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
Comments
to remain banned. It looks like you're blaming other people for their
responses to your posts, rather than acknowledging that you were in the
wrong due to your tone.
But was I? Tribune was openly condescending, mocking feminists and Isaiah Berlin-style tolerant liberals with "Aww, look at the kids congratulating themselves for being philosophically inconsistent!", and talked about wanting to man the guillotine if there was a proletarian revolution. But he was a Trotskyist, so his condescension was accepted. As far as I'm aware, he just wandered off without warning.
I'm not going to say it's my fault that people attacked me for being condescending, if condescending behavior is otherwise accepted. Look, Anonym just told you he feels a chilling effect on speech by Christians there. Is that actually wrong, or is a single standard for us and Tribune just how you hope the place works?
Karalora is condescending whenever someone dissents from feminism, Deboss goes on condescending rants about how anyone who enjoys the humanities is worthless and literature should be destroyed, the atheists who openly treat believers as idiots are numerous... these views aren't unfashionable enough to get hollered about, as far as I know.
@Cygan: I believe the blame falls on the provoker in these situations, not the people who are provoked.
So if a bunch of leftist college students beat up a business student in a three-piece suit because they were provoked by his appearance flaunting his reactionary class, the attackers would be blameless?
@Anonym: I know I was wrong in that particular thread. I could formally state that I'll hold myself to a higher standard, which is true (I don't want to make the faith look bad), but FE could just as easily reject that statement. For all I can tell, what he wants to hear is "I was solely in the wrong every time I was attacked and I promise to never offend a progressive again."
You're making an empirical truth claim here. Show your evidence or apologize.
I would note that his style consists of restating things to better understand them, as he did with my statement:
"Look, Anonym just told you he feels a chilling effect on speech by Christians there."
I never said that, necessarily, but what I said can be honestly used to support such a statement, hence why he used it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Further, he uses a tone of satire and exaggeration, which is also more of a style than an actual feeling. If you spend your time reading and studying certain things, then such a dry condescending tone is perfectly normal. Rott's normal is the abnormal for others, which causes misunderstandings.
"I am saying but they all dogpiled me as soon as I entered is not a valid excuse."
It is an honest statement though, and can be difficult to handle. What's more, this isn't always caused by throwing a punch. It can just as easily be caused by a lot of people taking interest and wanting to respond. I recall one thread I started where people wondered if I had started the thread and left, but I was actually trying to respond to everyone (they filled three pages before I could even say something).
Second,
> Tribune was openly condescending, mocking feminists and Isaiah
Berlin-style tolerant liberals with "Aww, look at the kids
congratulating themselves for being philosophically inconsistent!", and
talked about wanting to man the guillotine if there was a proletarian
revolution. But he was a Trotskyist, so his condescension was accepted.
I don't know much about Tribune being a Trotskyist, but I remember Tribune being described by various other posters in...less-than-flattering terms, shall I say.
> Karalora is condescending whenever someone dissents from feminism,
Deboss goes on condescending rants about how anyone who enjoys the
humanities is worthless and literature should be destroyed, the atheists
who openly treat believers as idiots are numerous... these views aren't
unfashionable enough to get hollered about, as far as I know.
I don't use hollers much, because I just don't care much for any of these views, yours and Bon's and rjung's and Major Tom's and GitBiz's and many others' included.
I only use hollers for very serious issues. I have sent hollers less than five times in total. Heck, I don't even do it when people post links to warez or stuff. I just tell people to remove it, myself.
That said, Deboss is on this forum here, and I've made my disagreement with his dissing of hippies/art students/lawyers/politicians known rather clearly anyway.
or if you run away for the comfort of opportunistic inconsistency."
A very common feature of testing beliefs in philosophy, indeed. Many don't like such methods, however.
You cannot take an argument to a logical extreme and have your argument held up as valid.
There must be a fallacy name for that.
Fallacy or not, you are still coming off as smug by applying such a false dichotomy.
That Pykrete is disruptive is demonstrably false, so there isn't really room for interpretation there.
Are you kidding? Sure I can't remember getting a
Furthermore, I regularly take shots at hippies.
Dirty hippies.The specific post which resulted in your ban was not merely critical, but dismissive and disparaging of strongly held aspects of others' identities, and so caused offence.
