Something Completely Different
-
@derp said in Something Completely Different:
The reason for the change wasn't that people were too mean. The reason for the change was that it usually devolved into just browbeating and name calling and shouting people down via sheer pressure of numbers.
I don't know if my standards are just way too lax compared to yours or what, but I genuinely can't recall an instance of this happening, let alone usually happening. Can you please provide an example?
-
@greenflashlight I can provide one.
The argument over wanting evidence to ban someone on a game, even minimal evidence. There were a great number of those that were banned who were arguing that no evidence was needed, believe victims wholesale just because they said it.
Derp came down on the side of "Uh...that's not ok." (So did I, so did a number of people who I'll not name out of courtesy.)
Derp was the only one who was told what a terrible, misogynistic, evil rape apologist he was for wanting basic facts. But a HUGE percentage of people who were arguing it did it. What is that but brow-beating, name calling, and bullying?
No one called me a rape apologist for saying believe-but-verify. Why is that, do you think?
-
The hog pit was literally the dog's house on fire meme. "This is fine". Most toxic place anywhere.
And it wasn't like "okay well don't read it." That toxic banter would get into Discord groups, OOC game messages, etc. The shit would start here and then spread far and wide. It was inescapable.
And it wasn't like you could just "not read it." They'd trash talk people not even on the forum. Someone would log into a game and wonder why people were all of a sudden bailing on their plots, or they were suddenly receiving all these messages or pages or mail or whatever.
There'd be some IC notification about something, then people would flock here to just rip it to shreds without any actual input from the people it affected in the game.
Literally just be talking shit to talk shit and about things they aren't even involved in or a part of.
On Arx, things said in the Hogpit would weave their way into the IC journals under the guise of "that's what my character thinks."
Then people would come and be like "oh my mental health!' while they were actively participating in that cesspool of filthy trash talk. lol - so also no wins for self-awareness in that region of the forum.
If you want to call out bad OOC behavior - like stalkerish shit - and you have receipts - fine. But that's not what the hog pit was by a long shot.
-
@reimesu said in Something Completely Different:
No one called me a rape apologist for saying believe-but-verify. Why is that, do you think?
I am not certain I can answer that while remaining within the boundaries of the current code of conduct. I probably shouldn't be guessing at other people's motivations anyway, but in the most general and hopefully acceptable terms, I would guess the difference is your track record on that and similar topics compared to Derp's.
-
@greenflashlight The number of times, including a recent discussion, that I watched someone say one set of words (we'll call that Set A) and have a whole crop of folks just kinda decide that those words were actually some other thing entirely (we'll call that Set B) and then go off to argue and yell about Set B is staggering.
It happens even when someone tries to break down the original statement line by line and bring the discussion back to Set A. I don't know about 4 years ago or 5 years ago or 15 years ago, but I've sure watched it happen for about 3 or so now. It's why I used to lurk instead of speak up.
And then the dogpile begins. And folks seem to reckon that if they just say real real loudly that someone is (Fill In The Blank) and That is What They Are...and What They Are is something that it is socially acceptable to punch awhile...misogynist...rape apologist...pick your name (as I point out that name calling is still name calling is still name calling) well then heck, we can just say anything we want about that person now, right? It's totally okay, we've stuck them in a little box or category based solely on opinions that they've voiced. And while we do that we can wave the threat around...be careful! You could be the next one to be called this thing and if that's the case we can treat you however and everyone will be afraid to speak up lest they get tainted with the same brush!
Over. Opinions. And in my opinion, that isn't right.
Especially as it would be more productive to engage with the opinion. A person is not a label because they hold a wrongheaded view. They're a person with a view. Views can change. Maybe you're too tired to engage your family with that over the Thanksgiving table (god knows I am) but it's a forum. A place to discuss opinions. And engage with opinions. The original actual opinion would be a bonus.
-
@devrex said in Something Completely Different:
Over. Opinions. And in my opinion, that isn't right.
Especially as it would be more productive to engage with the opinion. A person is not a label because they hold a wrongheaded view. They're a person with a view. Views can change. Maybe you're too tired to engage your family with that over the Thanksgiving table (god knows I am) but it's a forum. A place to discuss opinions. And engage with opinions. The original actual opinion would be a bonus.
