Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

How to make post without pissing each other off (or, a "code of conduct" meta-thread)

145679

Posts

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    My apologies for liberals as a collective, we just had to put up with so much shit over the last decade that we're kind of sick of dealing with conservative opinions, even the sane ones. Hardly fair, but I'd hope it's at least understandable.

    jothki on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Slight necro here, but I had a lot of free time tonight.

    In regards to the infractions policy here, I have to say... I have very conservative viewpoints, and I've often felt that I'm getting too emotional for an internet argument and had to walk away from a thread. However, even when my posts have toed the line of debate versus attack of worldview, I have never had my posting ability hindered.

    On the other hand, I cannot recall a single time that I walked into a political or sociological themed thread and found anyone else of my opinion. This is an extremely lefty forum in general, and personal attacks against me have flown fast and furious, often for pretty ridiculous reasons that I never see anywhere else. That is likely why I keep having to walk away from threads with content I really care about.

    I agree with you. I think you have the right idea about walking away when you get too emotional, and that's a good instinct both for yourself and others. At the same time, there's a posting style here... probably most places, really, that I think can accurately be described as extremely baiting. The mods definitely do a great job at dealing with the egregious stuff, but it can be difficult to deal with the thousand little jabs that come your way. I think that's a cultural problem endemic to most internet places that tends to lead to, as you note, lefty forums and righty forums. I'm sure this applies in in-person social networks as well, but the tone that people seem to feel exceptionally free with on the internet makes it a little more, I dunno, visceral/graphic/obvious/rude? Something like that.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Slight necro here, but I had a lot of free time tonight.

    In regards to the infractions policy here, I have to say... I have very conservative viewpoints, and I've often felt that I'm getting too emotional for an internet argument and had to walk away from a thread. However, even when my posts have toed the line of debate versus attack of worldview, I have never had my posting ability hindered.

    On the other hand, I cannot recall a single time that I walked into a political or sociological themed thread and found anyone else of my opinion. This is an extremely lefty forum in general, and personal attacks against me have flown fast and furious, often for pretty ridiculous reasons that I never see anywhere else. That is likely why I keep having to walk away from threads with content I really care about.

    I agree with you. I think you have the right idea about walking away when you get too emotional, and that's a good instinct both for yourself and others. At the same time, there's a posting style here... probably most places, really, that I think can accurately be described as extremely baiting. The mods definitely do a great job at dealing with the egregious stuff, but it can be difficult to deal with the thousand little jabs that come your way. I think that's a cultural problem endemic to most internet places that tends to lead to, as you note, lefty forums and righty forums. I'm sure this applies in in-person social networks as well, but the tone that people seem to feel exceptionally free with on the internet makes it a little more, I dunno, visceral/graphic/obvious/rude? Something like that.

    And I think baiting (?) becomes more subtle and yet more ingrained in our natural mode of speaking with each other the more time we spend with each other. It is less obvious in a real world framework because in a real world framework, your genre of conversation is not entirely focused on controversial or emotionally charged issues. Here, it is pretty much only that, or at least that to a large degree. So here you are almost automatically at odds with people. And yet a lot of us have spent a great deal of time here and have gotten to know each other quite well. The longer you get to know someone, the more you can empathize with them, and empathy can go positive or negative. I think some people subconsciously (and consciously, quite often) use phrases, words, and tones that will specifically upset the other person. Like I said, it may just be subconscious - a person may just naturally fall into a pattern of speech with a particular individual based on what they want to evoke from that person - but it does happen, maliciously or not, and it is a thing.

    Or am I just crazy and excessively cynical?

    Drez on
  • MyDcmbrMyDcmbr Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Baiting doesn't happen in real life because it can lead to a bloody nose. It happens on the forums because it's hard to project yourself thru the screen.

    To quote R.E. Howard: "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. "

    I also try to walk away from a thread once the personal insults start flying. I will attempt to explain my position at first, but once the dogpile starts, I leave. No point in getting myself all worked up reading attacks on my character/sexuality/parents/intelligence/religion/etc etc from multiple people who have taken one grain of my comment and blown it up to rival the moon itself in proportion.

