Posted September 23, 2015
low rated
Post edited September 23, 2015 by Vainamoinen
Vainamoinen
🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦
Registered: May 2010
From Germany
Brasas
Abrasive Charpit
Registered: Dec 2010
From Poland
Posted September 23, 2015
First - I will repeat your attribution of intent to me is way off, but still if you won't respond directly as I asked - and thank you for not wasting our time - kindly also be decent to refrain from the kind of passive aggressive insults you yourself just decried.
Second - the GG thread and the ZQ thread before it are one year old. Your expectation that the sensible thing to do is for anyone to go and review it, synthesize your comments and only then engage is ridiculous. They're your positions so it's easier and would be the kinder approach if you restated it. Further one would hope repetition would help you hone it, rather than aggravate you into shitlord mode. But let me repeat, I agree this is not the place for that and neither is the GG thread IMO.
Third - what happens when I in particular actually do what you just suggested: synthesize and interpret the other debater's points - and I think I'm the only one in GOG I've ever noticed doing it to this complex deiscussions - is that said debater usually ignores and/or leaves.
Fourth - Although your vagueess means I am unsure, I think the verbal incontinence remarks refers to someone else. Still, if you want to call that ousting someone, I'd say it's a farcical usage, wholly symmetrical to conflating inaction with active support.
Segue to the bottom line: the moral model of responsibility being assumed is different between us. But when anyone tries to go that deep, you ridicule them. You seem to see trying to talk with someone as harassment, using their own words and asking for clarification as aggression, insisting on maintaining semantic distinctions relevant to the argument as oppression. Or rather, you insist person A has the right to define person B's intent, but not vice versa based on some sociopolitical variable.
I'm not surprised communication is hard when your fundamental view of communication is so intimately connected to social power dynamics whereas mine isn't. But when I or others, however skillfully, point out the inherent tension between your model and free speech models, you pretend it isn't there.
And by the way "Final solution for the SJW" thread? Stay classy mate...
Second - the GG thread and the ZQ thread before it are one year old. Your expectation that the sensible thing to do is for anyone to go and review it, synthesize your comments and only then engage is ridiculous. They're your positions so it's easier and would be the kinder approach if you restated it. Further one would hope repetition would help you hone it, rather than aggravate you into shitlord mode. But let me repeat, I agree this is not the place for that and neither is the GG thread IMO.
Third - what happens when I in particular actually do what you just suggested: synthesize and interpret the other debater's points - and I think I'm the only one in GOG I've ever noticed doing it to this complex deiscussions - is that said debater usually ignores and/or leaves.
Fourth - Although your vagueess means I am unsure, I think the verbal incontinence remarks refers to someone else. Still, if you want to call that ousting someone, I'd say it's a farcical usage, wholly symmetrical to conflating inaction with active support.
Segue to the bottom line: the moral model of responsibility being assumed is different between us. But when anyone tries to go that deep, you ridicule them. You seem to see trying to talk with someone as harassment, using their own words and asking for clarification as aggression, insisting on maintaining semantic distinctions relevant to the argument as oppression. Or rather, you insist person A has the right to define person B's intent, but not vice versa based on some sociopolitical variable.
I'm not surprised communication is hard when your fundamental view of communication is so intimately connected to social power dynamics whereas mine isn't. But when I or others, however skillfully, point out the inherent tension between your model and free speech models, you pretend it isn't there.
And by the way "Final solution for the SJW" thread? Stay classy mate...
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted September 23, 2015
And, please, take your gamergate supporters with you, please. There is no need for them in the entirety of this forum. I happen to think that using "SJW" as a sensible word is a sorry ass rhetoric, you wouldn't believe what I think of people who use it 11 times in a single post just to oh so skillfully insult people. Respond to that? Boring.
Please, take it all back to your gamergate news thread where it belongs until it is hopefully finally closed. Do also take with you the guy with the constant verbal incontinence who has, under your approving eyes, ousted countless honest debaters from your thread. What do you ask of me? To return to this natural desaster of human interaction just to state the very same things again, which you didn't understand the first ten times? The time of repetition is over now and attempting to talk in an excrement bath eventually gives people bad breath.
There are a whole lot of very old and rather fine posts of mine in there still (and in the preceding "Zoe Quinn" thread which hosts 100% the same discussion topics). You have not made any effort to understand these posts and ask me to continue the 'discussion'? That is not sensible. On the other hand, it's much more fun watching you talk to yourself in that cranial vacuum in the pure despair the topic could die. You know, how Konami fired Kojima because Kojima was anti SJW and stuff, or how diversity isn't an ancient principle in all narrative media, whatever, yawn. Like, yawn. I fall asleep just thinking about it.
