MSB, SJW, and other acronyms

[bored]

@surreality I mean I agree, moving whole threads is a bad solution (and this came up back in the days of the Advertisement forum discussion too) since it allows people to intentionally derail down to their level. I'm OK with mods just moving specific sub-arguments or deleting people who continue to be cunts dicks assholes despite warnings.

But that's implementation detail, in the end. It still needs to start with the actual cultural understanding of the space being a civil one. That requires a moderation standard higher than the 'attack the idea' routine.

[Tempest]

The problem here, is the "oh i'm so nice pls no insult go to hogpit :D" crowd has repeatedly shown to have no problem with insulting and...gasp...omg....DOGPILING!!!!!! on people.

But the minute anybody so much as casts any criticism in their direction, they go into "OMG! I'VE BEEN VICIOUSLY ATTACKED! MODERATE!!! MODERATOR HALP!!!! PLS!!!! THIS NO HOGPIT!!!! MY IDEAS MUST BE SAFE!!!"

[surreality]

@bored I think it may be in the difference between 'attack' and 'constructively criticize', in the end. 'Criticism' is more or less where it is now, and that can be interpreted as either of the previous things, even when the previous things are very different in practice. It sounds trivial, but isn't.

'Your idea is the dumbest piece of shit I have ever had the misfortune to witness' is criticism... but it's an attack without any constructive value whatsoever.

[Ganymede]

@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

You have to understand how silly this question is, right?

Not really.

I mean, here, you're just asking unresponsive questions in response to questions. You're responding for the sake of responding, under the belief that such a response is adding anything.

Maybe you do not understand how fucking exhausting it can be to be dogpiled. Maybe you do not understand how exhausting it is to repeat the same message over and over because other people are shifting the conversation. Or maybe you do not empathize with someone who has clearly been gaslit.

It doesn't really matter.

If you don't see how or why posting and not adding to the conversation in a mildly constructive forum can be a problem, that's fine.

[Tempest]

Did I not get the memo on "gaslighting is the new buzzword"? I swear this is the only place I hear this phrase come up more than once in a blue moon, and weirdly enough, it seems to only ever come from a certain crowd.

[Ganymede]

@tempest said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

Did I not get the memo on "gaslighting is the new buzzword"?

You got the memo; you just don't remember.

[bored]

@Tempest It's not a problem if the individual spaces are moderated per their own rules.

Like, I have no problem with someone who wants to be 'civil argument guy/gal' 80% of the day talking in Game Dev and being super constructive but also wants to be able to take an hour off to call someone a syphilitic cretin in the pit (as long as they understand they'll catch the same in retaliation while they're there). It's possible to abide by different standards in different places. I'm sure I'd catch the occasional wrist-slap in a more moderated area, but w/e.

@surreality Yeah, probably. An attack is an attack, and it comes with a combative attitude of fighting to win despite the casualties or collateral. Unfortunately right now attack is outright in the rules. 'Attack the idea.' Well OK /dials in the artillery

[surreality]

Question: does nodeBB allow 'forum-section'-based bans? As in, if someone consistently demonstrates they can't abide by the rules of the constructive areas of the forum, they can be removed from that area of the forum? Confined to the pit, if they're treating the whole forum like the pit?

Otherwise, is there a means of making a default opt-in to the constructive groups that can be forcibly revoked if someone can't behave like something other than a shrieking gibbon in those spaces?

I mean, I wouldn't ever want people to not be able to casually guest-browse the constructive threads, but if the only way we can have constructive threads is an approach of this kind, well.

[deadculture]

@bored Well, the poster 'since SWOFA' over there came into the thread swinging at conservatives after things were starting to circle around a conclusion to this pointless thread.

If there WAS moderation, they'd point out to her it's the Mildly Constructive area (it is), and to start inflammatory language just because you want to engage with 4 or 5 other logical fallacies (no true scotsman, slippery slope, argumentum ad absurdum, reversing the burden of proof, concern trolling) and break shit down isn't going to make this anymore constructive. In fact, there was a lot of discord sewn just to keep this shit going.

Pointing a finger at people who aren't on your side of the political spectrum and calling them names isn't going to make a conversation constructive. Pulling fallacy after fallacy, moving goalposts when you can't insult them isn't going to make a conversation constructive.

Gaslighting people you aren't doing that when they can just go back on the thread, by the way, isn't going to make a conversation constructive.

I still stand by my stance.

[Kanye Qwest]

@tempest said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

"OMG! I'VE BEEN VICIOUSLY ATTACKED! MODERATE!!! MODERATOR HALP!!!! PLS!!!! THIS NO HOGPIT!!!! MY IDEAS MUST BE SAFE!!!"