    MyDcmbr on
    Steam
    So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    The longer you get to know someone, the more you can empathize with them, and empathy can go positive or negative. I think some people subconsciously (and consciously, quite often) use phrases, words, and tones that will specifically upset the other person. Like I said, it may just be subconscious - a person may just naturally fall into a pattern of speech with a particular individual based on what they want to evoke from that person - but it does happen, maliciously or not, and it is a thing.

    Or am I just crazy and excessively cynical?

    Yeah, the problem with my posts is I've got too much empathy. *rolls eyes*

    Very few of us know each other in person. To get a sense of each other, all we have to go by is post history and we use our imaginations to fill in any gaps. Assumptions about a poster's character then cement themselves in our minds and that poster is branded. I have the figurative scars to prove it.

    If there's any truth to your idea, drez, we're all showing empathy towards caricatures of each other.

    emnmnme on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I actually have trouble keeping track of who all of you are. Oftentimes I don't pay attention to the names of the posts I respond to. Avatars help, but everyone changes their avatars every now and then. I'm only really "familiar" with a few posters, in terms of knowing their general views.

    Qingu on
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010
    I don't know anybody, so I blanket all of you as effete homosexuals who post on this forum in their smallclothes and sipping tea with their pinkys extended.

    Thejakeman on
  • Cedar BrownCedar Brown Registered User
    edited August 2010
    From just lurking I would notice a lot of sarcasm here. Like a straight rebuttal was about as common as a sarcastic jab sometimes. It might make you look witty but that's not conducive to a civil discussion. Ya'll are a bunch of snark larks.

    Cedar Brown on
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010
    From just lurking I would notice a lot of sarcasm here. Like a straight rebuttal was about as common as a sarcastic jab sometimes. It might make you look witty but that's not conducive to a civil discussion. Ya'll are a bunch of snark larks.

    Because my previous post was probably somewhat hard to understand.....

    er, which is why I am QFTing.

    I need coffee.

    Thejakeman on
  • Cedar BrownCedar Brown Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    From just lurking I would notice a lot of sarcasm here. Like a straight rebuttal was about as common as a sarcastic jab sometimes. It might make you look witty but that's not conducive to a civil discussion. Ya'll are a bunch of snark larks.

    Because my previous post was probably somewhat hard to understand.....

    er, which is why I am QFTing.

    I need coffee.

    Snark lark!

    Cedar Brown on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    That's a big wedge, qingu. By not getting familiar with other posters, how can one avoid reducing posters to single-sentence descriptions? Break people down to their unique features or views ... mentally exaggerate those views ... expect they will almost always remain set in their ways and BAM! we have a breakdown in communication. This board does a decent job of not falling into that caricature trap during debates but don't think the problem isn't bubbling away beneath the surface. We should be aware of it for civility's sake.

    Some posters are almost expected to fill certain niches during discussions and I don't see how that's a good thing.

    emnmnme on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    This board does a decent job of not falling into that caricature trap during debates but don't think the problem isn't bubbling away beneath the surface. We should be aware of it for civility's sake.

    Hah hah right.

    Every single "D&D" style board thinks it does a good job at "listening to every view" and not labeling folks and then you go into any thread that's not about vidya games or pop culture over 10 pages long and you've got a two posters getting called racists and sociopaths because their views do not fall within the norm.

    Or its a bunch of people wishing "man all ReTHUGlicans can just DIE!" and back patting all around.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I blame liberalism.

    emnmnme on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I blame liberalism.

    Blame group think. Its the same on any conservative themed board.

    "We're open and tolerant, its those OTHER assholes who cluster together."

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I blame liberalism.

    Blame group think. Its the same on any conservative themed board.

    "We're open and tolerant, its those OTHER assholes who cluster together."

    No, see, that was the joke.

    No one gets my sarcasm unless I put up tags, I guess. Am I doing it wrong?

    emnmnme on
  • MyDcmbrMyDcmbr Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I blame liberalism.

    Blame group think. Its the same on any conservative themed board.

    "We're open and tolerant, its those OTHER assholes who cluster together."

    No, see, that was the joke.

    No one gets my sarcasm unless I put up tags, I guess. Am I doing it wrong?

    Sarcasm on the internet is a quirky thing given the fact that 90% of our communication is non-verbal. So you have to wedge your sarcasm into that 10%, then subtract that you lose tone and inflection. I would say a good guess is you have about .5%

    Tags: Always a good decision.

    MyDcmbr on
    Steam
    So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010
    This is why we should petition for a snark lark tag. it could put a little bird picture before and after snark.

