I am always going to feel isolated and separate from the rest of the world. I am always going to feel like a lesser kind of person, not by the reality I live but by the decree of people who have more power than I have. That's just how it is.

But sometimes, people will remind me that though I don't know how to reach out to them, let alone how to connect to them the way they seem to do so easily to each other, we have shared experiences that we can come together over and support each other through and try to lift one another out of. It's terrible that shared pain is what makes it happen, but something beautiful can come out of it, and for just a moment I can almost perceive the connections we all have but that I'm otherwise blind to; and that perception feels like being embraced by strangers who are trying their best to help me. It takes my breath away in the best possible way, and if it also does bad things to my blood pressure, that's fine. You gotta pay the cost to ride the rides.

I'm saying the MU thing I love is all of you. If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry about it. You're sincerely better off for having missed it. I'm gonna take a little break now until I get my breath back, and watch cartoons about princesses who want to be friends even if it's dangerous to be.

@bear_necessities said in Covid-19 Gallows Humor:

@GreenFlashlight why fuck landlords?

I oppose the idea that anyone's income must go to someone who provides me something you will die without, something literally forming the foundation of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I think it is outright criminal that there are more empty houses in America than there are homeless people (and this might be true worldwide as well; I forget), because it means that the body count of every person in this country who has ever died of exposure is less horrific to landlords than the idea of people not paying them for the privilege of not dying. Every person who dies homeless was murdered by the people who put profit over the sanctity of human life.

Less pressingly but just as infuriatingly, I do not believe landlords actually provide a good or service in return for the rent they are paid, because the costs of business are funded one hundred percent by the rent tenants pay, which means the only thing a landlord does to earn a check is come unclog your sink as part of you paying I'm guessing a thousand bucks a month, or maybe picks up a phone to call someone else to fix your problem and act as a middleman who for some reason deserves half your income in perpetuity.

What exactly is the alternative?

Guaranteed housing. Just give people houses. I know that's hard to imagine under capitalism, but seriously, the only thing stopping us from letting people live in houses is the fact that we want our fellows to die if they don't make enough money to please our overlords. There is literally nothing in the world stopping us from giving every living human the relative comfort and dignity of a home except for the murderous greed that tells us our landlords should have the power of life and death over us unless we tithe to their coffers.

You ask what the alternative is to letting millions of people die of exposure every year, and my mouth drops open a little bit because I can't for my life imagine why you think that is an unavoidable outcome rather than one cultivated by greedy fuckwits who think that owning land is more important than human life.

EDIT: I just noticed the above complaint, and begrudgingly agree that this is not the thread to discuss landlords. I don't know how to spoiler tag this post, so I will leave it here as my answer, but I will not reply further in this thread to questions about my stance on landlords.

On a more general note, I'm very heartened to see so many discussions of harassment in this hobby being had openly. I'm glad the community is in a place where these conversations no longer get victims labeled as psycho bitches making trouble for men.

That's not to distract from the fact that we still need to have these conversations at all (not to mention direct action to stop these conversations from being necessary), but still, seeing this makes me feel happy in a fragile kind of way.

Arousal darkened her skin to the warm rosy color of a well-smoked salmon patty. The sight of her made him ache with lust, as if to sprinkle her with salt and a twist of lime juice. He laid her on the sheets as gently as if he were laying her on a bed of rice. The lubricated marital aids lying beside her, waiting for their turns to be used, reminded him of spears of buttered asparagus. He looked down at her and lowered his mouth to her lips as he would to bite into a cheesy garlic biscuit. He missed the Red Lobster in town that had closed earlier this year.

Hit Points. I just can't stop thinking about how weird it is that if you stab a lot of people to death, then you will require more stabbings to be killed than someone who has stabbed fewer people than you.

@arkandel said in Sensitivity in gaming:

In your opinion how much effort should game runners (be that for a D&D game or a MUSH) be reasonably expected to put into not offending players? Or if that same question is flipped around, when are a player's demands to not be triggered crossing a line?

