Posts made by insomniac7809

"Who can relate? woo!"

No, Logic. Not woo. This is not a topic for woo. A woo is inappropriate in this context.

Oh, hey, are we talking about song hate?

There are five Shawn Mendes songs on the mall playlist.

FIVE

@Ganymede said in Tyche Banned:

image snipped

I, um.

I get that you picked the image because it's talking about the slippery slope, but... I can't help feeling like a speech about "genocide starts by joking about it to normalize it" isn't entirely in line with using it as a reason to let an alt-righty poster alt-right up the forum.

@faraday There is also a thing that...

Well. Just now, I wanted to post a dumb thing about Arx.

It's not mean. It's not shit-flinging. It's not anything that needs to be in the HogPit. But that's where the Arx megathread is so that's where I went.

@mietze Do what you need to as far as how strict or loose the rules are; I'm not disagreeing with @Kestrel but I'm not in charge here.

I'm saying that, as minimal as the rules are, Tyche kept breaking them and getting warnings, and his response to that was to do the same thing but maybe not quite breaking exactly what the rules were for a little while until he did, and then getting another warning that the warning after that would be even more strongly worded.

And I'm saying that someone who does that will always, always, always be a drain on any online community until they cross whatever line the moderators decide to set for flushing them.

@Kestrel said in Tyche Banned:

feeding and allowing him to oh-so slyly provocateur on this forum for so long to begin with.

You know, that's the thing.

I'm not talking shit about him on this thread because he and I argued a lot and, now that he's gone, I'm wallowing in schadenfreude and taking some cowardly potshots when he's not here to clap back at me.

(Okay, I'm not just doing that don't @ me)

It's been really clear for a really long time that Tyche was not engaging in good faith. I'm not saying this because we disagree on politics, I'm saying it because he kept breaking the rules, kept catching a warnings, and not once did he interpret these warnings as "I should engage with the other posters on this forum like a decent human being." At most, he tried to ask a couple questions to work out exactly where the line was for various-ist trolling so he could creep right back up to that line and start edging his toe at it.

Until he finally, finally overstepped it enough that he got shitcanned from the forum, about as unpredictably as the fucking sun rising in the fucking east.

Which was always the way this was going to go. If someone breaks a rule, catches a warning, and shapes up, then hey, we have a good forum citizen, slaughter the fatted calf. If someone instead shifts the exact same pattern of behavior but not-technically-quite breaking the rules as they understand them, they will keep catching warnings until they finally get kicked out for good. The only question is how much they shit the place up until it reaches that point.

My $0.02 anyway.

@GreenFlashlight Once is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

@Ghost Right? It's not that he lied that bugs me, it's that he thinks his lie is remotely plausible and it's supposed to be on me to play dumb about the lie. In the interests of civility or whatever.

@Kodiak said in Tyche Banned:

But @Tyche kept telling us he wasn't a racist!

And that he'd never heard of any of the places he posted his alt-right poop from, and that it was just a weird coincidence that he kept linking to "news" sites that have "ISRAEL DID 9/11" on their home page, and that all his funny memes about what dumb bitches women are were just random jokes he felt like sharing.

Tyche should've been banned a year ago, but better late than never.

Oh wow.

@Tyche turned out to be an racist shitbrain.

Who could have seen that coming.

What an entirely unforseeable development.

@Ganymede I'm no kind of lawyer, and you are. But is it really the case that an employer is required to renew a contract (not terminate an existing one) if they don't care to? That sounds... exactly the opposite of how every contract job I've ever heard of has gone.

And a company can have a legitimate reason to fire someone for their personal conduct. Who remembers Jared?

@Auspice Again, I'm not condoning or advocating for the cowards who hide behind internet anonymity to threaten people en masse, or people who direct others to do so on their behalf.

But when the sweaty Charlottesville guy complains that his professional life took a hit when his screaming face was over the world in all its tiki-torch-and-polo glory, I find myself profoundly lacking in sympathy.

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

I do not support harassment, full stop. I believe what the Klan does is harassment. I do not believe that justifies promoting harassment of them in return. 'They do harm' does not justify harming people in the periphery of them, and it never will.

Taken to its conclusion, this sort of assertion prevents anyone from suffering any consequences for anything ever. No one is an island, after all; there is no such thing as a punishment that can avoid causing harm to the perpetrator's friends and loved ones.

