The darker side of the community Excalibur Prime related.

[CatboyPrincess]

2 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

I think a better question with regards to the initial thread comments is "why do you want to believe people were being cruel?" Ignorance is a certainty, given the only information was a 30 minute video nobody wanted to watch on a message board.

But you've repeatedly used the word cruel. So what exactly was cruel? Snark isn't cruel, it's blunt perhaps and considered witty to a few, but cruel it is not. So why exaggerate? Why are you, and the poster I quoted earlier, so desperate to make people into bad guys?

I personally think that's quite cruel. Going out of one's way to demonise people over something like this, or even going so far as to say "#*!% you" to those who were merely requesting more information the way we always do.

if someone is a racist, or a sexist, or a bigot, or is simply rude, or is behaving accordingly, and they are accused of such, what cruelty is there to be found? Is it wrong to call out cruel, abusive, or even simply negative, rude, or poor behaviour where it exists? i'm simply a messenger and calling things as i see them. if your reaction is to get defensive, then maybe you're the one with the issue?

more amusingly (and cruel of me, surely), is that you think i am making you or others out to be cruel, when i have explicitly made it clear that the easy out is simple ignorance, and even further, lack of energy to actively change one's existing behaviour. here, then, it is certainly your own choice and not by own accusation, that you interpret my speech as "a cruel accusation of cruelty." moreover, this entire quotation can be reduced to "nah i don't feel like i was being cruel."

... we haven't even gotten to the part wherein I have not accused anyone of cruelty. along the sliding scale from teasing to rough-housing to cruelty, i have said nothing of what the behaviours appear to me except short of empathic and compassionate. (I don't think the behaviour so far has been cruel, btw. but insensitive, perhaps? probably. given at least one person apologized. it's more obvious in hindsight, ofc, but hindsight can inform future decisions, but that seems unlikely if your first reaction is defensiveness.)

2 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

It is a safe option, objectively, and frankly that's something people need to come to terms with. Outliers exist of course and they should absolutely be understood and tolerated, but they are such a minority that to change entire mindsets for such a small percentage is unrealistic.

Yes, there are those out there who struggle to put things into text form, and I understand and accept that. However, someone not posting a TL;DW doesn't automatically mean they're incapable, statistically it's more likely to be clickbait self promotion, laziness or a Life of Rio video someone wants everyone else to care about. If they're incapable, then people accept that and move on, as seen in the thread. But until that is a known fact, people will act the same way that they would to any other anonymous person on the internet, and treat the data as if it were a part of the norm.

Outliers exist, but I'm not going to let it redefine what I consider normal and cause me to treat everyone as if they'll break at the slightest touch. Outliers are by definition not normal.

lol, that's not my point at all.

besides that, that kind of thinking is inelegant and ultimately naive. accessibility falls squarely in the perspective of "it shouldn't be normalized and i won't do anything about it," which evidently you share, and yet accessibility is the heart of globally improved lives. when the theoretical and practical models not only align but refuse to rest on the laurels of "good enough," we're all better for it regardless of level of ability we each individually have. if you'd like an example, take elevators: even though they are an accessibility feature, they are nonetheless available to everyone and have since become normalized. Or, glasses -- another totally normalized, "outlier" accessibility feature of society that your perspective would have quashed at the stem. It's totally backwards to think as such.

Naturally, this is also why i dislike speaking with most people, of having to convince "normal" people that "actually maybe treating each other would be a good thing regardless of the perception of 'normality'", since so many "normal" people would otherwise simply live and die like so many terrified, short-lived creatures, with none of the dignity that they believe to be inherent to them and their sacred "normality."

 

but okay i'm cruel :D i'd rather not be of course, but if what i share is what you think of as cruel despite my best efforts, then so be it. then i'll simply rationalize it as having been a deserved cruelty. perhaps a more sociable and eloquent person could help you see. for better or worse, perhaps i am not that person. (probably for the better. i doubt we'd ever get along if this is all you see.)

[DeMonkey]

42 minutes ago, Amoral_Support said:

I dont especially appreciate you questioning my mental health like you have been. I am upset because of that. 

I haven't, but your interpretation that I have is exactly why I have suggested taking a step back.

I feel I articulated pretty well in my previous response that I'm not questioning your mental health. People can have off days without being mentally ill. People can be triggered by a certain topic or argument without being unstable. 

Suggesting that you're reacting irrationally to something means exactly that, you're reacting irrationally. It's not a statement that you are someone who reacts irrationally to everything, just the context of this argument.

42 minutes ago, Amoral_Support said:

Its exhausting and doesnt exactly engender civility. 

Why expect the same in return then? If you immediately go out on the attack, which is clear bias, then you are going to get exactly the same back.

42 minutes ago, Amoral_Support said:

I resent that you seem unwilling to admit that you dismissed OP out of hand. I have a lot of experiences with this community being toxic as hell towards people like us.