I don't know anyone who wants to not be offended. The people I know want to not be hurt. They want to not have their unhealed wounds torn open by people who don't understand or respect how much trauma hurts to live with. I don't think that's unfair to ask for. I know sometimes people will cross the line because of poor communication, and sometimes even that is enough to destroy the bonds of trust in a person, but in most cases, a heartfelt apology from the person who hurt you is enough to solve it.

I am hard-pressed to think of a single circumstance in which one person can say, "Please don't hurt me," and a second can reply, "That places an undue burden on my ability to play make-believe," without that second person deeply sucking as a human being.

If there are genuinely people out there who just want to not be offended, then fine, I guess they're snowflakes or whatever; but I am not prepared to accept their existence on the word of a YouTuber who, at roughly 2:30 into his video, gets angry that there exists a forum site which does not allow people to post Qanon conspiracy theories on their site.

@nyctophiliac said in Buying Shit:

I keep hearing the "women's pants don't have pockets" argument and I have to ask myself - where the heck yall shopping? Is this an American thing I missed? Do I just not buy the right type of pants?

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but in America, women's pants pockets are generally too small and tight to fit your hands into, let alone a phone or your car keys or whatever, because women's pants prioritize displaying the shape of our hips and thighs over being useful as clothing objects.

@saosmash said in Something Completely Different:

I think you need to look into the definition of your terms. For example, dictionary citations:

Bully (verb form): "seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable)."

You can't bully someone who is in authority over you.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it has slightly changed my stance on the matter by reminding me of a principle I am trying to live by despite it not coming naturally to me: that understanding isn't achieved by relying on dictionary definitions, but rather by trying to empathize with what motivates the other person to say something at all.

Is it possible to bully someone who has absolute, incontestable authority over you? I don't think it is.

Is it possible for someone who has absolute, incontestable authority over you to feel bullied by you because what you have said or done hurts them regardless of their absolute, incontestable authority over you? Yes. And in that case, I don't think quibbling over definitions is more helpful than addressing the feeling of hurt that exist on both sides.

But that's the whole problem here, isn't it? I've no idea how any of our overlords are currently feeling because they won't talk about it, so any emotion I assign to them is pure projection. Likewise, I can't talk to them about my feelings because I can't trust that if I do, it won't be declared a violation of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. I am more than half convinced that this is my final post on this forum because it will provoke the mods to feel defensive, which they will decide means my intent is to attack and is therefore a bannable offense. Is that assumption empathy on my part or projection? Hell if I know.

I don't know. I thought I had a point when I started writing this post, maybe something about how it would be really helpful if everyone could set aside their defensiveness to just talk to one another like people who actually want the best outcome, but like Prototart said, I'm not sure that matters any more. The most community participation in this site in the last week is people announcing they will no longer be participating in the community, and I can't even tell if pointing that out is a violation of the code of conduct because the code has been clarified until clarity is impossible.

So maybe this is the post I get banned for. If so, I'm not sure there's much left for me to mourn. I'll always be grateful to this site and this community for the support I found when I needed it most, and I'll regret everyone I hurt with my careless anger, but it doesn't seem like anyone I need to thank or apologize to is around to hear it anyway.

That's not a bad attempt to salvage a point from a pointless ramble, I guess. Yeah, I can be satisfied if it ends there.

@Sunny I get the feeling this thread will get moved to the Hog Pit if I say what I think about someone who gets a pass on advocating for beating women because he once did a good job pretending to be a spy who drives cool cars, so let me just say I don't think you're being sensitive.

@insomniac7809 said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

"Nobody wants to work anymore," I keep hearing.

Motherfuckers of course nobody wants to work, that's what work is.

I think people want to work. We just want our work to be fulfilling and humane; and our overlords frown on that because then we start getting uppity ideas about being people instead of numbers on spreadsheets.

@Lithium I am not on the game you were on. I'm in a Discord server with some friends who are on the game you were on. I have no direct experience of you, and no right to speak for anyone who spoke to me in confidence, so I cannot provide you the specific list of verifiable or falsifiable allegations I'm sure you want. And, for the record, I absolutely get you wanting specific allegations. As someone who once lost a job over accusations of things I am quite sure I did not do, I am still haunted years later wondering what specifically anyone thinks I did. It drives me crazy as I wonder if I somehow did the things I was accused of but was too delusional to know I was doing them, or if someone had a reason to tell lies about me.