An opinion is not a sacrosanct thing.
It is, as you said, something that can -- and often should -- change. Hiding behind them as a defense is always something I saw as particularly cowardly and intellectually dishonest. People should absolutely be put on blast if their opinion is bad, and the opinion should be tackled and argued.
-
@selira Put on blast if their opinion is bad? What do you mean by that? I already said that the opinion should be engaged with. When is someone "hiding behind the opinion as a defense?" A defense for what, exactly?
He/Him
-
@devrex I don't know, I see a lot of people right now claiming people were bullying when they were pushing back on someone's stated opinions and the arguments that they were making with those opinions.
If someone has misogynist opinions, they're a misogynist.
If someone's opinions involve a lot of rape apologia, they're a rape apologist.
This is how words work. What we say is very much a thing we're actively choosing to do. It's not "sticking someone in a box," it's calling a duck a duck.
-
I just hope no one pastes a dictionary definition for 'opinion' or 'hide' to make their point at this stage.
-
@selira Well see that comes back to the Set A, Set B problem, cause what got pushed back on was Set B. And I definitely have an objection to that, because people aren't putting people "on blast" based on their actual opinion, but the fabricated, manufactured opinion.
Here's how I see this going down. Over and over and over again. This is an example, not a point at a specific discussion.
Set A: "Unless you espouse anarchy, some level of state control is required to keep people from harming one another. It's mostly just a matter of ensuring that systems exist to hold people accountable, that they're in use, and that they're effective."
The community made up Set B: "Dev said FASCISM was GOOD. Dev's a FASCIST."
Now we're going to go on for three pages arguing about how fascism is bad. Of course Set A never said fascism was good, Set A's poster...myself, I guess, in this example, believes it's terrible, but the damage is done. Now I've been painted as a fascist and now for the next 7 years any time I say anything it's gonna be all like, "Shut up you fascist." At least, that's the pattern I've watched play out. It's happened to more than one person here.
And honestly if I were a fascist it wouldn't do a dadgum thing to change me into an anti-fascist. All it does is make the shouting parties feel real good about calling out someone they've identified as "The Bad Guy" and as a bonus, identified who it's safe to treat badly ad infinitum.
-
@devrex Oh no, people are being treated as if the opinions that they voice consistently might be indicative of who they are as a person!
I can't think of many cases where a misinterpretation of someone's opinion was what got argued as, except, actually, maybe to myself? But you know who came and defended me, and pointed out a lot of people were misreading what I'd written? Many people whom others would call part of the 'clique'. The irony here is that you're doing exactly what you're arguing against, classifying people by a misunderstanding of who they are and what they've done.
The people who've recently had massive blow ups at them all deserved the pushback they got. They stated bad opinions or did very shitty things. It's not a shock that a lot of those people are giving you likes right now.
But, maybe, I'm reading things wrong. Maybe there really is a consistent pattern of people being inappropriately labeled and their arguments twisted, but you know, maybe make your arguments better to make it explicitly clear what your point actually is. Maybe when people call you an asshole, instead of going "NUH uHHHH SHUT UP" you take a step back and reevaluate what the hell it is you're writing and how you're coming off.
-
@selira Am I? Have I called anyone a name? Show me where I've said someone is a bad guy. Show me where I have even said the word clique until this very moment. I'll wait, because I know I never have. That's not how I engage with this place. And what's funny is you're putting up another Set B, because "Nuh uhh shut up" is not what anyone you're trying to call out has ever done that I've seen. I haven't even really seen that out of people who personally I disagree with on the regular. So again, we're back to "let's use hyperbole to change the narrative so we can villainize some folks" and that is, I'm afraid, a bad faith tactic.
Saying I'm doing something really really passionately does not make it something that I am doing. And if the only time you can ever think of that anyone has ever misinterpreted opinions is when it's yours that's...well that's a blind spot. It suggests that you're the only one who has ever been misunderstood. I think that sounds a little suspect. Everyone has been misunderstood at some point in their lives. That's the human experience.
-
@devrex Oh, I've definitely seen plenty of people whose arguments collapsed down into "NUH UHHHH SHUT UP."
A great example just preceded the politics forum and Hog Pit being shut down!
