A conversation about conversations about bigotry

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Ecks

holy fucking shit

guise

he's right

we've been trolled

HARD

Like, right here. This is just trying to get a rise out of someone, rather than respond to what they said. That should probably not happen, as it adds nothing to the discussion except for going, "Look at my opinion guys!"

I probably should report it instead of respond? But I won't, since it's not really -offensive- just a demonstration of the stuff that's making discussion suck.

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Marelo

Yeah uh... using rhetoric that evokes an emotional response is not always trolling. Seems kind of super silly to say that just because some people got upset at Liz, she was trolling.

See, I hate this, because Liz isn't here to actually say what she meant to do. We really ought to NOT play the conjecture what Liz's thoughts were game.

But rhetoric that's meant to attack the person and not the idea really isn't a good way to convince people you're right, is all I'm saying. With that, I'm out until I'm back in, since I have work to do.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

I probably should report it instead of respond? But I won't, since it's not really -offensive- just a demonstration of the stuff that's making discussion suck.

If you report him I'll rep him.

[Red Fighter 1073]

Originally Posted by Inbred Chocobo

The entire post. Literally the entire thing. Seriously, go back and read it right now.

I've been trying to put my finger on it all this time, but Inbred Chocobo basically says it right there why I hate going into any debate with Liz. She has her heart in the right place, but my god does she go about it in the worst fucking way possible for exactly the reaons that IC posted.

Thankfully she hasn't come right out and said it on NPF, but her 2nd and 3rd attempts at garnering a boycott against Atlus, on the Atlus forums themselves, was basically her saying that her thoughts were not up for debate and that anyone who disagreed with her was derailing the thread. Atlus leaves up it to interpretation whether Naoto is male or female? Nope, she's a trans man, any attempt at proving otherwise is transphobia. Don't know whether Funky Student is Black or whether he's a minor character celebrating the subculture in Japan where non-Black people wear afros because it looks cool? Nope, he's definitely Black and we're going to conduct what's comparable to a paper bag test to prove that he's Black. Although these issues should be talked about and discussed, for Liz it honestly seems like it's just a matter of showing how right she is and how wrong you are without any shades of gray or room for interpretation.

EDIT: And just because IC uses the word "trolling", his entire post is ignored even though he made a lot of good general points that people here really need to follow, myself included.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Inbred Chocobo

When Pip Boy first posted in this thread, his post was littered with fear, worries, and depression. Why make this public, as he was attempting to garner support in some small way, to make people think more of him.

Nope.

Pip was being self-aggrandizing. He was making replies to him out to be more important than they were. Making himself out to be the victim. Not A victim, mind. THE victim. All while, purposefully or not, victimizing other people! Other people on these forums even! (See Terex's posts earlier)

When you say people with mental disabilities should be locked away and never looked at except for derisive sneers, and then someone says 'What the fuck, man?' the proper response is NOT to say "WHY IS EVERYONE ALWAYS PICKING ON ME I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT BIGOTED"

It is NOT to make a big post about how you're leaving the forums because someone is being mean to you.

The proper response is to say "Oh shit yeah guys, I didn't actually mean it like that, I'm sorry."

Pip was at a point of worriment and confusion

No, Pip was at a point of 'I refuse to even acknowledge there's a possibility I've done wrong, and also rather than point out posts of equal or greater acerbic intent from Token (fuck you, you're an asshole I'm leaving, basically), I'm going to pin it all on Liz (This is wrong and this is why it's wrong and this is what you should do, basically. Granted more acerbic than necessary but).

Or the times the exact same has happened in other threads where Pochy and Smarty and Marc and, hell, even myself, have been just as nasty as/more nasty than Liz, but nope. It's Liz.

Because Liz is an easy scape goat.

I'm not gonna go in through the rest of all that, because I don't need to.

But:

there is such a thing as trolling, and that you can do it without realizing it.

You can't troll without realizing it. Intent is a full on prerequisite of trolling. Using emotive arguments is called persuasive speech. Using emotive arguments you don't believe for no reason other than to cause a shitstorm is called trolling.

They're very different things.

THAT SAID:

1.) What you say may or will hurt someone. If you hurt someone, they are going to lash back, and defend themselves. If you make a post and see this, look at why such a post was made, and why they are so angry. Step in their shoes and look at it, you may realize you have done something you shouldn't, and need to consider it.