    Thejakeman on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I blame liberalism. lolz.

    emnmnme on
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I blame liberalism. lolz.

    That just makes me hate you and want to kill you.

    :I

    Thejakeman on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I blame liberalism. lolz.

    That just makes me hate you and want to kill you.

    :I

    Hey, you forgot your sarcasm tags.

    .... oh.

    emnmnme on
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I blame liberalism.

    Blame group think. Its the same on any conservative themed board.

    "We're open and tolerant, its those OTHER assholes who cluster together."

    I blame reality's liberal bias. ;)

    Honestly I wouldn't say we are massively open and tolerant unless the dissenting posters have well reasoned, fact based refutations to the majority view point. Even then I've seen some rather misinformed people treated pretty well in the [ECONOMY] thread. So we aren't always horrible.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    The longer you get to know someone, the more you can empathize with them, and empathy can go positive or negative. I think some people subconsciously (and consciously, quite often) use phrases, words, and tones that will specifically upset the other person. Like I said, it may just be subconscious - a person may just naturally fall into a pattern of speech with a particular individual based on what they want to evoke from that person - but it does happen, maliciously or not, and it is a thing.

    Or am I just crazy and excessively cynical?

    Yeah, the problem with my posts is I've got too much empathy. *rolls eyes*

    Very few of us know each other in person. To get a sense of each other, all we have to go by is post history and we use our imaginations to fill in any gaps. Assumptions about a poster's character then cement themselves in our minds and that poster is branded. I have the figurative scars to prove it.

    If there's any truth to your idea, drez, we're all showing empathy towards caricatures of each other.

    What's the difference? Here, we are who we pretend to be. It doesn't matter if your online persona is 100% equivalent to your "real" persona or if it is the complete opposite of "the real you."

    I tend to accept people at face value here. For instance, a lot of people in H/A try to guesstimate what the OP is "really" thinking when he made that post. Not only do I not do that, I also don't care. I respond to people in the exact framework they present to me. And in fact I do this in real life too. One of my personal credos is "if you lie to me, that's your problem." For the most part, it really is.

    So when I talk about empathy here, I guess I'm talking about a mixture between the real and whatever you present yourself as, but you still need empathy (understanding) to figure out what truly pisses off even an online persona.

    And it's just not true that people here aren't emotionally reactive to certain topics, keywords, and comparisons. MrMister doesn't like "pedophile" and "gay" being put into the same sentence. This is something we've come to understand based on how he has represented himself here (punctuated, of course, by his explicitly stating this). Does it really matter what his "real life" reaction is? I submit that it does not.

    I don't really care who anyone here is in "real life." What you present to me here is who I interact with. Your "caricature" is who you are.

    Drez on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    The longer you get to know someone, the more you can empathize with them, and empathy can go positive or negative. I think some people subconsciously (and consciously, quite often) use phrases, words, and tones that will specifically upset the other person. Like I said, it may just be subconscious - a person may just naturally fall into a pattern of speech with a particular individual based on what they want to evoke from that person - but it does happen, maliciously or not, and it is a thing.

    Or am I just crazy and excessively cynical?

    Yeah, the problem with my posts is I've got too much empathy. *rolls eyes*

    Very few of us know each other in person. To get a sense of each other, all we have to go by is post history and we use our imaginations to fill in any gaps. Assumptions about a poster's character then cement themselves in our minds and that poster is branded. I have the figurative scars to prove it.

    If there's any truth to your idea, drez, we're all showing empathy towards caricatures of each other.

    What's the difference? Here, we are who we pretend to be. It doesn't matter if your online persona is 100% equivalent to your "real" persona or if it is the complete opposite of "the real you."

    I tend to accept people at face value here. For instance, a lot of people in H/A try to guesstimate what the OP is "really" thinking when he made that post. Not only do I not do that, I also don't care. I respond to people in the exact framework they present to me. And in fact I do this in real life too. One of my personal credos is "if you lie to me, that's your problem." For the most part, it really is.

    So when I talk about empathy here, I guess I'm talking about a mixture between the real and whatever you present yourself as, but you still need empathy (understanding) to figure out what truly pisses off even an online persona.

