Posts made by surreality

@scar Not taking requests today. Sorry not sorry, I guess.

@kk said in RL Anger:

@surreality

You put words in the posters mouth which were not typed. I was one of those posters.

I cited a specific quote. Not from you. Zero words in your mouth from me.

Look. I realize that there's a disturbing tendency today (in the sense of 'generally in the modern day, thx politics' and 'literally today') in reading things in terms of some sort of 'faction-based' mentality in which anybody who isn't 100% supporting every single thing said by 'a member of the team' is 'the enemy'. This is really, really dumb behavior and I wish people would knock it off.

Like, seriously. Earlier in the thread @Roz and I pointlessly argued a thing because calling something a 'lesser evil' was 'a defense', and that's just depressing, y'all. 'Not 100% agreement, just 80% agreement' is... not 'the opposite thing'. I grokked where the confusion came from, bolded some bits, and it didn't come up again, presumably because the original intent was more clear as not being a defense or major disagreement at all. That's fine and cool, and doubly cool it seemingly clarified quickly, but seriously. This faction-based approach. It's kinda bonkers from where I'm sitting. I mean I guess people figure me and @Ghost are Team B or something -- but we've had way more brutal arguments than this one got in other threads and we disagree plenty and have in this thread, too.

I responded after I woke up.

You appeared to get upset.

Your understanding with others was not an understanding with me.

And this became clear later. Like I said: foot in mouth. That? I was actually not kidding or trying to be snarky with 'just own it, realize it's a goof, realize nobody's going to care you made a goof, and ultimately you shouldn't, either.'

Seriously. Nobody will give a damn two minutes from now. Most people probably never cared to begin with. That's because goofs are fine.

Admitting you made one -- even with a d'oh! -- actually does win people a lot of credit around here. No, really. Again, not snarking. This is true. Anybody it isn't true of is a jackass not worth paying any goddamn mind to, if you ask me, at least.

Think of it this way: if @Ghost had realized 'd'oh, didn't mean to hit a specific nerve, my bad' the original argument would have ended pretty damn quick, right? ...exactly.

You jumped on me for talking about this topic on a thread that was already talking on it a few days ago. You expressed it partly bothers you because you past. I apologized.

Yeah, days ago.

Though it was not because of the past thing. While a lot of people bang on about this whole 'omg princess martyr' thing, my 'high value victimization' that someone saw fit to make snide comments about is not shit that happened on games, and it is not anything I would be seeking emotional support for on this forum. This forum is not the place for that, and as blurty as I am about random silly RL crap, those things are not anybody's business. Some shit's been referenced at times, for example 'as someone who has been raped, I appreciate games that have a policy that does not allow this to happen without full consent of all parties', and so on, and there was one much more detailed thing I actually was throwing at @Ghost myself a few months back. (I do not consider this to be attention-whoring around the forum for consolation or sympathy, YMMV, apparently a lot of other folks' does.)

I pointed out that you are still talking about it yourself.

Yeah, I am. But it is in a place for exactly this sort of thing.

I still think a thread for this topic as it emerges/arises on games is a very good idea. (For two reasons, actually: it stops it from spilling over into every other thread, and it keeps the references to the subject together -- which means it's easier to spot trends and commonalities, which helps us collectively identify what kind of incidents are going around and better discuss potential solutions to this core set of issues.)

You appeared to get upset.

You expressed upset because you believed I personally attacked you. You then personally attacked me while expressing that upset.

Yeah, I do take hypocrisy seriously. I do consider it a personal attack. Like @Ganymede and 'obtuse' -- there's a reason I apologized for that immediately and did (and still do) mean it, even though we were arguing at the time about other things as well.

I'm still not denying anything about throwing something back at you. You were within your rights to call me something, same's true of me. Life goes on for both of us.

I admit I am not social genius, but I am not understanding this at all.

...and I am on about no sleep and medication that makes me incredibly loopy and testy, and I am miles from my best lately. No insult here, just empathy on the whole 'are also human' front. We've all got our crap -- and, you know? That is ok, too. Nobody is obligated to be perfect, and fuck anybody who says mistakes aren't allowed or that people aren't allowed to have off days or that being grumpy or confused or sad or angry is verboten.

@kk Yes, I was still talking about it. This makes me a hypocrite how? That's right: it doesn't.

And, as I have stated four times now: that has been addressed and quoted. You were not the party quoted. Nobody said those words were in your text, mouth, or mind.

It has been addressed. Clearly. And discussed with maturity and a surprising level of understanding was reached -- all before you posted.