But I can say that despite not being on that game and not knowing who you are, I know four people who have told me directly that they felt very uncomfortable around your characters and would avoid scenes you were in. I do not say this to indicate you're guilty of anything--I don't even know what specific metaphorical charges have been leveled against you--but because if someone like me can hear about it from so many people, it may indicate something about the way you approach people needs reflection and adjustment.

If I could be more helpful to you, I would. This is as constructive as circumstances allow me to be. If you wish to hear from someone who does have knowledge of you and went out of their way to avoid you, then perhaps a more contrite tone with a focus on repairing relationships over defending your reputation would convince them to reach out to you, or perhaps not. In either event, it seems you must rely on the charity of those who were present.

@Derp said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

@GreenFlashlight

I disagree.

Great, cool, thanks for clarifying that. I hadn't been sure if we were actually in complete agreement but just engaging in a series of typos that made it look like we disagree with one another's positions.

@Derp said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

And yet it's strange how almost every society in the world has structured its systems of justice around the premise that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, which requires, you know -- proof.

First, I disagree that we are talking about systems of justice. We are talking about systems of punishment, which is not the same thing. Healing is justice. If you think I am advocating for silently and instantly kicking people off games the first time someone pages staff, then you do not understand me at all, nor my stance on how to effectively deal with victims. I went into it years ago and will not bother repeating it because I could not convince people then to stop viewing this as a matter of authority figures needing to "solve" problems with punitive dominance displays that focus on the abuser over the abused, and nothing has changed since then to make the audience any more receptive.

Second, refusing to believe a victim is itself an accusation that the victim is a perjurer who must prove herself innocent of the crime. It is not and cannot be a neutral position, because neutrality is impossible in the case of accusations. You must choose which party you default to believing is innocent of an offense, and you have. I will never change your mind, and cannot ever affect your ability to implement whatever policy you want, so I'm not sure why you bother arguing with me at all.

@Derp said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

Nobody is saying that those who report bad behavior are by default bad actors. The debate is where the standards of proof lie for those accusations, and at what point it is appropriate to take action based on that.

Beginning from the assumption that a victim's story must be litigated is indistinguishable from beginning from the assumption that victims are liars until proven innocent. I acknowledge that there is no perfect solution in a situation in which it is impossible to be neutral, but that does not stop me from being deeply disappointed at the direction the advocacy in this argument is leaning toward. A lot of us* have been through the results of the proposed policies several times in our lives, and if you ever wonder what has made some of us so bitter, angry, and distrustful of authority figures who claim to have an interest in fairness and justice, the outcomes of those policies are why.

*well, I guess not really "us" any more, since most of "us" are no longer welcome on this board

@simplications said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

The prevailing vibe I've gotten from the responses in this thread has felt like "Protecting the community from known bad actors is so important that we must maintain a stance that accepts public judgment of individuals, and any collateral damage done to actual innocents is acceptable."

That is the vibe literally everyone is getting. We are only disagreeing about who are the default bad actors: the reporters, or the reported.

When I think of this forum, in its current incarnation more than its previous one but even so, I think of the Room. Have you ever seen that movie? It's a movie about literally the best human being in the world who has never done anything wrong in his life, whose girlfriend cheats on him, emotionally blackmails him into falling off the wagon, lies about him physically abusing her, and tricks him into thinking she's pregnant just because she finds it amusing to hurt him that way. She has literally no reason to do any of these things, as the supporting cast of the movie repeatedly says to her and to the audience, but just does them anyway because she is a woman and women are evil.

The movie isn't very complimentary to men either, since the author-insert main character literally never gives any reason this sociopath is worth "loving" except that she's beautiful and sexually available to him. It never displays any qualities she might have that are worth treasuring or would make her a good life partner, and never has the author-insert main character compliment anything about her other than how she looks good while he's thrusting atop her. Neither the author nor the main character show any signs of seeing her as a full human being who has an existence separate from what he wants of her. If she's hurting him, then it must be because she's an evil bitch who just likes hurting men for fun, because he can only perceive her in terms of how he is affected by her. And of course the movie takes for granted that the author-insert main character is blameless in all things because how could there possibly be two sides to this story about a break-up? That's obviously ridiculous. The only side to the story, which she even admits to her mother and friends, is that he's perfect, she's an evil slut, and his only fault was loving her too much to admit she's an evil slut and kick her to the curb where evil sluts belong.

