A'ight. I'll start this off with a disclaimer: I adore you to little tiny pieces, and outside this exact conversation there's no animosity between us until the next time I say something stupid.
But.
The wrongness I 'accuse' you of, if accuse is the correct term, is that you have expressed admiration for the show - right or wrong - without caveat. Not that you like the show, that you like the show without an advisory.
In this instance, I would argue that your advocacy for the program counts as advertising for it, or at least promoting it. And we have both agreed that the show requires at least a modicum of 'trigger warning'.
Further, your assumption that everyone has consumed, or will consume, the show the same way you did - Be it with warnings on US Netflix or otherwise - is dangerous given the confrontational nature of the events depicted.
Supporting or advocating such a show without a caveat is irresponsible.
That two families in California allege that Thirteen Reasons Why prompted two young women to commit suicide [1] and a man from Peru [2] and a teen from Alabama [3] sees to me to indicate that this show needs as many warnings and caveats as we can reasonably supply.
This may well be a place for adults. But this is also a place for adults with any number of not-quite-typical mental states, and your blatant "this show is amazing" attitude is goddamn harmful.
He/Him
@surreality said in RL Anger:
@ganymede Not getting the reference there.
You may be forgetting where this all is. You argued with him earlier, it stopper, but in this post he was responding to me.
If you argue with someone, they're going to reply. You can't restart the argument and then get mad at the other person for the argument.
He disagrees with you. If you want it to be left at that, don't pick the argument back up and harp on it. You have a very strong "how dare you not like what I like" tone coming across in your posts, which is wildly unfair. He's made a number of very valid points, but you're focusing on the "I like this show so everyone else should, too!"
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
Supporting or advocating such a show without a caveat is irresponsible.
I haven't read anything that would suggest that Surreality said anything more than "I like this show."
I really haven't.
How does this qualify as advocacy?
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@ganymede Last I checked advocacy was 'public support or recommendation for' something, no? Saying "I like this thing" is advocacy, it is support.
@auspice My post was simply 'we'll just have to disagree about the terrible'. Totally peaceable. And I was told I was in the wrong for having a different opinion than him.
I don't care if he loves or hates it. He can have any opinion he wants; that's what 'we'll just have to disagree' means. I have not told him he is wrong for having his opinion. He has explicitly done so to me.
At which point I went to Netflix to watch the end of Thor.
When I came back, specifics were being discussed. Presenting different perspectives is not the same as telling someone they're bad, wrong, or anything of the kind. It's presenting a different perspective that also exists. Nowhere am I claiming his perspective and experience is invalid.
It's just not the only perspective or experience. Nowhere have I claimed mine is the only one, either. At all.
In my view, yes, it was excellent. And a very hard thing to watch at the same time.
@surreality said in RL Anger:
@arkandel It is still impressively well done. It's not an easy watch, even for an adult, but it is incredibly well done. For a lot of us who grew up before the age of cyberbullying, it's certainly an eye-opener. It isn't just teens doing this, too; it's interesting to see how many of the issues we have in the hobby are reflected in that series in some form or another.
^ That. I am not telling everyone and their grandmother to go watch this right now, or that it's the best thing since sliced bread, and everyone should run off and go watch it right now.
I also had no damned idea that none of it had any disclaimers at all in Australia -- how in the blazes am I supposed to know that? I know the US version for S2 has them for all episodes, and S1 has them for select episodes. I am not in Australia to know what Australian marketing and content labeling consist of, or that they didn't have the information we do in the US.
Nor do I object, anywhere, to the idea that it should be labeled. It should.
The examples used, however, of meth overdoses on Will & Grace or someone being shot dead in the middle of a sports game were absurd on their face and a perversion of the point being made, so, yes, I'm going to argue those as being absurd on their face.
@Ganymede Note the big bold italic caveat, if you like. It's right there in the quote.
Oh fucking well.
@surreality Then we shall agree to simply disagree.
With caveats.
Just for future reference, my two cents:
@surreality said in RL Anger:
@auspice My post was simply 'we'll just have to disagree about the terrible'. Totally peaceable. And I was told I was in the wrong for having a different opinion than him.
I wanted to reinforce this point by pointing out this interaction:
@surreality My concern is that you stated, initially, that the show was awesome and that anyone who disagrees (me) can go fuck themselves.
She told you to go fuck yourself when you responded to her observation that you were going to disagree on the issue with "Yeah we will, because you're wrong."
Not a super cool way to begin this discussion, dude. It immediately puts someone on the defensive and comes off really dismissive, if anyone is wondering why this became so heated very quickly it probably is because you came in swinging.
Not that I think an immediate "fuck you" was the right response either. Maybe a little more tact from all comers would have been more appropriate for a sensitive topic.
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\
@wizz Given that my opening salvo, in that regard, was 'they disregarded advice from professional mental health persons', I would argue that countering with "Oh we'll just have to disagree" is disingenuous.
He/Him
@tinuviel
Maybe? I didn't read it that way, especially since it's a pretty divisive show. But I think we can agree it was not rude.
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\
@wizz I never described anyone involved in this conversation as rude.
He/Him
I think we're working on chill, y'all, and we don't hate each other or anything -- let's try to let this simmer down?
Oh fucking well.
@surreality I hate plenty, thank you.
@tinuviel
I'm not saying you did, I am saying it was rude of you to begin that way and you might have had an easier time making your case -- that trigger warnings should be mandatory for content like this, which I am 100% on board with -- if both of your tones had stayed a little more respectful from the beginning. Just my personal take on this, since not all parties seem to be OK with how this went down.
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\
I would take the “think of the children” comment much better if the NRA hasn’t used it excessively itself.
I think we need a ban on that statement. I mean shit, look at the children all marching for a safer world and all, “think about the children.” And Millenials, all complaining that they can’t afford things in the current economy, wanting an education, wanting us to think about them, like they’re the future or some shit.
They’re all, “we want clean air for the children” and “we want a stable climate for the children.” They can pay for it if they’re so keen; I’ll be dead by then so stop whining and trying to make me care.
No, I’m not falling for it, you spoiled brats.
@wizz Except that both parties are adults, both parties are actually friends - in as much as either one allows themselves to be so on the internets - and we just simply disagree.
Huuush.
He/Him
@tinuviel
Well...that's even more reason to be nice? 
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\
@wizz Hardly. If one cannot be argumentative with one's friends then how would one act when a true cause for concern arises?
He/Him
@tinuviel
I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't disagree with your friends. You can and should. But how you go about stating that you disagree with them matters and will directly affect how they respond to you, and that should concern you if you are trying to communicate something serious.
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\
@wizz Such things also depend upon the friends.
He/Him
I just want to mention briefly how boring you guys are right now. If you’re going to put on a show, at least wear sequined tights.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@tinuviel
I'm not saying you did, I am saying it was rude of you to begin that way and you might have had an easier time making your case -- that trigger warnings should be mandatory for content like this, which I am 100% on board with -- if both of your tones had stayed a little more respectful from the beginning. Just my personal take on this, since not all parties seem to be OK with how this went down.