And, again: yep, I was going after you, after what I consider an insult. So?

If it's perfectly fine and dandy and I'm not supposed to be informed or shamed or remorseful in any manner, why even bring it up? As the old improv classic goes: "Yes, and... ?"

@kk You are absolutely right that I am slinging shit at you after your initial remark, which, yes, as I have repeatedly stated: I consider being called a hypocrite a personal attack.

And yes, actually... I do think you made a fool of yourself by not reading through the thread before you replied. You would have found the answer to your second question there, and seen people discuss it openly and with an eye toward mutual understanding of one another.

Basically, your eagerness to call me a hypocrite was apparently so strong -- for whatever reason, grudge or no grudge -- led to a case of foot-in-mouth.

Normally, I'd feel bad for somebody who did this, because nobody enjoys an 'egg on face' moment from this kind of goof (innocent or otherwise), but, really, the reason it happened in this case means I have no sympathy whatsoever.

I don't deny I went off on you. I don't have to. I'm as allowed to say I think you made a fool of yourself in your eagerness to call me a hypocrite as you are to make the claim in the first place. This isn't a case of me arguing that the rules are different for me than they are for you -- it's a case of me insisting I have the same right to sling shade at you. You don't have to like it.

...you do realize that now you're admitting you were trying to call me out as a hypocrite, but since you didn't mean it as offensive -- which... I don't know how calling someone a hypocrite isn't offensive, but whatever floats your boat, I realize this varies and that's cool? But I'm... supposed to feel bad for slinging shit back at you? I'm thinking no.

Yeah, I don't see the big deal about 'having to deny' that I went off on you, because I don't have to. I'll just repeat what was said to me: "So?"

@Admiral said in RL Anger:

I make it a point to never type anything I wouldn't say to someone's face.

I'm not doubting you personally in the following, please note.

A lot of people say this. A lot of us ('us' because I aspire to this but I don't think I get there) think we do this, but... it ends up being 'not really as much as we think'.

Partly, this is because shit doesn't escalate nearly as quickly when tone and expression enter the picture; misunderstandings are less common than they are in text alone when you're sitting in a room talking to someone. When you land a word bomb on somebody that horrifies them or disgusts them, you're going to see it on their face more often than not, and then you'll adjust (or not, in some cases) without the need for an text-based expression of this.

A shocked look is obvious and easy to interpret. Conveying this in text, on the other hand?

• "That you said X is shocking!" - is pretty neutral, but if the initial speaker doesn't think they said anything shocking, there's brewing grounds for an argument here that likely would never happen RL.
• "Don't you know how awful X is?!" - again, pretty neutral in terms of any sort of personal attack beyond the other person potentially thinking their intelligence or whatever else may be being questioned, but if they don't think it's awful... yeah, potential for argument. Seeing an expression, nobody would feel you insulted their intelligence/manners/upbringing/enlightenment/etc. whereas this relatively neutral statement can create that impression.

...I think you can see where this is going.

It isn't just the snarky shit, either. There are positive, good, wholesome, caring things people feel comfortable doing or saying 'anonymously' that they might not be as brave about if they were looking someone in the eye. A good many, in my experience.

@kk Yes, I do, actually, consider being called a hypocrite a personal attack.

I do not believe I'm behaving in that manner at all, which, again, has been explained in the interim. I'm not going to make any guesses this time as to whether or not you've read the intervening posts or not. tl;dr: I don't think posting about an RL issue that pisses us off in a thread about RL issues that piss us off is out of place or at all inappropriate, not even a little.

I see absolutely no inherent contradictions there to warrant your conclusion. As mentioned to @Ganymede, if I didn't think it was a valid topic of conversation ever, I would not have suggested a thread dedicated to the topic, specifically, be started. Obviously, people have plenty to say about it, and experiences to share.

I am annoyed when these things take over thread after thread about games, and I am absolutely allowed to say so when it happens. You are as welcome to speak your mind as I am, and I've never said otherwise. I don't even think otherwise.

Nobody accused you of a crime, for fuck's sake.

Really, you didn't even have enough self-restraint to read the rest of the thread before throwing in your comment, so I'm frankly not impressed by your self-restraint at all.

@mietze Have to agree here. There are literally three people ever I've met from this hobby I had issues with in person: the dude who grabbed me and kissed me uninvited at a meetup (like seriously out of the blue just turn a corner, dude's there, grab, yeah... ) and Spider and her husband. And I still more or less got along with her husband well enough (not in any inappropriate way, before anybody decides to read something uncool into that) since he was around more and more or less kept to himself and tried to be helpful often enough. On the whole, the folks in this hobby are absolutely not wastes of hair and tend to be pretty fucking cool, no matter what weirdness goes on on games/on the forums.