Thankfully, there are grown up communities out there, particularly in the forums of the developers that do not exist according to the people in your thread, i.e. the developers under attack from gamergate because the mob doesn't like their games or the devs dare to speak out against the mob.
I have personally learnt a whole lot this last year from some good people. Which naturally worked best when the context of the cultural suicide that is gamergate is removed entirely and video games are treated as the art form they are. Gamergate, in essence, is nothing but the desperate attempt at keeping the discussion at level 0.0 until the end of days, and I'm not playing that extremely boring game any more.
Play it with yourself, please.
Then you say posting news of accusations made against or news relating to gamergate is rhetoric when they were the only counter GG arguments to post and discuss. So posting is bad and posting is bad?
Seriously, what is your problem with the term ''SJW''? Its an internet nickname used for people of a certain belief set. Like calling someone a GOGlodyte or redditor or goon or tumblrnia. What else should I call it so you can think clearly? And what about the time you used this toxic genocidal ''rhetoric'' in your forum sig a few months ago? Are you somehow less guilty of it when you addressed yourself as an ''SJW'' and people called you one?
Ummm, how do you think ideas develop on the internet? I certainly don't believe Kojima was fired for being antiSJW but your discomfort with the very notion should prevent me from discussing the possibility of such a thing?
Well diversity isn't ancient principle. If you thought otherwise you would've continued it right? Or does the wind suddenly flowing in a direction with a higher female population also proves nature is pro diversity?
Grown up? Why do I sense you have little experience on the internet? Either way, considering your abhorrence for opposing opinions and calling anything other than your own views radical right wing, I don't think you got much out of ''discussing'' with ''them'' anyway.
Either way cover up your fear of losing a debate with whatever you want. Be it ''cultural suicide'' from a person who believes in ''cultural appropriation'' and that a race=a culture. I think you're the desperate attempt at trying to keep any discussion at lvl 0. I mean after all the words you're still as afraid to lock horns as you were when you decided you didn't wanna be wrong anymore and left to discuss on ghazi or tumblr or whatever.
bler144
μαϊμού
Registered: Dec 2013
From United States
Posted September 24, 2015
We've only just met. And while I don't want to rush into anything, I...think I love you too.
skeletonbow
Galaxy 3 when?
Registered: Dec 2009
From Canada
Posted September 24, 2015
It's a serious question. People around here used to have class, but it seems like lately that not a single day goes by where I don't see a significant number of people engaging in some rather rude behavior.
It used to be that there were rules here. People might actually get banned if they insulted each other. or broke the rules. These days, not only is that a common occurrence.
Maybe it's the new games, maybe it's the growth or maybe it was just a matter of time, but the typical intellect around here is rapidly approaching that of the Steam forums.
It's rather depressing really,this used to be a cool place to hang out, but now we've got entire threads dedicated to trolling new users. Posts that really shouldn't be in GD, but GOG hasn't felt like providing anywhere else for them, so things like the forum games, which are reasonable to have, end up taking up valuable space on the front page when really they ought to have their own entire sub-forum where people can find them, but where they aren't in the way of discussion.
It brings with it the best of people and the worst of people. As it's growing it will start out being self moderated and later on it might transition to lightly moderated or fully moderated to cull the noise. Eventually it might get large enough that moderation is too costly so it might not get done. Other fora may decide to remain neutral and unmoderated except in extreme cases with lots of complaints, which is the way GOG seems to run things.
But there's another principle happening too, which is that the more hostile or negative focused someone is, the more likely they are to comment negatively on something and/or start or join into an argument or other possibly hostile situation and to keep going with it for a longer time as well, while someone who leans more strongly on the friendly side and prefers to avoid conflict and negativity at all costs is more likely to stay silent, or to say a few things in a civil manner then leave rather than get dragged into the fire. It's common for debate/argument/conflict in such forums though, and most people are anonymous for the most part with no material consequence for stirring the pot, so it tends to draw out the worst in people. Look at the comments on every single video on Youtube for the perfect example.
So I'm of the opinion that any community will eventually turn into a huge trash heap eventually as it grows in population - roughly matching the rest of the world in real life which is a big trash heap of negative energy also. :)
We're no longer on the farm here. :)
Brasas
Abrasive Charpit
Registered: Dec 2010
From Poland
Posted September 24, 2015
Good post. Ergo, it takes effort to keep entropy from taking its course in communities as in physical systems. Did you check my links to the GDC talk? The part of it about a natural size for communities touches on this.
We all can be tolerant, be positive, upvote... take an active part in raising the level through more constructive means.
