Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
I really want to leave Something Awful right now
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Honestly, I think this is simply an issue that you see whenever a community grows too big and you can't control the influx of users. When you get too much people together, you can't moderate them all and you can't just crack on them for not doing the things you want them to do as you wish for them to do it. Some places, like TvT didn't react at all to the change in size. Others, like SA, overreacted.
I would argue that it's more along the lines of "TV Tropes did not react enough to the change in size until it grew into a major problem", which is almost exactly what happened with SA a few years ago. SA is just further along the path right now, due to the fact that it is a much older community than TvT is.
In fact, we may be seeing TV Tropes' first steps into the "overreaction" side of the process, depending on how the most recent events play out.
I will not make a joke, I will not make a joke...
Honestly, SA's talk about pedophilia often tends to come off as rather Brass Eye to me; actually I think one of their threads was called Paedogeddon, which just adds to the irony.
Also, I clicked on a FYAD thread once, and I was greeted with Goatse. I decided never to click on FYAD again. I do post in YOSPOS though.
Feel free, I'm a big boy and can handle humorous criticism.
Let's just say you wouldn't be the target and leave it at that.
Fair enough.
lol Australia law banning small boobs
Others, like SA, overreacted.
You're going to have to explain this one.
Okay, fine, you're talking about pedophile apologists, and I'm talking about the rest of us.
And you're still not distinguishing the term from the actual child abuse.
1. Again, the term you want is not "pedophile", but "child abuser", or technically, "person who sexually abuses a minor (who cannot legally give consent)". The paraphilia--be it pedophilia or ephebophilia--indicates a sexual preference, but does NOT specify whether the person who is a pedophile will act on that preference and cause harm to someone else.
Now if you just change your terminology, I'd have far less beef with it. But what you're doing here is basically equating "child molester" with "pedophile" and "pedophile" with "ephebophile" and then expecting me to believe that ephebophiles are thus worthy of being lumped in with child molesters--which is wrong on two levels of logic. The difference between sexual preference and sexual intent is one. The second is next:
2. You see, there is a difference between the power structures. The difference is NOT big enough for any reasonable law to let either pre-pubescent or post-pubescent minors give consent, but it IS significant because the sexual victim of a pedophilic action is pretty much completely unable to comprehend sexuality, while the sexual victim (partner? in some cases, possibly) of an ephebophilic action IS able to comprehend sexuality--even if said person is not able to process this issue and its implications in a fully mature and adult way.
Now, you also contend that a 30-year-old who wants to have sex with a 17-year-old has that desire for sexual contact stemming not just from sexual preference but also from "a pathological desire to have control, dominance, and power". I am not sure how true this is--I know that there's a repeated meme (not the funny kind) that rape is about power, and I've seen it mentioned a lot on shows like Law & Order SVU--but I am inclined to question this assumption as well.
Now before you or anyone yells at me, let me make this clear: sexual contact of significantly older individuals with minors (and especially the power structures that go along with it) is indeed a problem. This is NOT apologism for ephebophilia. This is just my saying that the two problems are indeed distinct.
If there are people who ARE confusing the two terms and mixing the two in discussions, then that needs to stop. That said, I would like to see how people are mixing up the two terms, before drawing any further conclusions.
Poe's Law says that it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference between parody/sarcasm and genuine extremism/looniness.
The phenomenon itself, of indistinguishability between parody/sarcasm and genuine extremism/looniness, is what I call Poe's Revolving Door.
If this was/is a problem, I am not and have not been aware of it. I pretty much never go to sexuality discussion threads anymore anyway. I know that they're going to be gigantic clusterfucks of opinions yelling at opinions feeling butthurt about opinions, and I know that they are pretty much unable to EVER produce practical solutions to any real-life problems, and they don't provide any news to me either, so I just avoid them.
I think Poni's post couldn't be any clearer. And even if it wasn't, I'll say this: When your user culture is so centered around such an small issue it constantly has to crack and attack at the smallest whiff of what appears to be a dissenting view, you might have an issue. And there's no denying that this is what's going on at SA, going on by at least three accounts, if not more, from what I've heard.