2.) Someone is going to say something that will hurt you. If you read something, and become angry, sad, irritated, and want to immediately post something. Do not do it. Trolls post this kind of stuff all the time that enrage feelings and hurt egos, and this causes this emotional response. If you feel this, in any way shape or form, ask yourself why do you feel this? Read the person's post, did they really mean for that to occur? If you think you are being baited or trolled into this, then report it and have a third party come take a look. If they read like they are trying to prove a point, and its one that you disagree with, think logically about the situation, and step away from your emotions.

3.) Argue logically, not emotionally. When you state something, when you want to prove a point, when you wish to debate, put up the facts with references to prove them, realize that you could already be wrong and not realize it, make sure to understand that when you post, you post to learn more about the subject you are debating, not to prove you are right on the subject. When you debate with someone, you debate to learn, to educate, not to win. If you go into a debate to win, you go in to hurt people, you go in to make people cry, and you are going to make them want to leave. You do nothing for your cause or stance when you do this, as it puts people into an emotionally defensive state that other people will respond to, and cause people to rally against you.

This is generally pretty good advice! People should probably listen to this part!

[Krylo]

Responding to a reported post because no mods are on and I don't think it needs mod action so much as a gentle reminder.

So:

IC/Everyone: How about we stop singling out and insulting the person who is permabanned. RPG is entirely right that it's a kind of shitty thing to do because she can't defend herself.

Originally Posted by Ecks

holy fucking shit

guise

he's right

we've been trolled

HARD

Ecks, less sarcasm, please? This is a pretty teetertottering into hostile territory discussion so lets like, try not to do that.

Originally Posted by Grimpond

That is some pretty heavy handed bullshit there. Liz is nothing if not sincere in her beliefs.

Grim, rather than just saying a post is bullshit, regardless of how bullshit it is or not, how about like, saying WHY it's bullshit, preferably without using the word bullshit.

[stefan]

e. Krylo doubleposted while I was still writing so w/e, wasn't planning to post in this thread after this anyway.

e. And then he deleted most of this.

Stefan, if you want to reword that in a way that isn't incredibly insulting to a banned member that a good number of the user base still like, that's totally okay. Also no one is in trouble. You did this before I asked people to stop doing this. I'm editing it out only because I don't want people to see this and rage post at it and end up being a huge mess.

[Red Mage Black]

Okay, chips down. These were things pointed out in the thread and these are my beliefs on them:

Heterosexual White Male Privilege:
I can't say I'm heterosexual, but that's not exactly a public thing with me. I don't announce what sexuality I am, so I suppose to the first part still applies to me in the public eye. White... check. Male... check. I'm aware it exists, but is there anything I can really do about it? It's there and it's not really going to change in the immediate future and I doubt anyone is going to openly support that we get rid of it. Isn't that what (insert civil rights group for equality here) is for? I don't mean to sound like it's a bad thing. I think it's great. If I had the same qualifications as... say a man/woman/transgender/of a different race/etc. I much rather be picked based on whose personality better fit the work environment than my race, gender, sexuality, etc.

Bigotry(In general):
I'll admit I have some bigotry. We all have some bigoted opinions and anyone who denies it is a liar. It shows up from time to time and the only thing we can do is try to correct ourselves. I'm not talking about just denying it, but reevaluating your views and researching the crap out of it until you're not sure why it ever made sense in the first place.

Now for ones that weren't brought up:

Feminism and Women's Rights:

Every rights group has some bad examples, including civil rights groups. When some fanatical woman spouts off 'we give birth, we should be the ones in charge' it makes me think, 'Alright, now I think no one should be in charge since nobody can place nice anymore'. Not to mention a favorite one of mine to hate, 'All men are perverts/rapists'. It also gets on my nerves when I hear about so called statistics on the ratio of men:women when it comes to rape cases. There may be a higher number on the female side, but maybe the numbers aren't so far apart as thought. Also the view that, 'Men can't be raped.' As its already been proven that stimulation has less to do with the mind and more to do with the body, so why can it not be the same for men as it is for women? I hope I'm not the only one who believes that there are such things as false rape cases. I won't deny rape happens, but I do believe that some people do it for their own gain or to spite someone.