    And it's just not true that people here aren't emotionally reactive to certain topics, keywords, and comparisons. MrMister doesn't like "pedophile" and "gay" being put into the same sentence. This is something we've come to understand based on how he has represented himself here (punctuated, of course, by his explicitly stating this). Does it really matter what his "real life" reaction is? I submit that it does not.

    I don't really care who anyone here is in "real life." What you present to me here is who I interact with. Your "caricature" is who you are.

    o_O

    If a politician smiles constantly at the camera, you don't automatically think he's a really friendly guy in private, right? Right. Because you're not a naive sucker, drez, and you won't fall for a glitzy presentation. But I heartily disagree with your view that caricatures should be taken seriously; it's stubborn laziness to refuse to read between the lines in these kinds of board discussions. If you want to see the downside of characterization. Consider this conversation from a recent [chat] thread:
    emnmnme wrote:
    Hahahaha, another Foxconn employee committed suicide. She jumped off the building, got caught in the nets they installed (first of all, when you have to install nets around your building to catch suicide jumpers...well....) and still suffered enough injuries to die. That's fantastic.

    Enjoy your apple products!
    A human being died, goose. Are you laughing because you're sadistic ... or are you just insane [tiny]07[/tiny]?
    Wait a minute.

    Empathy coming from Emnmnme?

    ...

    Can any mods check the IP or something . I think an account has been hijacked.
    Haha. I like. Hack the accounts of trolls and jerks and make really nice and helpful posts.

    Translation: "Oh ho ho, that jerk troll emnmnme isn't following the narrative I have laid out for him in my head. Someone must have figured out his password because he couldn't possibly have those kinds of thoughts." *winklol*

    My reputation is being negatively affected by a caricature of my comments in gay rights threads. I have been characterized unfairly and it's coloring my comments in other threads meaning my opinions won't be taken seriously. Before you say it's my own fault, that my crazy rants have finally caught up to me, then why respond at all? Why not just ignore what I write entirely? Because it's more fun to play 'high school cheerleaders describe the plain-looking girl' and let the caricature spread.

    emnmnme on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    The longer you get to know someone, the more you can empathize with them, and empathy can go positive or negative. I think some people subconsciously (and consciously, quite often) use phrases, words, and tones that will specifically upset the other person. Like I said, it may just be subconscious - a person may just naturally fall into a pattern of speech with a particular individual based on what they want to evoke from that person - but it does happen, maliciously or not, and it is a thing.

    Or am I just crazy and excessively cynical?

    Yeah, the problem with my posts is I've got too much empathy. *rolls eyes*

    Very few of us know each other in person. To get a sense of each other, all we have to go by is post history and we use our imaginations to fill in any gaps. Assumptions about a poster's character then cement themselves in our minds and that poster is branded. I have the figurative scars to prove it.

    If there's any truth to your idea, drez, we're all showing empathy towards caricatures of each other.

    What's the difference? Here, we are who we pretend to be. It doesn't matter if your online persona is 100% equivalent to your "real" persona or if it is the complete opposite of "the real you."

    I tend to accept people at face value here. For instance, a lot of people in H/A try to guesstimate what the OP is "really" thinking when he made that post. Not only do I not do that, I also don't care. I respond to people in the exact framework they present to me. And in fact I do this in real life too. One of my personal credos is "if you lie to me, that's your problem." For the most part, it really is.

    So when I talk about empathy here, I guess I'm talking about a mixture between the real and whatever you present yourself as, but you still need empathy (understanding) to figure out what truly pisses off even an online persona.

    And it's just not true that people here aren't emotionally reactive to certain topics, keywords, and comparisons. MrMister doesn't like "pedophile" and "gay" being put into the same sentence. This is something we've come to understand based on how he has represented himself here (punctuated, of course, by his explicitly stating this). Does it really matter what his "real life" reaction is? I submit that it does not.

    I don't really care who anyone here is in "real life." What you present to me here is who I interact with. Your "caricature" is who you are.

    o_O

    If a politician smiles constantly at the camera, you don't automatically think he's a really friendly guy in private, right? Right. Because you're not a naive sucker, drez, and you won't fall for a glitzy presentation. But I heartily disagree with your view that caricatures should be taken seriously; it's stubborn laziness to refuse to read between the lines in these kinds of board discussions. If you want to see the downside of characterization. Consider this conversation from a recent [chat] thread:
    emnmnme wrote:
    Hahahaha, another Foxconn employee committed suicide. She jumped off the building, got caught in the nets they installed (first of all, when you have to install nets around your building to catch suicide jumpers...well....) and still suffered enough injuries to die. That's fantastic.