In a way that leads me to quite an insightful observation which is a mirror image to the narrative that "it's because of GG". Rather the critical approach that defines a lot of opposition to GG is responsible for the change in tone and caused the decline in civility.
Yes, this one I am trolling the conclusion... but only with exaggeration, there is a grain of truth in there. It goes back to insecurity and fear leading to validating assumptions of almost universal oppressive social dynamics. Any individual seeing a constant struggle reflected in such basic human activities as communication or sex is going to have a very colored outlook into all human phenomena.
Please note, I'm not saying the oppressive social dynamics are false. The modifiers universal / constant are key - finding the balance is quite difficult.
We all can be tolerant, be positive, upvote... take an active part in raising the level through more constructive means.
In a way that leads me to quite an insightful observation which is a mirror image to the narrative that "it's because of GG". Rather the critical approach that defines a lot of opposition to GG is responsible for the change in tone and caused the decline in civility.
Yes, this one I am trolling the conclusion... but only with exaggeration, there is a grain of truth in there. It goes back to insecurity and fear leading to validating assumptions of almost universal oppressive social dynamics. Any individual seeing a constant struggle reflected in such basic human activities as communication or sex is going to have a very colored outlook into all human phenomena.
Please note, I'm not saying the oppressive social dynamics are false. The modifiers universal / constant are key - finding the balance is quite difficult.
dtgreene
vaccines work she/her
Registered: Jan 2010
From United States
Posted September 24, 2015
low rated
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted September 24, 2015
dtgreene
vaccines work she/her
Registered: Jan 2010
From United States
Posted September 24, 2015
low rated
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Brasas
Abrasive Charpit
Registered: Dec 2010
From Poland
Posted September 24, 2015
I for example never denied my hostility to anything I actually am hostile to, like socialism, political correctness, radical politics, etc... whereas I do feel others try to hide their hostility to my libertarian ethical priorities for whatever reason. The fundamental tension between freedom and enforced solidarity is real, despite anyone handwaving away concerns over free speech, coercive property transfers, etc... as if they were non factual or nonsensical. Ergo, your social justice is quite unjust it seems to me.
Vaina seemed to take the number of times one uses the *** word as proof of intent as well. I guess that makes you 1/11th the bigot I am or something... this is too strongly similar to religious taboo and dogma, and in a more personal level I really dislike how it effectively is a political dismissal tactic to avoid legitimizing opponents based on demonization.
Anyway, good example of likely oversensitivity leading to unkind generalizations, leading to conflictive / radical tone, leading to polarization in a positive feedback cycle... can loss of civility and community be too far behind?
TL:DR I think you're the bigot for thinking I'm the bigot. What now? :)
He/she made an assertion of almost universality, he is the one that should offer proof. Not that I think he /she has done it on purpose, but this reversal of the burden of proof is typical in those holding strong beliefs that they don't want or have not due to whatever reason examined logically.
Post edited September 24, 2015 by Brasas
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted September 24, 2015
He/she made an assertion of almost universality, he is the one that should offer proof. Not that I think he /she has done it on purpose, but this reversal of the burden of proof is typical in those holding strong beliefs that they don't want or have not due to whatever reason examined logically.
Brasas
Abrasive Charpit
Registered: Dec 2010
From Poland
Posted September 24, 2015
Welcome. I believe (like you I think) that Greene's definition of social justice is tautologically implicit in the bigotry judgement. But that's really something they can choose to detail or not, and we should give the benefit of the doubt.
Also, I'll point out, from other threads I saw, their tone is much much better than many others. I go out of my way to check pronoun usage in this case, which I usually don't even remember.
If you're reading and choosing not to post Greene: Respect.
Also, I'll point out, from other threads I saw, their tone is much much better than many others. I go out of my way to check pronoun usage in this case, which I usually don't even remember.
If you're reading and choosing not to post Greene: Respect.
dtgreene
vaccines work she/her
Registered: Jan 2010
From United States
Posted September 24, 2015
low rated
Let me ask you a question:
Do you believe that minorities should get equal rights and protections under the law (compared to the majority)?
If your answer is Yes, then you support social justice.
If your answer is No, then you are clearly a bigot.
Do you believe that minorities should get equal rights and protections under the law (compared to the majority)?
If your answer is Yes, then you support social justice.
If your answer is No, then you are clearly a bigot.
Shadowstalker16
Jaded optimist
Registered: Apr 2014
From India
Posted September 24, 2015
Also, I'll point out, from other threads I saw, their tone is much much better than many others. I go out of my way to check pronoun usage in this case, which I usually don't even remember.
If you're reading and choosing not to post Greene: Respect.
If you believe in God, you are a Christian.
Post edited September 24, 2015 by Shadowstalker16