DO PEOPLE I AM SPIDER

[friendlybee]

@tempest said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

Did I not get the memo on "gaslighting is the new buzzword"? I swear this is the only place I hear this phrase come up more than once in a blue moon, and weirdly enough, it seems to only ever come from a certain crowd.

Yeah, people are very upset that I disagreed with them online about disagreements online so they're reaching as hard as they can. They can go back to it. There's a reason I tend toward just lurking.

[Ganymede]

@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

Yeah, people are very upset that I disagreed with them online about disagreements online so they're reaching as hard as they can.

See, Tempest, if you'd refer to Paragraph 4(g) of the memo, titled "Quod Erat Demonstravit" --

[Tempest]

@ganymede said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

Yeah, people are very upset that I disagreed with them online about disagreements online so they're reaching as hard as they can.

See, Tempest, if you'd refer to Paragraph 4(g) of the memo, titled "Quod Erat Demonstravit" --

If you think I'm actually going to read the last few pages of this thread, you are crazy.

Why are you guys spam-arguing with some throwaway puppet account.

[Auspice]

@tempest said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

Did I not get the memo on "gaslighting is the new buzzword"? I swear this is the only place I hear this phrase come up more than once in a blue moon, and weirdly enough, it seems to only ever come from a certain crowd.

I do not think I have ever made the accusation on these boards. However, it was the specifically naming SunnyJ as someone who complains about dogpiling/attacks/et al that pinged my spidey senses here because SunnyJ is probably one of the more chill people on the boards who has no fucks to give on a general basis.

As for the 'arguing with' I actually noted to Gany and Ark both already that this is already, very obviously, a troll and what my personal recommendation is.

[Insomnia]

@deadculture Since you didn't @name anyone, and I know I posted recently about old WORA I have to ask if you meant me? Because my asking about taking up the label wasn't swinging at conservatives at all, so I'm confused. I had a question, stated my views, people responded. I mean I know I've said it's difficult to read tone on here but I am seriously confused. If that's swinging at conservatives, I don't even...

If you didn't mean me, carry on, I just wanted to clarify because my big peeve is people putting words into my mouth, so I might be a little touchy on the subject and knee-jerking here.

[faraday]

@bored said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

@Tempest It's not a problem if the individual spaces are moderated per their own rules.

Yeah, the key there is consistent moderation. Everyone slips up or gets carried away now and again. That's just human nature. It's not as simple as "I want to flame you and not be flamed in return" as @Tempest seems to suggest. It's just that when you're in the midst of a heated discussion you don't always see the line. That's why we need moderators instead of just relying on "the community" to police things, because different members of the community will have different barometers for what's worthy of moderation. The moderators are the ones who are (theoretically) capable of enforcing a consistent line.

The other piece of it is community flagging. I confess I don't bother flagging often, because as @surreality pointed out - the only real consequence is that the whole thread gets shuffled into the hog pit and then I can't participate in the discussion any more. Until there are real consequences to breaking the rules that don't punish the rules-followers, there's not going to be a lot of buy-in. It's just going to be more slapfights.

[deadculture]

@insomnia I didn't mean you at all. I think you and I were agreeing on some critical points, and in those that we weren't, you were respectfully addressing your disagreements.

[bored]

@deadculture Ehn!

There's a couple different arguments here, and I'm not in the mood to debate liberal vs. conservative vs. death squads in your neck of the woods (yes I know that's mostly hyperbole) vs. SJWs vs. whatever. We've had plenty of those conversations in more detail and the people I care to talk politics with know where I land on that stuff.

I'll leave fighting the newbie-oldbie to others!

[friendlybee]

@auspice said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

@tempest said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:

Did I not get the memo on "gaslighting is the new buzzword"? I swear this is the only place I hear this phrase come up more than once in a blue moon, and weirdly enough, it seems to only ever come from a certain crowd.

I do not think I have ever made the accusation on these boards. However, it was the specifically naming SunnyJ as someone who complains about dogpiling/attacks/et al that pinged my spidey senses here because SunnyJ is probably one of the more chill people on the boards who has no fucks to give on a general basis.

As for the 'arguing with' I actually noted to Gany and Ark both already that this is already, very obviously, a troll and what my personal recommendation is.

Oh, I think sunnyj is the guy who said the sjw thing, or maybe the c-word in the other thread. That's why I brought them up. I absolutely may have been misremembering.

Also, I'm not a puppet or anything. Just a lurker who realizes once again why this site's many iterations are just the same 20 conversations on repeat for the past 15 years. My mistake for having a calm and rational discussion in the constructive forum.

[Insomnia]

@deadculture Cool, I had to ask, because I'm still all 'roided up a bit, and a bit touchy, because possible perceived peeve. Have a cookie.

Because now that I know that gif exists, I had to find a way to use it at least once!