    Enjoy your apple products!
    A human being died, goose. Are you laughing because you're sadistic ... or are you just insane [tiny]07[/tiny]?
    Wait a minute.

    Empathy coming from Emnmnme?

    ...

    Can any mods check the IP or something . I think an account has been hijacked.
    Haha. I like. Hack the accounts of trolls and jerks and make really nice and helpful posts.

    Translation: "Oh ho ho, that jerk troll emnmnme isn't following the narrative I have laid out for him in my head. Someone must have figured out his password because he couldn't possibly have those kinds of thoughts." *winklol*

    My reputation is being negatively affected by a caricature of my comments in gay rights threads. I have been characterized unfairly and it's coloring my comments in other threads meaning my opinions won't be taken seriously. Before you say it's my own fault, that my crazy rants have finally caught up to me, then why respond at all? Why not just ignore what I write entirely? Because it's more fun to play 'high school cheerleaders describe the plain-looking girl' and let the caricature spread.

    My point is that you are responsible for how you represent yourself. You are responsible for your online "caricature." The person behind the caricature, sitting and typing the posts, really isn't relevant here. We're not politicians either. How I treat a politician has zilch to do with how I treat anyone here.

    Were the comments levied at in the above quote tree appropriate? No, they were not. But were they accurate based on your past? Perhaps. I don't know. I don't think they were appropriate, and they shouldn't have been made, but you really are responsible for how you represent yourself. People earn their reputations. So if you're going to argue that the comments were undeserved because they are false I'm going to have to disagree with you, or at least say that they may not have been false. The comments were undeserved because they were negative and pull down discourse. Your reputation, in that situation, is wholly irrelevant, even if they were right.

    Also, I don't believe your "caricature" was being attacked in the gay rights thread, so much as some specific phrases and comparisons you made.

    Your reputation is your responsibility. As I've been arguing all thread, I am for moderation. I do not believe in either extreme. If we never take someone's reputation into account, this ceases to be a social atmosphere. Part of any society, particularly one focused solely on communication such as this one is, develops through the developing relationships between people, good or bad. I'm not arguing for a completely unsocial atmosphere where all we do is robotically post and respond to people based on the topic at hand. That would be boring.

    I just don't think it's right for people to automatically dismiss people based on their reputation, yourself included. That doesn't mean you don't have a reputation, or that it isn't right for you to have one, or that the burden of your reputation doesn't rest solely on your shoulders. Because it does.

    Drez on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    When you write we're responsible for our "caricatures", drez, you do understand how caricatures and stereotypes come into being, right? Unique flaws or traits are aggressively exaggerated as a way to poison a reputation.

    Obama.jpg

    This is a caricature of Obama. The photo was widely circulated among conservatives and is displayed in Obama's bio at conservapedia.com. Combine that photo with some of Jeremiah Wright's rantings and a lack of a flag pin and it's BLATANTLY obvious that Obama's enemies are trying to cripple his reputation and make the President look unpatriotic.

    My caricature is I'm incapable of feeling, brain damaged, and I have a compulsion to compare gays to pedos every so often. In your opinion, drez, what's my reputation based on my post history? Insensitive? Half-baked? Witless? That's the vibe I get from your comment on page 8.

    emnmnme on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    When you write we're responsible for our "caricatures", drez, you do understand how caricatures and stereotypes come into being, right? Unique flaws or traits are aggressively exaggerated as a way to poison a reputation.

    Obama.jpg

    This is a caricature of Obama. The photo was widely circulated among conservatives and is displayed in Obama's bio at conservapedia.com. Combine that photo with some of Jeremiah Wright's rantings and a lack of a flag pin and it's BLATANTLY obvious that Obama's enemies are trying to cripple his reputation and make the President look unpatriotic.

    My caricature is I'm incapable of feeling, brain damaged, and I have a compulsion to compare gays to pedos every so often. In your opinion, drez, what's my reputation based on my post history? Insensitive? Half-baked? Witless? That's the vibe I get from your comment on page 8.

    Yeah but I'm conflating your use of "caricature" with the concept of your online "persona" and I'm doing so purposefully.

