First off, I apologize for the length; I modified the quoted text by adding spoiler tags to try and keep it down a bit.
Funny thing is, I actually agree with LW's assessment of the situation (being that when he makes serious, well-documented posts people ignore or trivialize them, so why bother). Fitting enough, given your opening argument.
In fact, I almost always see that sort of mocking passive-aggression first emerging from the mouths of the people who claim to be objecting to it. Such as your post. You wrote out two paragraphs of sarcastic rant, positively foaming with outrage, in response to a marginally serious quip. That's exactly the sort of thing that I have absolutely no problem poking fun at, since it's both hypocritical and rather absurd.
Incidentally, I've got a particular disdain for the ignore system because it's indicative of a rather sharp contradiction between what someone says and what they do. If you really can't stand someone, you ignore them. No, not add them to your personal blacklist,
ignore them. There are several people on this board whose attitudes I absolutely detest. Know what I do? When I happen across one of their posts and recognize it going in a familiar direction... I ignore it. I skim past. If you're invested enough in your hate-on for someone that you can't do that and need a machine to do it for you, you're probably part of the problem.
So yeah. It's precisely the heart of the safe-space mindset (but hey, you called it a meme, so instead of being a thing I'm just an asshole, right?), that impulse to completely and totally shut out anything you don't like, anything that challenges your world view, anyone that thinks differently than you do. Safe space. Hugbox. Ooga booga it's the scary internet maymay gosts coming to trigger you.
How interesting, because I skim past his posts precisely because of his shitposting tendencies. In fact, I think his response to me was the first one I saw that did include some reasonably well-considered points and not just his usual oeuvre. Of course, it's still rather heavily laden with his usual behaviour in spite of that, so I think his claim of being ignored, while it may have some possible merit, is also a convenient excuse to indulge himself in posting as he prefers. That, I think, I'll save for him directly, however. As well, given the context, I did not see it as a "marginally" serious quip, but rather simply as a serious statement of direct mockery; I do apologize if that was incorrect, but that is how I usually see such matters declared, especially absent additional factors.
I can certainly understand what you state as your opposition to the ignore list, especially as I do the same thing, but I strongly disagree with the idea of automating the issue as being indicative of the "safe space" mentality. Then again, it may be a matter of age on my part as well. As the idea of ignore lists to me long predates the modern "safe space" mentality, I don't view it in that light; I don't mind being open to the possibility that this may be a mental gap on my part, now that I'm not as flexible as I used to be. I don't think memes are automatically a sign of asshole behaviour, either (heavens, just look at my own posting history), but rather disagree with them being used to replace discussion in what was apparently a matter brought up in earnest. What does concern me is the mockery of one who suggests the use of a tool to avoid argument - not just debate, but argument - without even backing it up. Now that you have brought up your motivations, I can understand at least where you're coming from, even if I may not entirely agree. If someone becomes so invested in an issue, I don't mind them using an automated tool to back off and give it some time and space, especially if it means they won't contribute directly to the problem here in what is both literally and figuratively a public forum. Rather, they can cool off and come back once tempers have settled.
Oh, how very very frightening.
They didn't say anything about disliking how he disagrees with them, but rather disliking how LW consistently words everything in a way that pretty much mocks anyone who disagrees with him.
I mock everyone, the only people who seem to take issue are those that disagree with me. In this case it's even more unusual, cos m8 is just colloquialism, the mocking is imagined. Heck, the eponymous examples of lolbertarian and lolberal are me explicitly using terms that make fun of my own camps, but details such as these do get ignored immediately once people identify in their minds me as their opposition. It does lead to some most amazing identity changes, such as when I shapeshifted from a Palestinian antisemite to a fookin white mail to an ethnix b8
Shitposting is apparently a rather honored profession here, but I can understand that some people, astonishingly, do not like being mocked, or even seeing other people being mocked for their beliefs.
Does LW not count as a person because LW is a kitchenbot, because no one defends my precious honour when I am mocked for my beliefs
Oddly, disliking this and utilizing the ignore list is not creating a "safe-space" as the meme is most commonly used and thus as I assume you are using it, which is effectively an echo chamber wherein all contrary opinions are hounded out. Rather, it seems to be, pursuant to the original post, a protest against toxic discourse. I haven't used the ignore list, but I must admit that I will consistently skip past certain users posts not because I disagree with them (in some cases, I actually do agree), but rather because they seem to value insults, mockery, and degenerating their opponent (whether it's a user here or some external party) a wee bit too much.