Honestly, I find it rather bothersome that during this whole discussion, you have defended a forum that nobody has particularly called out so far and that even if it such advocating was justified, you simply have not brought any reasonable arguments to it.
One thing to note about ephebophilia chat is that, much like with the word "fetish", many people on TV Tropes are just flat out using it wrong. In most contexts I've seen, people have used it to mean "I find myself attracted to a few specific fictional/real life teenagers (though I am also attracted to specific adults as well)", which can often times be a fairly normal statement given the age of the person saying it or the apparent maturity of the person they're talking about.
It's not uncommon for an adult to have some level of physical attraction to certain people in their teens, given the massive levels of sexualization of teens in media as well as the fact that sometimes a sixteen year old is visually indistinguishable from a twenty year old. When the attraction reaches the level of paraphilia the person would be an ephebophile, but people who use it in the context I mentioned would not fit that bill.
In fact, even mere attraction is NOT enough to make a person an ephebophile. Quoting Wikipedia:
So basically, you have to actually prefer teens over adults on some consistent basis to qualify for that term. Merely finding some teens sexy actually doesn't make you an ephebophile--apologies to anyone who tried to look oh-so-interesting by using the term for social posturing.
I don't know how "ephebophilia" is used on TVT, but I do know that "fetish" is very widely misused (even just considering its meaning in sexuality) to mean "something that turns someone on" rather than "something without which someone can't become aroused or reach climax". See here: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F65
That said, this misuse is so widespread that it pretty much has this as a secondary definition.
Fuck everyone who thinks they're clever by making those bingo cards about everything.
Saying "inb4" doesn't actually invalidate an argument.
Is it good that most discussions about a particular topic usually end up going the same way? No, probably not, but it doesn't mean that there's actually anything wrong with the things people are saying. More likely, it's just that the people arguing are stubborn and argumentative, what with it being the internet and all, and nothing anyone says is going to change their mind anyway.
"Stubborn and argumentative" applies to pretty much everyone who gets involved in any discussion about opinions, such as discussions about sexuality or politics.
Remember, people, you will never convince the person you're arguing with. The most you can hope to do is make a good impression on the audience.
On the original subject of Something Awful, there are four things that pissed me off about the thread everyone's discussing. From least to most important:
* They love to use me as an example of what's wrong with Troper writers, but they never give the same criticisms as the more experienced writers I've asked for critique, and the criticisms they do give tend to be shallow. I wouldn't mind if they were helping me become a better writer, but sometimes they even say my work was made worse by something most of my critiquers say made it better.
* They mock people who're incredibly stupid, but not really awful, and who're trying their best to contribute. To quote Ctrl Alt Del, it's like kicking a retarded puppy or something.
* If they're going to criticize TV Tropes for allowing awful people to post, it seems hypocritical that they themselves allow awful people to post. I'm not saying those people deserve a ban, but some of them, if they deserved it, would deserve it for similar reasons to the Tropers they seem to think deserve a ban.
* Threats to ban someone from Something Awful for also posting on TV Tropes.
(That said, I still love parts of Something Awful. I've always wanted to contribute to the LP Archive.)
I found it kinda telling that their lists of bad Tropers included such jewels as "listens to dad rock". Apparently listening to 70's rock is a crime now, mweh heh heh heh.
It was more "Staunch belief that classic rock is the ultimate form of music and people have never ever ever ever ever ever performed such a thing as meaningful music outside of it"
Honestly, I have to say that's a bad mindset. You shouldn't expect to convince people or even try, but it doesn't mean that it can't happen. Discussions can go anywhere depending on the people involved, and pretending that there's an impossible outcome outside of you turning into godzilla and eating your opponent's head's kinda ridiculous to me.
That's kinda like saying that just because two critics don't agree with something, X is wrong because he's old.
