Emotional maturation comes as you realize that a community is not all about you nor is it about your pet issues
5 Likes
You wanted someone to point out a post of yours that is in bad faith. I choose this one, largely out of convinience because itâs in this thread.
This post is a clear example of âWhataboutismâ. Youâre deflecting from your own poor argument by trying to implicate a nefarious and nebulous âotherâ that did something wrong. Youâre not furthering this argument because you think this is a genuine issue (Iâve largely stayed out of political threads lately here, because it either boils down to who can agree with each other louder, or pointless trolling, so I canât say that nobody here has done that, but being friends with several of the people that have been chased away from the forum by discussions like this, I can say that I donât see it among them), but because it allows you to derail the conversation into some other debate.
In fact, this whole post is dangerously close to an alt-right tactic, Never Play Defense. You make no attempt to refute that your own posting is toxic or in bad faith (Rymâs thesis in the post you respond to) and instead attempt to move the conversation to a place where Rym will have to play defense.
I offer a solution, however, if you, in good faith, do not wish to be viewed as toxic: Ignore the political threads. Turn off the politics category. Stick to the reasons why you joined this forum (anime) and avoid the things that are going to trigger your anger and toxic emotions. If you genuinely, honestly cannot see how your behavior is toxic, then we need to step back and worry about what triggers it. Much like how, if we canât resolve the underlying issues that result in an alcholic being an alcoholic, the next step is to remove them from situations where theyâre tempted or able to drink themselves to excess, you need to remove yourself from situations where you will perform actions that many people around you are defining for you as toxic.
10 Likes
I turned off all anime and manga threads years ago. Itâs good for both me and the community.
1 Like
I think that thereâs this feeling, like⌠Almost a FOMO thing, where if a community is the right size, people think they have to participate in all parts of it. Ignoring swaths of this community that bore and/or aggravate me was a great decision.
1 Like
I still read everything, but I admit thereâs a few threads where I mostly just skim and see if thereâs anything interesting(or, in all honesty, if I can made a dumb joke with), and then pay it no more mind. I donât need to participate, but hey, maybe Iâll learn something. And plus, this might come as a surprise, but I do actually like pretty much all of you, and itâs nice to both see people Iâm fond of speaking on things theyâre passionate about, and to learn about those things. I mean, Iâm sorry, I canât bring myself to give a shit about, for example, American football, but itâs still good to learn things about it because yâall DO care about it, and itâs fun to watch the discussion even if I donât care to participate.
6 Likes
Is there a way to mute categories? Iâd really like to not get tempted by the politics threads anymore.
Go to the page for the category in question and click the bell in the top right.
I did that but theyâre still showing up in the âlatestâ feed even within the category view.
It might be individual thread permissions overriding the general forum permisions. When you post in a thread, it goes from âNormalâ to âTrackingâ, so that might be overriding the âMutedâ for the category.
1 Like
/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/ has a pretty good bad faith participation policy. Itâs specific to their communities needs, and canât be borrowed wholesale. I just want to post it in this thread as something to learn from.
5 Likes
How do people feel about this thing?
Nothing there seems objectionable. I notice it doesnât have a ârepeated technically not breaking the rulesâ or âalso we can kick you out for anything we likeâ clause.
It does have a friendlier tone, so maybe they didnât want to have to go there.
So one politics thread got locked because there wasnât a discussion happening and then another was locked because there was a discussion?
1 Like
So one politics thread got locked because there wasnât a discussion happening and then another was locked because there was a discussion?
In the interest of justice, if another thread is locked we will cite the exact part of the code of conduct that has been violated. If we want to lock it and canât cite anything, we will edit the code of conduct with new rules. Then weâll only lock if the rules are violated after being edited.
Unsure how to best word this but will put the idea out.
If someone BIPOC or non-cis man calls out something as offensive the offending party should be expected to refrain from arguing over whether it was offensive.
10 Likes
excerpt from another forum Iâm on, how does this sound?
The Gauntlet prioritizes marginalized peopleâs safety over privileged peopleâs comfort.
- The Gauntlet reserves the right not to act on complaints of âreverseâ -isms, including âreverse racism,â âreverse sexism,â and âcisphobiaâ.