    I was trying not to be blunt, but I'm relatively familiar with your posting history, and I don't think this impression people have of you is a "caricature." It's just you, and it's a reputation you have earned through the posts you are made.

    However, I also believe that regardless of your reputation, you should not be immediately dismissed because of it, nor do people have a right to levy snarky little barbs at you for it when you break the mold of your own reputation.

    And finally I do realize that people sometimes get the wrong impression of one another here. We're human. Mostly. But most of the time a reputation is earned by the actions of the person with the reputation. Especially here, where all we have are words and the words linger forever. There are very few "caricatures" in play here. And I'm not at all in favor of downplaying the personal responsibility we have to our own reputations. You have a right to post what you want. And you have a right to participate in conversations no matter what your personality or reputation may be. But you are still responsible for how other people perceive you. I'm sorry but I just don't agree that you've been judged unfairly. I just think you are often treated unfairly. There's a difference.

    edit: Just to be clear, I don't think (or at least seriously doubt) that you are "brain damaged." That is an awful thing to say to someone and I am fully against it. I do see how people who have totally opposing views from your own might come to that conclusion. I mean, I think I said earlier in this thread, I think a lot of people think this way:

    I think X
    I am sane
    He thinks the opposite of X
    He must not be sane

    It is simplistic and wrong, but...well, I know I've done it.

    Drez on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2010
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I don't know anybody, so I blanket all of you as effete homosexuals who post on this forum in their smallclothes and sipping tea with their pinkys extended.

    I know you're trying to be funny, but there are a fair few homosexuals posting in this thread, some of whom have noted the large amount of shit they cop by people who think 'homosexual' is an insult. In a thread about forum conduct, I think this counts as a fail.

    Also, I'm not wearing any pants.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I actually have trouble keeping track of who all of you are. Oftentimes I don't pay attention to the names of the posts I respond to. Avatars help, but everyone changes their avatars every now and then. I'm only really "familiar" with a few posters, in terms of knowing their general views.

    I recognize people who have distinct styles or opinions. I can always tell who The Cat is, or who Speaker is, or who Podly is, or who _J_ is... I tend to know who you are, and MrMister, and probably ronya. I'm sure there are more, but I'd have to read what they post first.

    I'm pretty sure my desire to be unique has led me to take--or has at least influenced--some of the positions and opinions that I have.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I don't know anybody, so I blanket all of you as effete homosexuals who post on this forum in their smallclothes and sipping tea with their pinkys extended.

    I know you're trying to be funny, but there are a fair few homosexuals posting in this thread, some of whom have noted the large amount of shit they cop by people who think 'homosexual' is an insult. In a thread about forum conduct, I think this counts as a fail.

    Also, I'm not wearing any pants.

    You're the one who think it's an insult. It's actually a stereotype. :o

    Thejakeman on
  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited August 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I don't know anybody, so I blanket all of you as effete homosexuals who post on this forum in their smallclothes and sipping tea with their pinkys extended.

    I know you're trying to be funny, but there are a fair few homosexuals posting in this thread, some of whom have noted the large amount of shit they cop by people who think 'homosexual' is an insult. In a thread about forum conduct, I think this counts as a fail.

    Also, I'm not wearing any pants.

    If I'm anti-gays, and a gay person is offended by me making a gay joke, the circle is complete though right? Or does everyone else get to jump into the mix of offended/not offended before we can determine the result?

    WHERE AM I IN RELATION TO THE EQUALS SIGN

    Simjanes2k on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2010
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I don't know anybody, so I blanket all of you as effete homosexuals who post on this forum in their smallclothes and sipping tea with their pinkys extended.

    I know you're trying to be funny, but there are a fair few homosexuals posting in this thread, some of whom have noted the large amount of shit they cop by people who think 'homosexual' is an insult. In a thread about forum conduct, I think this counts as a fail.

    Also, I'm not wearing any pants.

    You're the one who think it's an insult. It's actually a stereotype. :o

    No no, this is an insult: "you're not too bright, are you son?"

    I think you're failing to address the topic adequately, and being facetious about getting called on it doesn't help at all.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2010
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I don't know anybody, so I blanket all of you as effete homosexuals who post on this forum in their smallclothes and sipping tea with their pinkys extended.

    I know you're trying to be funny, but there are a fair few homosexuals posting in this thread, some of whom have noted the large amount of shit they cop by people who think 'homosexual' is an insult. In a thread about forum conduct, I think this counts as a fail.