This is remotely unique to Rott? Most of the forum is dismissive and disparaging of social conservatives, and like a third of OTC at any given time is right-bashing.
Can you please elaborate on how "condescending" is subjective?
A snarks at B. C thinks it's funny. B snarks at A. C gets offended and thinks it's condescending.
You didn't say that heterosexual intercourse was superior (just as well, because that would have been off-topic since it wasn't a sex thread). What you said was that gay history was the history of people who liked anal. This is untrue and dismissive.
I
that
Compared to the shit that gets regularly thrown around OTC, this is the forum management equivalent of "I'm not scruffy! B&!"
Unless I'm very much mistaken, his point was that these thumps were needed because you caused threads to derail, and that that was your fault, while the fact that you were insulted was not.
Rott's beliefs have been attacked, sometimes as a derail, in threads he wasn't even in yet. This being one of them.
or if you run away for the comfort of opportunistic inconsistency.
Is that much different from Fighteer taking your stated belief that traditional gender roles should be enforced, and stretching it to the extreme of "women shouldn't be allowed to read"?
Anonym/Rott: the thing that I've been trying to say is that tropers on the liberal side of these debates do get warned and thumped for similar behavior. Some of them, like Bon, have even gotten banned. Additionally, there are a number of christian tropers that haven't gotten banned despite stating their views extensively. Usht, Cojuanco, and Wanderhome come immediately to mind. So it's not like Rott is being singled out for being conservative, because both sides of the political divide get punished for causing drama, and other conservatives get along just fine.
Because viewing something as "condescending" is defined by personal preference, beliefs and opinion. It cannot be viewed from an objective view due to the fact that one person can think something is condescending while another does not need to. Looks like you just got told, oh shit.
Just let me know when this thread needs locking.
one of which was for displaying unrest at Scrye's banning and
insinuating the open secret that these bannings are on Eddie's whim, I
might add.
Bobby has been getting frustrated that I'm not getting the logic behind Eddie's whims, which would be necessary to craft an apology that won't offend him.
I wrote a sincere apology based on the inaccurate premise that Eddie's whim is to not be annoyed with hollers, such that anyone who gets many is ban-worthy regardless of their behavior, after all.
This is remotely unique to Rott? Most of the forum is dismissive and
disparaging of social conservatives, and like a third of OTC at any
given time is right-bashing.
Seeing Bobby thump every condescending post in just one of the scores of those threads would be his CMOA.
Rott's beliefs have been attacked, sometimes as a derail, in threads he wasn't even in yet. This being one of them.
Also, I'd love a rational explanation of how derails that attack my beliefs are my fault when I haven't replied to a thread at all.
And a pony.
@Elbeem: Is that much different from Fighteer taking your stated belief that
traditional gender roles should be enforced, and stretching it to the
extreme of "women shouldn't be allowed to read"?
Yes, because what he said was a lie. He is a liar, and he either knew it or is ignorant of history. It's not traditional for Christians to stop girls from learning to read.
I omitted the "if" part.
Either way, yes, this thread is filled with "my opinion is better than thou", and it should cut down on it.
Rott's beliefs have been attacked, sometimes as a derail, in threads he wasn't even in yet. This being one of them.
Wait what
Rott was being attacked on IJBM 2 before he even got here, but most people were supportive at that time IIRC.
So if a bunch of leftist college students beat up a business student in a three-piece suit because they were provoked by his appearance flaunting his reactionary class, the attackers would be blameless?
IMHO, what you did was not the equivalent of wearing a 3 - piece suit. What you did was like wear a 3 piece suit, swipe the megaphone, and shout hate for liberals into it. The beaters may still deserve to be prosecuted, and the business student may even be entirely correct about them, but that doesn't excuse the business student from inciting a riot.
Quite honestly, I find the TV Tropes forum culture to be clearly biased in a number of areas, and it harms my enjoyment of it to the point that I have considered leaving. But I've learned to be careful with what I say.
>If Rott was in the majority, he might get away with that, but because he wishes to represent a certain viewpoint (alone), he is held to a somewhat higher standard.
I don't think this should be the case, and it won't be intentionally happening, but... yeah, I guess it's possible in practice. Certainly, I'd imagine he's more likely to be hollered about.
Quoth Hobbes' Rottweiler:
>But he was a Trotskyist, so his condescension was accepted. As far as I'm aware, he just wandered off without warning.
