Social Literacy Thread (split from Rant)

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Social Literacy Thread (split from Rant)

Postby Shro » Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:10 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:"Darth Vader" is always a good one.

I did this once at a place that announces your order is ready over speakers, and the guy calling it out started dun-duning the Imperial March as I made my way down to get my food.

Ok, so I've tried to split this as fairly as possible to get the differing points about social stuff, and to avoid other stuff that is mainly snark and not much content. If anyone thinks that I should have included x post because otherwise the rest of the conversation doesn't make any sense, pm me and I'll merge them in. This was a lot more tricky than I thought, because the forum-software (or my incompetence) only let me move one page of posts at a time.

Angua
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby azule » Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:58 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:I've never been to a fast food restaurant or coffee shop that asked for my name, in Europe or Asia (I've don't remember going to one in America).
I forgot to mention that this is a very recent trend. At first it was just one place, then it spread a bit like a virus.

Adacore wrote:The only places I've used names have been sit-down restaurants when reserving tables.
When I said "fancy" I'm sure I meant "not fast food" because I've never been in one that required a reservation.

Shro wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:"Darth Vader" is always a good one.

I did this once at a place that announces your order is ready over speakers, and the guy calling it out started dun-duning the Imperial March as I made my way down to get my food.
You people are much more fun than I, or the guy that last took my order. He wrote down "Bill" as my name. Shit, that could have been my name (as "Bill" is a common name). I don't know how I would have felt if he assigned me the name "Refuser".
Are you female, btw, as details propose? Because Darth Vader is a guy, not just a "darth" person. (And "vader" means father. Darth Mader. I'll show myself to the exit for sexists....)
P.S. That guy could get sued for playing a copyrighted piece of music in public without prior written agreement by Lucasfilm.

SecondTalon wrote:From now on, your name is 287
What did I order? :P Fine! :x
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Azrael » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:46 pm UTC

azule wrote:Are you female, btw, as details propose? Because Darth Vader is a guy, not just a "darth" person. (And "vader" means father. Darth Mader. I'll show myself to the exit for sexists....)

Someone needs to call you out on this explicitly, rather than implicitly. Allow me, for I enjoy doing so. And this is the rant thread:

Pull your head our of your ass. Everyone knows that Darth Vader is a guy. You have to be unbelievably self-important, self-absorbed or just incredibly pretentious to feel that you need to explain that to someone. Holy fuck, dude. Darth Vader isn't some little-known geek culture badge of pride that you can be a total prick about because you doubt some girl could possible know about (ALSO: Don't fucking do that either. Ever.) He's mainstream. Christ, my grandmother even knew that. I'd bet pretty much anything that my six year old niece knows that. Perhaps you should mention that the sky is blue, by the way, just in case her gender gets in the way of knowing that one. Maybe she thinks it's pink?

Nor does it matter one tiny bit if it was a girl who gave that name to the barista. Because Darth Vader is fictional. Everyone knows she isn't really Darth Vader. Just like they'd know they weren't in danger of being cut the fuck in half if I gave Beatrix Kiddo as a name.

Her joke was hilarious, as was the barista's response. "Oh noes, you gender swapped the character." Shut it.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4798
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:07 pm UTC

I didn't get the impression that azule thought shro was ignorant about Star Wars because she's a girl and thats not the kind of thing girls would know, but because she's a girl and vader is not and that mismatch looked to him like evidence of ignorance. I agree that its ridiculous to imagine anyone of any sex is that ignorant of such mainstream culture, but it didn't come off to me as sexist, any more than if he had thought a guy ignorant of some media because that guy had used the name of a female character (like say, dressing in green and brandinhing a sword and calling himself Zelda).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:11 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I didn't get the impression that azule thought shro was ignorant about Star Wars because she's a girl and thats not the kind of thing girls would know, but because she's a girl and vader is not and that mismatch looked to him like evidence of ignorance.
I happen to agree, but nevertheless:
gmalivuk wrote:
azule wrote:Darth Vader is a guy, not just a "darth" person.
I'm pretty sure literally everyone in the world knows Darth Vader is a guy.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Azrael » Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:41 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:...but because she's a girl and vader is not and that mismatch looked to him like evidence of ignorance ...

Which is just as bad.

I mean, a different bad, perhaps. Maybe more in the "Desperately needs to correct someone about something obvious" camp or the "How dare thee tamper with gender" school rather than the "girls can't know nerdy shit" set. But still astoundingly STFU-worthy.