Except that no one knew who the OP was before they typed their post out. I didn't dismiss the OP, I dismissed a 30 minute video from an anonymous poster. Upon the OP explaining their situation and making a damned good effort to type out their thoughts, did I dismiss them then?

I did not, and nor did anyone else. 

42 minutes ago, Amoral_Support said:

What I have been reading in your responses

You're reading what you want to read. Like I said, take a step back. You admitted yourself that you do hold bias in this argument. Bias is incredibly difficult to overcome, and affects all aspects of an argument, especially one as emotional as this one.

Yes, I do believe that the OP should have included text, absolutely. If they're not comfortable typing there are tools available, and based on what I read I have genuine respect for what they have typed. 

It's not that I don't deserve to be attacked, because I know who I am. Simply that your attacks against everyone were unwarranted and incredibly excessive. You can't preach civility and empathy whilst saying what you said.

And yes, I do believe you have been rude and irrational. This comment of yours on the other hand I believe is quite reasonable.

42 minutes ago, Amoral_Support said:

My apology was genuine, but if you felt it was disingenuous thats probably fair.

Can you blame me? The wording of it is of someone suggesting willingness to apologise, without actually apologising. I'm not after an apology, although I do appreciate it, rather just the understanding that maybe you went too far, which you have shown. 

42 minutes ago, Amoral_Support said:

Its similar to expecting an ethnic minority to stay calm in the face of overt racism.

I don't know if I agree with that. Overt racism is provable. It's not possible to be racist or, in this case, ableist (?) in a discriminatory manner when the person is completely anonymous. That's part of the beauty of the internet, and also one of the worst things about it. You can be anyone behind the profile, and unless you're forthcoming you're free from judgement from anything besides what you post.

As an example, the Actress who plays Quake in the MCU changed her name from Chloe Wang to Chloe Bennet, to circumvent the racism in Hollywood and actually get herself interviews. A surname like Wang paints a target for racists, a surname like Bennet is nondescript and gives anonymity, allowing you to work without the risk of discrimination. I hope you see the point I'm making. A bit tangential at the end there.

42 minutes ago, Amoral_Support said:

I appreciate calls for civility but im really not interested in conceding how I feel.

If that is what you choose, I merely wanted to suggest a healthier course of action.

27 minutes ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

we haven't even gotten to the part wherein I have not accused anyone of cruelty

If you weren't out to imply that people were being cruel, you wouldn't have focused so hard on it. Regardless of that, by claiming that you yourself don't believe anyone was being cruel it really just makes your entire initial post irrelevant. Focusing so hard on something you don't yourself think is relevant to the thread. Just a recipe for nonsense.

I read your post, you talk a good talk but your post boils down to little more than naivete and assumptions.

You can try again, but I fear you'll just be wasting your time typing up more nonsense.

[CatboyPrincess]

On 2020-11-24 at 7:08 AM, DeMonkey said:

If you weren't out to imply that people were being cruel, you wouldn't have focused so hard on it. Regardless of that, by claiming that you yourself don't believe anyone was being cruel it really just makes your entire initial post irrelevant. Focusing so hard on something you don't yourself think is relevant to the thread. Just a recipe for nonsense.

I read your post, you talk a good talk but your post boils down to little more than naivete and assumptions.

uh... no. i can describe things that are tangentially relevant and it's on you if you decide that something that even you can identify as tangentially relevant as to be my main point instead of something... tangentially relevant.

i.e. i was describing a lemma that shows errors in your thinking. i brought up the concept of cruelty to demonstrate the entirety of the scope of the lemma and the constraints of the lemma and what pitfall to watch out for, which instead you have ended up in and continue to dig for yourself.

if it's simpler for you, perhaps I'll rephrase my original point: assuming normalcy expressly allows the possibility of being cruel in addition to simply being ignorant. whereas, simply asking for clarification is merely admitting that one requires more information to interact.

but uh... no, "cruelty" was not at all my point.

the fact that "assume nothing" implies "much less likely to be cruel, and less likely to even approach the threshold of not-nice" is my point.

going back to the sub-thread of thought that this thread comes from: some other user accused you of being discompassionate and unempathic whereupon you accused that user back of doing the same thing rather than actually addressing that user's point. i simply wanted to clarify that if anyone was going to be in the wrong, it would be you for assuming/expecting a specific degree and format of information from OP. Other-user's accusation, of course, would never have held any water if the original requests for OP to provide further information was strictly limited to the query without further embellishment of teasing (regardless of weight of teasing).

i'm literally just trying to point something out for you. if you want to assume anything further from my posts, that's your choice. i came back to this thread hoping for... some positive outcome i suppose... *shrug* was worth the effort even if you still fail to understand.

 

OKAY: gonna be as direct and simple as possible: Do not assume or expect people to act "normally." If in a state of insufficient information, just ask.