My personal policy on this has always been insults and mockery on the internet are kinda pointless, because there's not really anything to insult. At least when you have the benefit of anonymity there is no ego, you can not even be sure each post was not written by the same person. I myself have been called many things, from jewish to a homosexual islamic consort, from a nazi to a reactionary megapreacher, from a bleeding heart liberal to an inappropriate devil's advocate, and many less inventive insults meant to discredit me in some way. My favourite has to be when someone said I was a /fit/izen pick up artist, something synonymous with rapist, in a discussion about european politics lol
Heck, I am usually referred to as a shitposter, even though I have often placed immense effort into making vast several thousand long posts, full sourced, with no colloquialisms, only to be met with single sentence dismissals. So do I give up under condescension and insult? Of course not, I'm still long at it! The obvious thing here is, what was insulted? Was it me? No, for LW simply does not exist. Thus I do not really stir beyond joining the joke when someone says I am part of Shariah Patrol or want to give Boris Johnson sloppy kisses, or am a terroristic shitposter to be dismissed immediately - the latter is especially odd, as I have had people deliberately message me so as to make it clear they were ignoring me (the logic I find, is odd here). I just do as what is most fun for myself, because few else care to show courtesy that would warrant my obeisance in return.
The amount of times I have had people ignored thousands of words representing hours of spare time only to talk about how they "feel" about my posts or the "tone" has led me to become utterly immune to such concerns, simply put I will find the same reception whether I put the utmost effort in - or whether I don't.
That said, I do find it somewhat amusing that this particular meme, used to mock which it ostensibly stands against, has become a cliche of its own: to wit, a thought-terminating cliche that seeks to shut down counterargument by claiming any attempt to shut down any dissension is conducted not because it portrays itself in a or because the source of the dissension is attempting to sow discord, but rather merely because the original person "cannot handle" any disagreement themselves.
This is not a meme, this is a policy used on Universities as literal safe spaces where people are fortified with puppies, crayons and muffins against differing opinions.
It's sad when this is not exaggeration, where human rights activists trigger actual panic attacks.With a mere five words, one can attempt to shut down all dissent to one's opinion not through reasoned debate, but through claimed association with what is perceived as a highly negative phenomenon.
Today I have been associated with two fascist groups (literally, actual fascists) in lieu of reasoned debate, and the day prior was chastised for saying something that sounded like the Daily Mail would agree with me, the day before that accused of being a Hillary Clinton mercenary - what you describe is not a new phenomenon. Shall I then add these people to my ignore list? Shall I continue to do so, until the entire forum is on my ignore list, for infractions I imagined worthy of ignorance?
The self-isolation of people into their own echo-chambers in the company of only the like-minded, it's a rather virtual and ostensible demonstration of being so utterly inimical to what one dislikes that one must reject its existence it so as to avoid actual injury.
Why, one need not make a reasoned counterargument for anything anymore. An attempt to shut down dissension by claiming the opponent is shutting down dissension for the sake of shutting down dissension; it amuses me.
You do see where that argument falls flat immediately from the first person who shuts down dissension from their own worldview by blocking all the posts they disagree with, don't you? It reminds me of when one of the redditors big boards started purging themselves, and before they found voat they found their way to one of the chans - the difference in culture was an amazing contrast. These redditors had complained immensely of being mass banned as a result of their opinions not aligning with moderators, yet they immediately commenced mass bans of their opponents as soon as they assumed moderation roles themselves - they did not last long.
To say - if one who opposed you antagonized you, and you shut down their arguments without giving a reason yourself?
Who does that?
Oh, I assure you, even when I do agree with you (in fact, you and one other person who has had the foresight to not involve themselves and who I shan't drag in came immediately to mind when I made that note), I do notice your insults. I can certainly say that I am aware of such folk (may I present to you Exhibit A, myself, the amazing Democratic Communist Fascist Republican, ungodly defender of evolution, and proponent of the nuclear genocide of the Japanese peoples), especially back when I was younger and much more willing to mix it up when it came to politics or religion. I've never found it helpful to respond in kind, however. While I don't pretend that I was always "above" (as questionable as that is) the need to respond in kind, I don't even pretend that ever did anything other than make me feel a bit better, and I certainly never found it to increase the level of discourse. Which, I suppose you can see from my post above, which was read as highly sarcastic and hypocritical when I meant it in earnest. Hypocritical, I suppose, given that FD's fundamental logic behind it differs from my own in a manner that would make my conclusions seem hypocritical when viewed through their principles, but not intended to be nearly as sarcastic as it was perceived. It's a tone issue, I suppose, and thus a failure on my part to make the actual choice of words suit my intent.