And it's not just the evil sociopath slut who's out to get the author-insert main character. His friends and employers all betray him in various ways too, some of them more nonsensical than others because it's a badly written movie, but the general thrust here is that nothing the author-insert main character did provoked the behavior he received. They were all just jealous of him for how perfect and moral he is, and decided to tear him down because they have evil hearts that love doing evil, like Saturday morning cartoon villains.

Anyway, you should probably ignore me. I'm just here to back up Kestrel's post because as a part of her clique of witch hunters, it's important to me to try to turn this board into an echo chamber where only the thoughts approved by our collective are permitted to be expressed.

@lotherio said in Something Completely Different:

It was a 'hey can we stop this until I talk with another admin to get a handle' and then it kept going, and going, and was still going even this week.

To people who perceive it as an injustice, "Hey guys please allow this injustice to carry on until I can consult with someone who actually matters (unlike you) about whether this actually is unjust" isn't a super reasonable request.

I would argue that if there is a silent majority, then its will is to be silent, not to effect change; so their stance isn't really relevant to issues the vocal majority weighs in on.

@devrex said in Something Completely Different:

Certainly the most recent dust up shared that problem. I wildly disagree that there was anything in the Set A words that was misogynist.

I'm not sure which "recent dust up" we're talking about here, so I can't say for sure. I can only say that if a whole bunch of people disagree with you, it may be useful to ask yourself why they think that and what experiences they've had that might inform those perceptions.

I will also say this as a challenge to you: it takes an extraordinary person to reflect on their own behavior. The very act of arguing for a position entrenches a person in that position regardless of right or wrong, because the act of publicly arguing ties your pride into needing to believe you're right.

I am asking myself if it is impossible that my perception of whichever person we're gesturing at is wrong (admittedly I won't find an answer to that question since I'm not sure whom we're talking about, but I am asking). I hope you will ask yourself if it is impossible that the people calling that person a misogynist might not all be wrong.

@devrex said in Something Completely Different:

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?

If I understand you correctly, you are asking for empathy; for people to understand that their opponent has an identity outside of whatever flanderized sin they are accused of. My post will proceed from that assumption. If I'm wrong, you can save yourself some time by skipping this reply and correcting me about your actual point here.

I agree that empathy is a good thing. I hope I've been demonstrating the last couple of days that I'm a proponent of it and would like to see more of it around here. I think that everyone on either side of a monitor is a real person with real feelings that deserve to be treated with kindness, no matter how antisocial their behaviors are. Even if someone is hurt by another's behavior, it is useful to remember that the hurter is more than just a hurter.

But that goes both ways. Just as whichever person we're vaguely gesturing in the direction of is hurt by me calling them a misogynist, I too am hurt by the misogyny they displayed that led me to call them that name. It is a mistake to think that I called them that name because I wanted to inspire a mob to do internet violence to them; I called them that because just as the misogynist deserves kindness, so too do I, and I want them to understand that their stated opinions do harm to me and people like me.*

And so does everyone else who feels either directly or collaterally harmed by the opinions expressed, whether because they're part of the group targeted or because seeing someone else get targeted inspires a sympathetic outrage.

So if we agree that it is good to listen when someone says they are being harmed by another person's internet behavior, I hope we can agree that principle goes both ways. Our hypothetical misogynist does not get to demand that I stop, self-reflect, and alter my speech to better suit their feelings without agreeing to abide by the same restrictions. If he won't do that, then I hope I will have the strength of character to cling to my principles of kindness, but he has no room to complain if my anger causes me to slip and hold myself to the same lower standard he grants himself.

*Never mind that I don't think I've ever called anyone a misogynist. We'll assume that I did for the premise of this discussion.