Posts made by Tinuviel

@ZombieGenesis Don't start a rant with "I'm a big believer of calling things what they are" if you don't want to get into the semantics.

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

It's atrocious and needs to be addressed but calling them concentration camps is ridiculous, inaccurate, and only opens any arguments about these actual centers subsequently made to casual dismissal.

This is patently incorrect.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order."

They are not death camps, which seems to be where the confusion arises, but they very much are concentration camps.

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

people we've invited to be guests of our country

Uh, no. They're refugees that your government has imprisoned without charge, trial, or any other form due process.

I'm a big believer of using words accurately, not what suits a particular belief or comfort level. The term 'concentration camp' was coined (or at least gained widespread usage) in the very early 1900s during the Second Boer War to describe the "refugee camps" set up by the British authorities in South Africa.

Prefer whatever terminology you like, so long as you know you're the one demeaning what is happening and has happened, not us.

@silverfox You'll learn.

@silverfox End? More like the second day of the school year.

@Kodiak Normally I'm pretty passive/apathetic when it comes to things people post on here. But damn if that didn't make my heart ache and yearn for a DnD campaign, and associated bonds, of my very own.

@SG said in RL things I love:

but tear through that loaf of french crusty bread inside 30 minutes of getting home from the store

Well you have to, after an hour French bread becomes inedible.

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

People who cannot be on time, but will insist that you are.

You could just say "middle management."

If you are an ISP, and you use speed throttling to restrict the use of overdue accounts (that's totally my bad)... then maybe exclude your "I Would Like To Pay My Bill Please" webpage from the throttle so I can fuckin' pay my bill.

@Auspice said in Um...What?:

@Sparks said in Um...What?:

@Auspice said in Um...What?:

@Sparks said in Um...What?:

@Auspice — Alien Ship/Ground OTP.

sorry I subscribe to the Alien Ship/Virus OTP

Look, we can either have a (literal) ship war, or we can just accept them as an OT3 and all get along.

The ground is a slut, getting it on with that other ship at the beginning. Ugh.

@Rinel I have no idea what I did that stopped mine from doing that. If I find out, I'll let you know.

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

@Ghost If it helps in my mind canon you're all serial killers. I've seen your Hog Pit posts.

Why else do you think the MUing population has shrunk?

@faraday said in RL Anger:

There's an option under the privacy settings to "Only allow chat messages from users I follow". So you can kinda use that as a whitelist.

Does this feature (if you, or anyone else, know) allow for Admin-y types to bypass it?

@Ghost said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

@Tinuviel said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

@Ghost said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

Respectfully, I disagree

Then you would be rather incorrect. The fact that words on a screen can elicit positive emotional responses would indicate that they could do the opposite. We wouldn't have a Hog Pit if words on a screen couldn't cause some nature of harm.

I agree that some of us are hardier than others, and what would offend you might not offend me. But at the very base level, words have power and therefore one cannot use the "they're just words" excuse when confronted with something that is, rather aptly, confronting.

Oh, I wholly believe words can affect people, but words simply affecting people isn't the issue. My views are more related to the subjectivity of injury and the reasonable level of responsibility any given person should have towards ownership for social injuries and/or emotional states of others in social situations.

Which is a minefield I ain't walking into at 23:31 local time.

True, it's a complicated topic.

The best we can do when or if someone states that our words have injured them, is acknowledge that our words caused injury and do better to avoid it in the future. We don't need to understand why our words caused pain so long as we do understand that, for whatever reason, that person was injured by our words.

It is the responsibility of the injured, I would argue, to inform others of the injury rather than to simply assume that the injuror was attacking them. What is harmless to one person can be harmful to another, and the only way we can properly adjust our behaviour is to know when we've caused harm.

@surreality said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

If words did not have the power to harm, the very concept of a slur would be so alien that we would not be able to comprehend it.

There are those who argue that exact point, unfortunately.

@Ghost said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

Respectfully, I disagree

Then you would be rather incorrect. The fact that words on a screen can elicit positive emotional responses would indicate that they could do the opposite. We wouldn't have a Hog Pit if words on a screen couldn't cause some nature of harm.

I agree that some of us are hardier than others, and what would offend you might not offend me. But at the very base level, words have power and therefore one cannot use the "they're just words" excuse when confronted with something that is, rather aptly, confronting.

@insomniac7809 I would add, also, that the idea that words cannot cause injury is fundamentally incorrect.

@Auspice said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

I think @Tinuviel revels in calling me an idiot, to be honest.

I revel in being right. The fact that these two things have so much in common is just a matter of casual interest.

To follow along with these thoughts: We're not arbiters or managers. Just because a vocal group of us dislike you doesn't mean you "aren't welcome" in the MUing hobby. We're not the be all and end all, and you don't answer to anyone else but yourself.

@Sunny I took it more to mean "return to the hobby without the negative reputation" rather than "sneak in and break the rules." But yes, if you've actually been banned, or people have grievances against you, better to leave that alone.

It's the "and actually manages to change their behaviour" part that most of our repeat offenders have problems with. I wouldn't have an issue with someone returning incognito if they'd actually changed their ways, I'm willing to assume that most people that do this have changed and are no longer a problem. But the more... pervasive ones we all know and love seem incapable of change.