@Auspice These people are pure gold. Platinum, even. Shower them with love and cookies and cherish them lots.

If ever I win the lottery, I will totally hire Tina Turner to host some Thunderdome.

Maybe in a pool, though. With those foam floaty things that don't actually hurt when they hit you, but wow do they make great smacky noises when they land.

Chickenfights... to the death.

If by death, we actually mean 'the point at which somebody has to stop because they're too drunk, laughing too hard, or they run out of insulting words that are too ridiculous (shitgibbon, twatwaffle) to say aloud with a straight face.'

Losers can be made to walk the plank (read: diving board).

And anybody who actually grudgewanks people in person for dumb shit on the forum is simply not allowed in the bouncy castle, because fuck those people.

My lottery dreams are sort of weird like that, equal parts impossible pie in the sky and depressingly mundane at once.=

@Ganymede said in RL Anger:

@surreality said in RL Anger:

As an addendum to the 'babe in the woods' thing: @Kanye-Qwest and I have certainly had our share of snarling at each other. She had a legit question about something a while ago that could be taken as this sort of thing -- but she did a damn fine job of being clear that wasn't her intention in any way and I had zero problem taking her at her word and made sure to say as much. If somebody has a genuine question, and isn't playing stupid 'gotcha' games, it's often very evident. Hence the 'I am not taking @kk's question as an innocent inquiry'.

Now, let me show you where I am confused.

Your response raises a whole bunch of questions:

• What "legit question" are you talking about?
• What do you mean by "this sort of thing"?

The legit question was an unrelated thing in another thread a while ago. @Kanye-Qwest and I have gone at each other before; it would be easy to take that question in a snarky light. She was clear that she didn't intend it that way, and I took her at her word that she had no ill intent, and the question was something she was legitimately curious about. I answered the question, made clear I could easily understand why someone would ask, and assured that I did not take it as anything nasty.

'This sort of thing' = asking a question that could be taken as an insult in sheep's clothing.

As far as I can tell, you went ape when @kk said:

I am quite baffled. I believe that you argued that threads shouldn't be derailed over this stuff and yet here you are four days later on another thread still complaining that people didn't like that word being used.

The accusation here is that you said that threads shouldn't be derailed over whether someone should or should not be insulted over something. You responded by saying, in paraphrase, that threads shouldn't be derailed unless you happen to be in the right forum for derailment.

...er, discussing things that make us angry RL in the RL Anger thread is not, in any way, derailing the thread. This shit makes people angry, RL. This is a thread for things that make people angry RL.

See where I'm confused? You want to avoid discussions of gender politics on game forums because you face it on a daily basis, and she apologized for doing so. And then she points out that you're engaging in a discussion (kind of) regarding sexist slurs, and you elect to find some sort of grudge in it. I understand that there's a difference here, but @kk literally hadn't said anything for five days, and not even in the same thread.

I think that's the disconnect.

I don't care if it's going on on the forum somewhere.

I am tired of it overriding every thread that is supposed to be about games.

I even suggested a thread be started to discuss instances of and issues with this on games -- which it does, and is a subject worth discussing, and which I wouldn't have done if I didn't think the topic should ever arise on MSB.

It's like the 4channers and their 'we're going to throw around slurs in every thread, which will instantly derail that thread into an argument about the use of that slur instead of the actual thread topic'. It's why I kept mentioning that particular crew and that tendency.

In their case, their 'cause' was a steaming pile of excrement, and in this one, the cause is one I actually support, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a commonality in an end result of many conversations or discussions that are arguably supposed to be about problems on a game becoming about that issue instead, and the 'good' or 'bad' of the cause doesn't really have any bearing on that 'instant override' being wearisome.

@Kanye-Qwest The not innocent inquiry is an accusation. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing, essentially: it's still an accusation, it's just hiding behind a facade of inquiry. That there's a question mark at the end doesn't change its fundamental nature at all.

It just makes it even more disingenuous, to me, personally. As in, 'I want to be able to sound like I'm not doing what I'm actually doing and maintain plausible deniability in some fashion'. I won't go into the other things I generally ascribe to people who demonstrate this behavior.

@Ganymede That's fair. I figured you were following the logic, and that that was meant to be the conclusion of the elements above, and did not think you didn't understand it. Apologies. (For real.)