- The Gauntlet reserves the right not to act on complaints against the reasonable communication of boundaries, such as âleave me alone,â âgo away,â or âIâm not discussing this with you.â
- The Gauntlet reserves the right not to act on complaints of someone communicating in a âtoneâ you donât find congenial.
- The Gauntlet reserves the right not to act on complaints against criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions.â
Thatâs definitely behavior that is not permitted. I believe it is pretty much covered by the âabsolutely no harassmentâ rule. Saying something that offends someone and then not stopping, or arguing, when being told it is offensive is pretty much the definition of bullying/harassment. I guess it canât hurt to add another bullet point showing it as a specific example of harassing behavior, as it is all too common.
Itâs definitely covered by âno harassmentâ but an emphasis on protecting marginalized groups shows the understanding of power dynamics we have here but people might not pick up just by looking around. Whether that emphasis is part of the guidelines themselves or demonstrated through what you use as examples is up to you guys, cause I think the point comes across either way.
1 Like
Hereâs the problem Iâve come to see with greater clarity over time that I have no solution for. This might deserve itâs own thread, but it would be a sub-thread of this one anyway.
Have you ever been to a sporting event and thereâs this guy in the stands (basically guaranteed to be a white guy, usually old) who is a fan of the same team as you, yet the energy they give off is just vile? Even though you are rooting for the same result as them, you want nothing more than for them to shut up and/or be ejected from the stadium. Theyâre also usually intoxicated to some extent.
Sure, Iâm from New York. I boo my own team when they stink, but the worst I might say is âBooo, whyâd you swing at that you stiff!â I also cheer for my own team when they do well. But that vile guy in the stands, they never cheer.
A player will hit a home run, and rather than cheer, the bad guy will make a snarky remark like âWhere were you last week you bum?!â The team could win the World Series in five games, and theyâll grumble that they didnât win it in four. Their demeanor and personality is just unpleasant, negative, aggressive, toxicly masculine, and combative. Even though you almost completely agree with them on the desired outcome, they are just awful to be around.
Obviously Iâm primarily making an analogy for political debates that happen among people on the left, but the same applies for other areas as well. The Star Wars fan who only ever complain about how shitty new Star Wars things are. The gatekeepy comic book guy who reads every single new issue that Marvel puts out every month, but somehow never finds a single good thing to say. You know the people Iâm talking about.
Now, I personally donât fully agree with the ethos of âdonât yuck other peopleâs yum.â All things are open for criticism, especially things that have been put out into the public like politics and art. People need to not wrap up their personal identity into external things. A Final Fantasy fan needs to realize that if someone legitimately criticizes Final Fantasy itself, that they are not saying that the fans of it are somehow bad people (unless they are actually saying that).
But at the same time, unconstructive criticism absolutely falls into the âdonât yuck my yumâ rule. Someone says they like Final Fantasy, and someone else responds flatly with âFinal Fantasy sucksâ. What was the purpose of saying that? Just to be an ass? Thankfully, we have a rule for this in our code of conduct. Argument and debate must be constructive.
What we donât have a rule for, and what I need help with, is when there is constructive debate that is simply unpleasant. People are engaging in good faith. They honestly believe what they are saying. People are not lying, they are debating with actual facts. Neither side is espousing evil. Nobody is harassing anyone, not even one ad hominem attacks. Theyâre not advocating for violence or endangering the community. The debate is actually constructive.
Despite all that, the personality and demeanor of the debate is much like the sports fan in my first example. No matter how much you agree with them, theyâre just acting in an unpleasant and foul manner. You want them to shut up and be gone. Their personality alone drives other people away from the community.
I would like a rule in the code of conduct to prohibit this behavior, but how can I possibly write it? How can we make a rule against a particular personality? âIf Scott doesnât like your attitude, youâre banned?â That obviously doesnât fly. Only these personality types allowed? If your aura gives off bad vibes, get out? My mastery of the English language is not sufficient to adequately define what I do not like and do not want to see.
Feel free to let me know what you think about this with a constructive discussion.
I think you should let someone you trust ban anyone whose vibes they donât like.
2 Likes