, even IGU, though not nearly as bad. It's part of the DNA of the board. Sure, the discussions have been added to since that time, but they in no means have moved on. Especially since we, as a community hold on to grudges in a way that is in no way healthy.
Not saying it's a good thing, but it's still a thing. And let's face it joking about it being 1995 again or not, it doesn't change the fact that people being fired / removed from games because of whatever version of the board there is has been a thing. An extreme, stupid thing, but a thing because dog-piling has been a thing since the start in one form or another.
Plus I mean, Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and all...
Because really, what are the consequences if you are an asshole to someone on the forum? Even getting booted isn't a deterrent for some people or you guys wouldn't need a thread that someone has been banned, again, getting updated every so often.
-
@insomnia said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@arkandel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@lisse24 said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
That being said, dogpiling does happen on this forum, a lot.
It does. And I want to come up with a way to address it that's not worse than the original problem.
Having been dog-piled on, on former iterations of the board, for game stuff, not social stuff, I'm not entirely sure not dog-piling is possible. I mean the very first versions of the board were ostensibly made to post about the shitty / stupid things staff were doing on WoD games so people could mock and laugh at them. Dog-piling has been in every form of the forums, even IGU, though not nearly as bad. It's part of the DNA of the board. Sure, the discussions have been added to since that time, but they in no means have moved on. Especially since we, as a community hold on to grudges in a way that is in no way healthy.
Not saying it's a good thing, but it's still a thing. And let's face it joking about it being 1995 again or not, it doesn't change the fact that people being fired / removed from games because of whatever version of the board there is has been a thing. An extreme, stupid thing, but a thing because dog-piling has been a thing since the start in one form or another.
Plus I mean, Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and all...
Because really, what are the consequences if you are an asshole to someone on the forum? Even getting booted isn't a deterrent for some people or you guys wouldn't need a thread that someone has been banned, again, getting updated every so often.
Like you said, it's kind of hard to avoid 'dogpiling' if your definition of dogpiling is 'multiple people disagree with me'. I don't feel that to be a useful definition.
I understand that it can go to extreme lengths and end up being very unpleasant, but 'I can't convince this person that I'm correct' seems to be enough to bring out claims of dogpiling. I think a better definition is needed, and this thread seems like it was designed to allow for that discussion.
-
Instead of dogpiling we call it Hog Pitting.
Outside the pit it is politely disagreeing. Inside the pit it is disagreeing and trying to convince the target to die in a fire over a text game.
-
@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
Like you said, it's kind of hard to avoid 'dogpiling' if your definition of dogpiling is 'multiple people disagree with me'. I don't feel that to be a useful definition.
For me it's more about the way multiple people are disagreeing.
If it's six people all making rational arguments like "Have you considered..." or "I see it differently because..." then you can push back against claims of dogpiling.
But when it's six people with variants of "OMG are you insane?" and "That idea is the worst thing ever!", mocking the idea or ripping it to shreds with malice, then it can absolutely feel like being set upon by a wolf-pack.
-
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
If it's six people all making rational arguments like "Have you considered..." or "I see it differently because..." then you can push back against claims of dogpiling.
Because this happens a lot. Just kidding. It doesn't.
But when it's six people with variants of "OMG are you insane?" and "That idea is the worst thing ever!", mocking the idea or ripping it to shreds with malice, then it can absolutely feel like being set upon by a wolf-pack.
Remember when this place wasn't WORA? Bless. I loved WORA. I would never call it healthy, welcoming, or a good use of our time. Like Rick Astley, it's a guilty pleasure.
I don't come here for useful information. I come for the GIFs, bad descs, and the shitposting. I can F5 for 10 hours in this place and never be disappointed.
-
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
Like you said, it's kind of hard to avoid 'dogpiling' if your definition of dogpiling is 'multiple people disagree with me'. I don't feel that to be a useful definition.
For me it's more about the way multiple people are disagreeing.
If it's six people all making rational arguments like "Have you considered..." or "I see it differently because..." then you can push back against claims of dogpiling.
But when it's six people with variants of "OMG are you insane?" and "That idea is the worst thing ever!", mocking the idea or ripping it to shreds with malice, then it can absolutely feel like being set upon by a wolf-pack.
I get that. But it's still just being disagreed with hyperbolically on the internet. Especially in the instance that, to my knowledge spawned this thread - someone got mad that they were asked not to say the c-word, a few people rolled their eyes and said 'yeah it's pretty uncool to say that word' and then.. I dunno. Not much else?
I'm not sure why ark felt the thread was necessary, but now that we're here.. I dunno. Should we just ban hyperbolic speech on the internet? Should we try to convince people to care less what strangers they'll never meet think about their opinions?
The post that 'made a good point' started off by someone using SJW (a person who has chosen to not be a dickwad online) as a slur in order to defend another person that dropped a c-bomb on a thread out of nowhere, and was politely asked to not use that word as its misogynistic. At no point in the linked thread was there any real 'omg you need to die', there was some eye rolling, a tiny bit of fun poking, and then.. the thread reasserted itself and people went back to complaining that staff on a game did a thing they didn't like.
I guess I'm just not seeing the version of dogpiling (hogpiling?) that's being claimed in this instance. Sure it's happened in the past, but.. it didn't happen this time. So why is everyone so freaked out, to the point of me being harassed endlessly, even after they were asked to chill out by an admin, by a person with a grudge for sharing my opinions?