There's another little piece to this that I'm going to say. What truly pisses me off is when I get assaulted and then taunted, (abridged) "Nyah nyah, you can't hit me because I'm a girl and if you do, I'll call the cops on you." Especially when I didn't incite the violence. In general, I believe that violence should never be a solution for violence. I'm not going to hit a woman if say... she just slaps me or something. I will get angry though. If I get assaulted, it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, I'm going to defend myself. However, I usually believe the best approach is to disable them from harming you further. In that regards towards women, I believe the best approach is grabbing the wrists(since most violence is generally inflicted by the hands), but only if they proceed past the first act(you only get one). Since most women know where to kick if their arms are disabled... well, I already know how to safeguard that place. It also chafes me when women say, "He deserved it." He deserved being assaulted for what? Calling her a bitch? Just insulting her in general? Then acting like a criminal if the guy defends himself, even if he doesn't outright hit her. A phrase I heard recently, used by a woman in fact, "If you want to behave like a man, I'll treat you like one."

I am by no means advocating violence against women. I don't advocate violence against anybody. There is no reason something somebody says should in any way be a reason to commit an act of violence upon them. If I say something like, "They should be slapped upside the head," it's basically me just stating my distaste for someones stupidity.

I'm all for women having equal rights to men, but it goes too far when some will push the boundaries of those 'rights'. I don't know if I sound like a chauvinist, as I was never explicitly brought up with those views, but if it sounds like I am, do feel free to let me know. (I'm willing to see both sides, if there is another side to bring up. I won't yell at you, so please don't yell at me.)

I'm not trying to start an argument with anyone over this stuff. I'll have a civilized debate with someone, but not a full out argument. Granted, a debate IS an argument, but at least it's organized and civilized. You know how to get a hold of me on the forums. If not, there's always my Skype and AIM if you want to carry this further. I didn't particularly make this post to start a whole new discussion, but just to air it out in the thread I thought appropriate and I'll gladly bow out if it causes too much trouble considering this thread already started off on a bad note.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Red Mage Black

Every rights group has some bad examples, including civil rights groups. When some fanatical woman spouts off 'we give birth, we should be the ones in charge' it makes me think, 'Alright, now I think no one should be in charge since nobody can place nice anymore'. Not to mention a favorite one of mine to hate, 'All men are perverts/rapists'.

No one here has made any of these claims or hinted at believing anything of these sorts. I don't even really know where or how to begin here.

[Nique]

Red Mage Black is describing Straw Feminists and while I have no doubt he sincerely believes that what he is saying represents a fair and balanced viewpoint addressing bothsidez of a controversial position, it isn't.

The argument of false rape accusations and the undue attention which he ascribes to it serves as a derailment to the more pressing issue of rape culture.

I'm all for women having equal rights to men, but it goes too far when some will push the boundaries of those 'rights'

Hear that ladies? Misogyny is over so, know your place.

I don't know if I sound like a chauvinist, as I was never explicitly brought up with those views, but if it sounds like I am, do feel free to let me know. (I'm willing to see both sides, if there is another side to bring up. I won't yell at you, so please don't yell at me.)

Ok in all fairness RMB is at least saying that he's willing to look at this from another angle so here; Yes this makes you sound like a chauvinist because these are chauvinist viewpoints in that they ignore or dismiss actual things that are happening to women as a group in favor of drawing attention to isolated or even hypothetical problems that might maybe affect some men.

Every rights group has some bad examples, including civil rights groups. When some fanatical woman spouts off 'we give birth, we should be the ones in charge' it makes me think, 'Alright, now I think no one should be in charge since nobody can place nice anymore'. Not to mention a favorite one of mine to hate, 'All men are perverts/rapists'. It also gets on my nerves when I hear about so called statistics on the ratio of men:women when it comes to rape cases. There may be a higher number on the female side, but maybe the numbers aren't so far apart as thought. Also the view that, 'Men can't be raped.' As its already been proven that stimulation has less to do with the mind and more to do with the body, so why can it not be the same for men as it is for women? I hope I'm not the only one who believes that there are such things as false rape cases. I won't deny rape happens, but I do believe that some people do it for their own gain or to spite someone.

I don't know if am able to construct a sufficient argument for exactly why exactly this is such problematic thinking, but consider some surprising statistics;