    Also, I'm not wearing any pants.

    If I'm anti-gays, and a gay person is offended by me making a gay joke, the circle is complete though right? Or does everyone else get to jump into the mix of offended/not offended before we can determine the result?

    WHERE AM I IN RELATION TO THE EQUALS SIGN

    There is no circle.

    Also, two hyperdefensive responses in a row to someone pointing out some rather egregious inclusivity-fail doesn't speak well for the forum at large. The rest of you aren't going to let these two fellows and their uncomfortable jokey denialism speak for you by not posting anything yourselves, are you?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Despite not understanding the last 4 posts completely this is my favourite part of the thread thus far.

    Real issues of civility and decency + confrontation!

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I don't know anybody, so I blanket all of you as effete homosexuals who post on this forum in their smallclothes and sipping tea with their pinkys extended.

    I know you're trying to be funny, but there are a fair few homosexuals posting in this thread, some of whom have noted the large amount of shit they cop by people who think 'homosexual' is an insult. In a thread about forum conduct, I think this counts as a fail.

    Also, I'm not wearing any pants.

    You're the one who think it's an insult. It's actually a stereotype. :o

    Stereotypes can be horribly insulting.

    Quid on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Am I the only one who sees what he said as an obvious joke? Is there a gay person on PA who would be offended by that?

    Are you guys meta concern trolling? D:

    MKR on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    We largely do not know if we have any gay people offended by the lot of us being described as effete homosexuals. Now we can guess those same effete homersexuals might be offended by being lumped into the same category as some of the posters here. While true that some days we could rename Debate and Discourse into the Leftorium with very little change in anything, the fact remains that we should all generally try and avoid pissing each other off by use of stereotypes, or derogatory language toward a particular group of people.

    I would think given the amount of exposure we have to one another, that if we are going to engage in insulting behavior at the very least we owe it to everyone to make said insults both as scathing and as amusing as possible.

    If the best we can throw at each other is homosexual, illiterate, racist, a sociopath, a republican, or one of the many tentacled mime tools of the old golds then we really have no business calling this subforum Debate and Discourse.

    While a million monkeys, working a million typewriters in the space of a million years might eventually produce the collective works of Shakespeare, it is pretty much guaranteed in the space of under a week to produce something more legible, and more on topic than half the insulting posts on this forum.

    If we cannot, as a group, come together and try and establish some basic ground rules to avoid acting like shit flinging troglodytes, then the least we can do is ensure that we do a better class of shit flinging. Our insults should be scathing and inventive, our logical fallacies should be phrased in as amusing a way as possible, and by the thirteen dark gods of the abyss if we are going to Godwin a thread it should be done is such a way that Hitler himself comes out of his protective custody, registers on the forums, and goes at great length to explain why the Nazis were not as bad as <group x> and the comparison is offensive.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I don't know anybody, so I blanket all of you as effete homosexuals who post on this forum in their smallclothes and sipping tea with their pinkys extended.

    I know you're trying to be funny, but there are a fair few homosexuals posting in this thread, some of whom have noted the large amount of shit they cop by people who think 'homosexual' is an insult. In a thread about forum conduct, I think this counts as a fail.

    Also, I'm not wearing any pants.

    You're the one who think it's an insult. It's actually a stereotype. :o

    Stereotypes can be horribly insulting.

    Quid you are always so concise, yet so accurate.

    Like a sniper of correctness, you get the point into their skull with as little effort as possible.

    Arch on
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010
    This only reinforces my mental image of a bunch of vaguely french looking femme guys sitting at their computers at what-all in the morning sipping tea and saying "mmmHMM Homoseeeexual, you say? I do think I am offended, yes yes" wearing nothing but boxers and an awful pretentious smirk as they pretend to be offended by something on the internet.

    Thejakeman on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Hello I am a gay person and I did kind of think of you as a bit of a tool for your initial comment. I wouldn't say I was offended, because good god if I got offended by every single vaguely antigay comment on this forum I wouldn't have time to carry out basic bodily functions. But it was certainly lame of you.

    Hachface on
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Oh yeah? Well, I'm gay and I think it's quite amusing. You're pretty lame for thinking of me as a tool.

    Thejakeman on
Sign In or Register to comment.