As an addendum to the 'babe in the woods' thing: @Kanye-Qwest and I have certainly had our share of snarling at each other. She had a legit question about something a while ago that could be taken as this sort of thing -- but she did a damn fine job of being clear that wasn't her intention in any way and I had zero problem taking her at her word and made sure to say as much. If somebody has a genuine question, and isn't playing stupid 'gotcha' games, it's often very evident. Hence the 'I am not taking @kk's question as an innocent inquiry'.

Other RL things I hate: this new keyboard. It keeps losing connection and can't keep up with any reasonable typing speed. (So much meh.)

@Ghost For some reason, this made me think of the most recent late night diner conversation I had with the husband, in which somehow we ended up talking about what would be theoretically contained in Sean Spicer's eventual resignation letter.

We decided it would just be a recording of Weird Al's 'One More Minute', in the end.

Re: topic: sometimes I'm willing to do that, but frankly, not today. It's somebody else's turn. I have enough people who think I'm fair game as a punching bag and everybody took their turn throwing a swing a few days ago, which I ultimately hand-waved off into the ether of being way too distracted by a combination of just not giving much of a fuck and trying to figure out where the hell to put the yarn I ordered, because 50lbs of yarn is a lot of yarn, and ultimately I'm as easily distracted as a cat on too much nip.

@Ghost I get the 'take one for the team and let shit die down' logic.

I am not, however, in the mood to do that shit today. I'm over quota on that for the week.

@Ganymede It's laid out right there in the preceding text. Please stop being deliberately obtuse if you're asking for shit to defuse rather than escalate.

1. I consider being called a hypocrite an attack.
2. When someone explicitly references a former conflict in the attack, it's pretty clear that's what's on their mind.

Attacking someone today over some former conflict = grudgewank. And all grudgewank is bullshit, in my book.

I do not see this as a 'babe in the woods' innocent inquiry, ex: "You said you don't like beets yesterday. If you don't like them, why are you eating beets today?" I believe in keeping an open mind about such things, but keeping it that open, my brains would surely fall out.

@Ganymede We're just going to have to disagree. I consider being called a hypocrite an attack.

When it's someone who you've disagreed with elsewhere (and I even made a point of saying I had no intention of offending her personally in said discussion), and they are, in fact, explicitly mentioning that disagreement in their 'gotcha' attempt?

This is not a leap.

@Ganymede Maybe you should direct your ire toward the person who came in and started slinging the shit, because that wasn't me. I have the same right to respond with an objection to being called a hypocrite as any given person on the forum does to being called a cunt, and I will not be chastised for doing so as if I'm in the wrong for doing it.

@Ganymede Agreed. That is a fair enough point.

There's just really no purpose for her post at all other than an attempt to call me a hypocrite in a roundabout way, and unfortunately there's no real way around that basic fact.

That people had, on the whole, chilled the fuck out and started to understand where others were coming from and that there's a lot more consensus there than not? Was nice. Is nice. Had she not gotten to that part yet and hence the error? Sure. But maybe that's a lesson to take away, too -- to find out what's going on a little more before firing off the snarkbombs.

Really, though, people like to play rhetorical games like that on forums and like head games among friends RL or on games or in relationships, it is something I just do not have patience for on even the best day.

@Roz I really don't. It reeks of grudgewanky bullshit to me, and 'gotcha' headgame nonsense.

I have zero qualms calling that kind of behavior out when I spot it.

@Misadventure The pain meds initially made me read that in such a way as to think, "...but if they have already killed the children before, how will they get them back?!"

...on the subject of shit I hate, these pills. Jesus. HATE. So much textwobble.

I remember someone going on in ye olden WORA days to someone who had a near fatal heart attack that they hoped they'd have another and it would finish the job. Frankly, when someone knows that, and specifically says something like that, it is pretty fucking horrible, as it is much more targeted and specific to someone's actual life, experienced trauma, and circumstance.

@Ganymede One of the quotes in question was in fact quoted,and discussed. There's already some reasonable agreement about that. Hence the '...' about why it's being brought up again. Basically, she's trying to pull a cheap 'gotcha', as I expressed irritation that the game-related bitching and peeves thread was getting derailed on the regular with RL social justice arguments for pages on end, and I'm frankly just not inclined to put up with anybody's petty grudgewanky bullshit today.

@kk There is just not enough pained sigh in the world, some days.

@kk I'll respect that, no problem.

The point remains, you charged in here and tried to sling around some shade and made a fool of yourself in the process. Own it, realize nobody gives a shit, nor should you, really, and move the fuck on.