I'll be frank, I think 'name calling' is a bad accusation, because it's people describing a behavior. It also wasn't ever against the rules in the Hog Pit to use saltier language.
But here's a great example where, yeah, I needed to step back and look at what I was writing -- I was using a general 'you' and didn't make that clear, and it looked like I was accusing you of things I don't think apply to you directly. I think you often argue in bad faith and have a real problem seeing your own biases while accusing other people of doing just that, but I don't think you use toxic language.
Probably is a blind spot. Happy to admit that. Still looking for cases where all this supposed bullying happened.
-
@selira I'm not sure what constitutes arguing in bad faith, but of course I have my own blind spots and biases. That said, I do try hard to engage with the actual words that are being actually said. I also try not to make accusations per se, but I do see behaviors happen and I disagree with those behaviors. It sounds like you're trying to push me into shutting up by attacking my character (i.e., you argue in bad faith). Is that what you're trying to do?
And you just used the word "asshole" and defended calling people an asshole as a good thing. Is that what you meant to do? Do you mean to say that if someone yells a name loudly enough the person who gets called a name is automatically wrong and the name callers are automatically correct? Because that would be disturbing. If I suddenly shouted a name at you right now would you then step back and evaluate how you were coming across or would you want to defend yourself?
-
@selira I already provided an example. Another one is where everyone was telling Derp how awful he was for suggesting that we have a political conversation in the Politics board instead of an emotional one. That was straight up bullying, that wasn't about his actual opinion on a political event, that was just "you're so mean, shut up."
-
Okay...
Can I point out the irony here, or am I the only one that sees it as irony?
Of the banned, You are saying a lot about their behaviors on a forum they are banned from. So in effect, you (general you) are talking behind their backs too. You are just doing it here instead of Discord.
Can we move on from what people did that can't defend themselves? Isn't that a dogpile as well?
I'm not involved in the whole debate that started. I did state my opinion. I did ask questions. That's all I can be responsible for is myself. I'm just sort of waiting and watching at present. I don't hold any in ill will on either side of this discussion.
Edit: I cannot spell a word correctly to save my life right now. So to the edit button.
-
@rightmeow For my part, I am only speaking to folks who are still here and who are still beating certain drums, and speaking to behaviors which I continue to see happening to some degree. I can see how it might be read as piling on to those other folks, and for that I certainly apologize.
-
@reimesu Derp absolutely is one of the people who deserved the pushback he got. He was being an asshole, and got called on it, and proceeded to flip a shit. We've all seen where that led.
@Devrex I'm not trying to silence you. Keep talking. I'm disagreeing with you. Disagreement is not silencing, and maybe that's a key point of fundamental difference? I'm saying I don't think you argue in good faith because here you are claiming you hate seeing words being twisted while actively twisting my words into things I never said or even remotely implied. Like trying to say that I'm silencing you.
And yes, I think calling someone being an asshole one is a good thing. I'm also an asshole. I'm not saying volume makes someone right or wrong, but maybe if a bunch of people are calling you an asshole, you're being an asshole and should evaluate whether that's what you want to be at the moment.
(It is, for me, right now.)
-
@rightmeow said in Something Completely Different:
Of the banned, You are saying a lot about their behaviors on a forum they are banned from. So in effect, you (general you) are talking behind their backs too.
Not weighing in on the substance of the above arguments, but just wanted to point out, in case there was some kind of misconception -- they can still see this. Every part of the forum is now visible, even to guests and those not logged in, save for the Admin sections. They can see this just fine. They just can't post here about it.
So I'm not sure that this qualifies as 'behind someone's back' in the same way that the Hog Pit used to be, where you couldn't even see it unless you knew exactly where to look and the magic steps involved to be able to see it in the first place.
-
@rightmeow How is it a dogpile to give an example when asked for one? I genuinely don't understand that. Plus, quite a number of people who were dogpiling weren't banned. They may have left, but that was their decision.
I'm not naming names, I'm giving examples. That were requested.
Also, @Selira, on the Current Events thread, Derp said nothing I wasn't thinking. If one is going to be emotive on a debate thread and then be upset that it's debated, shouldn't one have taken one's emotions to the emotion thread entitled RL Sads, where the appropriate response is the validation one is looking for?