I should note that I am aware of the safe space in the university setting; the university from which I graduated was in the news for an unfortunate incident not too long ago where what is admittedly a rather politically charged issue was banned for, among other reasons, stated fears it would disturb large local Muslim population. I mostly address in the idea of the "safe space" some of its detractors, who while meaning well in opposing the sort of echo chambers you and I oppose, also attempt to shut down discourse - in seriousness, and not in jest, hence my apparent misunderstanding of Flying Dice given their stated intent of their own post - by associating any attempt to create reasoned discourse and oppose direct personal attacks with the "safe space" phenomenon. It's a bit like, well, your stated examples of people associating you with fascist movements. I don't see it as beneficial to respond in kind, though I don't always live up to that ideal - I suppose that's another bit of hypocrisy on my part, to suggest it to others when even I find it sometimes difficult to live up to them. Still, I believe that free discourse not only requires the free flow of opposing opinions, but also mutual respect and an unwillingness - by both parties - to resort to name-calling.
On that note, if people are insulting you, I'd simply settle for not responding in kind. Being called a fascist, being called a communist, I find it better to let it go as water off a duck's back. If you or the original poster cannot, I wouldn't object to using the ignore list; I don't believe the people of this forum are so bad that it would result in a collection of small echo chambers. I think, however, that while you claim retaliation, and I don't necessarily disagree on that, you may take it a wee bit too far. The tone issue I noted above occurs here as well; if you regularly word your posts in incendiary ways with ideologically-charged tone, even posts that are meant in earnest end up being read in the exact same light. That even extends to self-depreciating speech; loathe as I am to give it up for myself, I don't extend that same self-depreciation to those views I have that are shared by a larger group because to do so is to insult others as well as myself. Further, if I write up a tremendous wall of text or dust off the old hammer to whack some metaphorical heads with some literal facts and the person who I am responding to does not themselves respond in kind, I simply set it aside and consider it not a lesson learned in not trying, but rather something that other people not directly involved can read and use to inform their own opinions even if they don't speak up.
As for the last, if they've shifted to directly insulting me? I'll still address any arguments they bring up in that post, if they did indeed bring up anything, but I think what you're looking for is the case in which I do switch to addressing their insults in kind and in detail. That is a case where I'll unabashedly snark in kind, in isolation. I'll admit that my own old tendency to do line-by-line responses did get a bit bothersome for other people, though I still think it is preferable for serious discussion such as this. Also, I apologize, but the link was not something I could see. I assumed it was mostly just more snark, but I'm afraid I can't say that for certain. I suggest that you at least keep in mind that most people place more of themselves online than you claim to, and thus insults directed at an account or at a post are, unsurprisingly, viewed as being directed at the person. Heck, I think anonymity on the Internet is a myth, and that even in spite of having to break with the past more than once due to...ah, significant errors, we shall say, and leave it at that. Even as I am, even as I pretend to be, this account still tied to those accounts that once failed so by merit of the individual whose hands type at this keyboard. Pretending I am somehow not who I am, what deeds I do, and what words I speak or type feels somehow to miss that key unifying factor, the all-encompassing and all-concealing "I." That, however, may be a philosophical distinction between the "myself" of my inner self and "myself" as I am seen; ultimately, while interesting, I'm not sure it's entirely germane.
Hmmm, giving this a re-read, it does feel a bit preachy. I apologize if it comes off that way. I honestly do try to skim rather than read your posts, especially in political discussion, precisely because of your usual tone, and I am typically not actively involved in the same political threads as you seem to usually frequent. I very rarely see you attempt to back it up seriously as you have here, perhaps in part because of that, and even then it feels more like a screed than a serious rebuttal or case for debate because it seems to be tied to that insulting tone. This is, like more or less everything else above, however, my own subjective opinion; do feel free to disregard.
I would totally give Boris Johnson sloppy kisses in a metaphorical sense, though. I may dislike his politics, but he amuses me to no end.
Author
Topic: Am I a grammar nazi? (Should that be a capital 'N'? What about the 'g'?) (Read 9249 times)