@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:

@insomniac7809 I don't really follow your post. I have said several times that engaging in a public rally probably mitigates privacy protections to some degrees. I can nonetheless find that in some instances those consequences might be out of scale, believe that better legal frameworks might rein this in, and point out that it can have a suppressive effect on speech you support alongside speech you oppose.

You expressed incredulity at the idea that someone shouldn't be an activist unless they're willing to suffer consequences for it (potentially to their employment).

I responded that being willing to suffer consequences for tying their public identity to the ideological cause is a large part of what activism is, so yes, that's kind of how it works.

I'm also responding to your comment upthread, saying that
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Kestrel
In the United States (and even moreso in Europe, really), we do enshrine a certain right to privacy, particularly as in regards to political belief.

And I'm responding that someone who takes to the streets to publicly participate in a demonstration has very explicitly forgone any sort of right to privacy as in regards to the political belief in question.

@Derp said in Separating Art From Artist:

The Klan is taboo because we as a society have chosen for it to be. But it wasn't always.

Sure it was. That's why they hid their faces behind the stupid pointy ghost hoods.

That's why the worst thing that happened to them was a serial on the Superman radio show that leaked all their dumbfuck code names and secret handshakes.

Their big fear has always been exposure.

How, if at all, the above might apply to a creative work or public statement that someone has made, placed their name on in a position of prominence, and released to the world to be consumed and interpreted is left as an exercise for the reader.

@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:

@Kestrel
That argument easily reduces to 'don't become an activist if you're concerned about having a livelihood.' Is that really the stance you want to take? Like... do you not get that you're basically arguing for your own suppression? I don't get it. Most of these things (like the employment contract issue that you didn't respond on) are far more effective as tools of oppression than they are as tools of activism. Twitter shit just gives people a false sense of bravado.

You don't get to use the "my personal views are my own business" thing as regards someone who goes out on the street in public for the specific purpose of airing those views to literally everybody who can hear or see them.

The whole point of activism is to tie oneself to those views, loudly and publicly. That's almost literally the definition. Yes, that means accepting the consequences of that, because you cannot both make yourself a public advocate of a position and claim that the position should have no impact on your public life.

("Oh, but you'd be complaining if a gay rights advocate was fired because their company didn't want the association with gay rights advocacy, while you're fine if a white supremacy advocate gets the boot!" Well, yes, because even if we assume a spherical goat situation where all concepts must be considered to hold equal value, supporting gay rights is good and supporting white supremacy is bad. And I have the right to tell people that the company who fires people for supporting gay rights is bad and I won't buy shit from them/their advertisers, while the company that fires Nazis is good and I will buy shit from them and their advertisers.)

@surreality Is it, though?

I mean, when we get into actual doxxing or death threats, that shit is evil and the people doing it need to be in a fucking cell.

But the big "CANCELLED" YA author I was reading about... she took a lot of shit from twitter people who thought that having a racist character was endorsing racism. She decided to cancel herself, and then she un-cancelled herself, and she was able to b/c it turns out the publisher never actually gave an especially wet fart about the tweetstorm.

@surreality If someone who would have been my friend decides what I'd done wasn't something they'd look past, well, that's still my fault. I still did them.

(Of course, that's even far likely if my response to being called on my shitty behavior was "WHY ARE YOU SO SENSITIVE FUCK YOU" or even a mealy-mouthed "I'm very, very sorry if your oversensitive child-brain spontaneously took offense while I was doing something" apology, which would probably be a more direct analogue to most of the people burned by cancel culture.)

And just in general...

@surreality said in Separating Art From Artist:

Also, this is just... all people do good and bad things. That's how the world works. You don't only deserve recognition for the good things you do if you're without flaw, and you don't deserve to be exempt from the consequences of bad things if you have good qualities as well. This just seems utterly elementary to me.

I mean, how hard is 'reward the good acts, punish the bad acts'? (Massively simplified, obviously.)

"...but you fuck one goat..."

Look, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. People do grow, change, and develop, or they should. I do, or at least I try to.

I've hurt people, people I care about, doing short-sighted or selfish or mean things. I wouldn't do these things now, or at least I hope I wouldn't. I've lost people I cared about as a part of my life because I was a shit. And that sucks.

But that's my fault. I get to live with that, and try to not do that again, and not whine that I'm owed the lost friendships because I wouldn't do that sort of thing anymore. And that's what part of improving consists of.