He didn't, though he wasn't banned. And I'd be surprised if we had many people on the forums who were pro-Trotskyist, though I guess there might be a fair few people who are more open to that idea than conservatism. Still, he managed to rile up an awful lot of people. Subjectively, I'd say his views were more disturbing than yours.
>I'm not going to say it's my fault that people attacked me for being condescending, if condescending behavior is otherwise accepted.
In theory, it isn't.
>Look, Anonym just told you he feels a chilling effect on speech by Christians there. Is that actually wrong, or is a single standard for us and Tribune just how you hope the place works?
De facto, it's perfectly possible that Christians get scrutinised more than non-Christians due to the hollers we receive. De jure, this shouldn't happen.
>these views aren't unfashionable enough to get hollered about, as far as I know.
Largely not, though we have had hollers about both the users you mentioned in the past, and thumpings have occurred.
Regarding the atheists, my instinct is usually to argue with them rather than thump them in most instances. I have... not been very good about warning people I have just been arguing with. (In the interest of consistency, that changes as of now.) There's also the issue that there seems to be a great deal of controversy over what is or is not offensive where religion is concerned. I try to be fair to both sides here. It is possible I don't always succeed; I shall do my very best, and please don't anybody hesitate to holler if they think an uncivil post has gone unnoticed.
>For all I can tell, what he wants to hear is "I was solely in the wrong every time I was attacked and I promise to never offend a progressive again."
I don't believe that Eddie is that unreasonable.
Quoth Anonym the MIGHTY again:
>Rott's *style* of writing is being taken in the wrong way.
This is, admittedly, possible.
>Further, he uses a tone of satire and exaggeration, which is also more of a style than an actual feeling. If you spend your time reading and studying certain things, then such a dry condescending tone is perfectly normal. Rott's normal is the abnormal for others, which causes misunderstandings.
!
This is potentially the root of the entire problem.
Quoth Plato's Rottweiler again:
>I stretch your beliefs to their logical extremes to see if they hold, or if you run away for the comfort of opportunistic inconsistency.
While this is a valid argument tactic, it may be expressed rudely (e.g. Glenn suggesting that you go rape a bunch of women in that one thread). Furthermore, it has it's limitations - it is insulting to suggest that people are "running away" from the full implications of their opinions, for example, if said opinions are dependent on a particular set of circumstances and were never intended to be universally applied maxims.
Quoth the Little Busy Bee, improving each shining hour:
>I get thumped for off-topic blather all the time
This is not necessarily indicative of disruptiveness.
>I've had a few outright Troll Crushes before
I was unaware of this. Very well, then, I stand corrected.
>Furthermore, I regularly take shots at hippies.
I don't think we have any actual, self-identifying hippies on the forums, so maybe nobody was offended enough to holler.
>This is remotely unique to Rott?
No, as I have repeatedly acknowledged. I have also mentioned that I was surprised that he was banned rather than simply thumped, but the fact remains that he was banned.
>A snarks at B. C thinks it's funny. B snarks at A. C gets offended and thinks it's condescending.
It probably is. Part of the reason this forum was nuked from TV Tropes was because we were too snarky.
The important thing is to know your audience, I guess. OTC has a lot of people who take themselves pretty seriously, and they're discussing beliefs that are very dear to them.
>Compared to the shit that gets regularly thrown around OTC, this is the forum management equivalent of "I'm not scruffy! B&!"
Well, it was exascerbated by the context, which sounded aggressive.
Quoth Burke's Rottweiler again:
>Also, I'd love... a pony
Here ya go.
Quoth the Bonmeister:
>Most of Rottweiler's arguments consist of twisting people's ideas into caricatures that he can easily attack (Often, those attacks rely on the same 'orthodoxy' he hates so much). Pointing out that traditionalism in gender roles isn't far off from wanting women to be illiterate is in no way different from what he does.
Yeah, I'd have to say I agree with this.
Now, @Rottweiler: Regarding the question of tone, do you perceive there to have been anything wrong with your tone (not your opinion) during the following exchange between Glenn and yourself (for which neither party was thumped)?
>You're assuming that the proper role of women is to produce, and then to raise, children.
>Yeah, women are mammals like that.
If not, then we may be approaching the crux of the issue, I think.