...it actually is, come to think of it
I'll agree that often times, their mockery is kinda dickish, but it's a mocking thread. These guys are not supposed to be sensible or whatever. Not gonna pretend it's remotely a good thing and you're well allowed to be bothered by this, but I will say definetly that these people, back then when it was relatively more prominent, were less familiar with these people and thus can't exactly judge them according to the whole posting history.
Chances are they think the same about SA's administration, but, well, rule 0 of any internet shindig is that you don't insult the host.
Those always were sarcastic, if Morven's posting does not tell.
"Honestly, I have to say that's a bad mindset. You shouldn't expect to convince people or even try, but it doesn't mean that it can't happen. Discussions can go anywhere depending on the people involved, and pretending that there's an impossible outcome outside of you turning into godzilla and eating your opponent's head's kinda ridiculous to me."
Personally, I am perfectly willing to concede a point and move in that general direction if the argument is good enough and have done so many times. If you're never convincing people at all (which doesn't necessarily involve "winning"), the argument is fruitless and I will pull out in frustration.
And why the heck am I still doing this?
"They mock people who're incredibly stupid, but not really awful, and who're trying their best to contribute."
They've given Flyboy some slack.
"Threats to ban someone from Something Awful for also posting on TV Tropes."
On Something Awful, they give out probations like most forums give out warnings (possibly at a higher frequency). Also, what they actually mean is that they don't want people attention grabbing about their current posting activity, which I believe has happened a lot. Morven is the exception because he is low-key about it.
Oh, I was kinda referring specifically to "arguments", as in, when people have heated discussions and get noticeably annoyed with each other. It's far easier to convince someone in a civil discussion than in an argument. Though there are still some people who will not be convinced--for example, don't expect to convince anyone from a Christian organization hosting a "debate" over whether God exists, no matter how civil it is.
That begs the question of why you expect to convince them God doesn't exist. A more reasonable goal is to argue over the nature of such a god.
And the main reason I get annoyed in those heated discussions is not because of the arguments, but people arguing badly. I get tired of people misreading my words or being irritatingly vague, expecting you to fill in the blanks naturally (and when I do that too, please inform me).
I still don't think it's as unfeasible as you say. It's highly improbable, but impossible? nah.
What kind of slack was that? I'd like to compare, but don't know.
Well, they don't randomly yell at him for the sake of randomly yelling at him, so basically, slack here is common courtesy.
So now why they granted him this favour and I get enough of a picture.
cuz he's a "Decemberist" (IE: A born rebel or whatever)
but more seriously, because he's good people, or at least trying to be good people.
Now I wonder what it means. Dissing Fast Eddie?
Wait, this thread is still around?
C'mon guys, they just want a good laugh and there are parts of TVT that are genuinely mockable. They're not doing this because they want to improve TVT or because they think they're morally superior, they're just doing it 'cos they can.
Don't try to take it too personally.
And the positive POV of TVT really has a negative effect on the site as a whole.
As far as I remember, they had a rule that TVT is beyond repair, so that'd support that they don't want to improve it, heh heh. So anyway, well, let's say that I too do it 'cause I can.
* Threats to ban someone from Something Awful for also posting on TV Tropes.
That's to keep forums invasions from happening. It's against site rules.
* If they're going to criticize TV Tropes for allowing awful people to post, it seems hypocritical that they themselves allow awful people to post. I'm not saying those people deserve a ban, but some of them, if they deserved it, would deserve it for similar reasons to the Tropers they seem to think deserve a ban.
The people who deserve a ban on TVTropes would have been banned long ago on SA, and the people who have been banned on SA might still be posting on TVTropes. It's a difference in moderation.
Remember, people, you will never convince the person you're arguing with. The most you can hope to do is make a good impression on the audience.
You're being sarcastic, right? Trying to convince the person you're arguing with is the entire point of having an argument.
Fuck everyone who thinks they're clever by making those bingo cards about everything.
I agree that they're not exactly "clever," but the point of using them is to display the usual tactics and techniques used in any given argument. It's a more sarcastic version of a "here's what's wrong with your argument" chart.