Although, we all know perfectly well he wouldn't have corrected a guy for being the wrong race had they made the same joke. So the "he wasn't being sexist" defense falls pretty fucking flat. Dude was explaining to the girl how shit really is because he assumed she didn't know. Even though she knows perfectly well and her behavior wouldn't indicate otherwise if you weren't already hung up either about her being a girl, or about a girl using the name of a male fictional character.

Don't make excuses for him. He's acting like a jackass, and needs to hear it.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby azule » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:00 pm UTC

Link, thanks. The second one we have outside. Those are a pain, indeed. I had four set up in front of the house, one in another area. The other area is out and I haven't replaced it. The four in front, I think two are those type, while the other two are in-house lights... Apparently I have just given up fixing these damn lights in my house. lol.


Azrael wrote:
azule wrote:Are you female, btw, as details propose? Because Darth Vader is a guy, not just a "darth" person. (And "vader" means father. Darth Mader. I'll show myself to the exit for sexists....)

Someone needs to call you out on this explicitly, rather than implicitly. Allow me, for I enjoy doing so. And this is the rant thread:

Pull your head our of your ass. Everyone knows that Darth Vader is a guy. You have to be unbelievably self-important, self-absorbed or just incredibly pretentious to feel that you need to explain that to someone. Holy fuck, dude. Darth Vader isn't some little-known geek culture badge of pride that you can be a total prick about because you doubt some girl could possible know about (ALSO: Don't fucking do that either. Ever.)
Are you sure you're not totally self-absorbed in thinking that I need explained by you that everyone and their mother knows Darth Vader has a burnt off penis? I asked the question if she was female (still assuming female because no reply). The follow up sentence was to explain why I asked. This is how communication sometimes works. Instead of asking you how far sticks go up your ass and nothing else...I would follow that up with saying that you're overreacting a bit and should probably calm down. Only saying the first part might be fun and might cause a wonderful battle to ensue, but why not just get the details out of the way so that things are just a bit more clear. If you find that shit to be annoyingly redundant, oh well. But it's only annoying to you. It doesn't mean I have any of the issues you mention.

I called her "female" not just "some girl". I attempted to be gentle in my proddings, but to you you've taken it to be jerk language regardless... O. K. :?

Perhaps you should mention that the sky is blue, by the way, just in case her gender gets in the way of knowing that one. Maybe she thinks it's pink?
Overreact much? Why does one question, aimed (not at you btw) at her, mean all of that? I think the sky is pink at times. Am I not on your list of protected genders?

Nor does it matter one tiny bit if it was a girl who gave that name to the barista. Because Darth Vader is fictional. Everyone knows she isn't really Darth Vader. Just like they'd know they weren't in danger of being cut the fuck in half if I gave Beatrix Kiddo as a name.

Her joke was hilarious, as was the barista's response. "Oh noes, you gender swapped the character." Shut it.
I know there's a big gender identity equality thing here on the fora, but seriously, it's still okay for people to identify with their similar gender. If "she" identified with Vader, genderwise, she would tell me. I don't think you have to defend her. See, let's get on a rant in your direction now. Why did you feel the need to rescue this poor damsel in distress? She didn't seem distressed. She didn't seem in need of rescuing. Is she too weak to defend herself? I must be a big scary man who's trying to take advantage of her, is that why you came to intervene? Hah, it works both ways, see?

I guess I wondered about it because of the word "Vader" that is supposed to mean "father". Some here say it probably doesn't. Language is one of my main interests so therefore I might ask an uncomfortable question while investigating. Here's some random ramblings:

I can mother a child I have fathered. I can be female characters in games while I am male outside of the game. ("She" could, too.) Women can wear fake mustaches (or have real ones). Women wear "boy cut" clothing all the time, some of it is even sexy. Men can rarely wear such feminine things (even ones labeled "boy"). Society isn't all perfect in these regards. I'm not trying to make it worse. But open and free (from being forced to stop) discussion is a good thing that might help change things. If "she" were to tell me her thoughts or even say she was offended, I'd have learned something. But, I probably won't be learning much from her "protector". I thank Pfhorrest for defending me, but fuck if I don't have the ability to do so myself. He's telling all his (or her) opinions but that really doesn't mean as much as me telling you mine. Yours doesn't mean as much as Shro's.

Pfhorrest wrote:I didn't get the impression that azule thought shro was ignorant about Star Wars because she's a girl and thats not the kind of thing girls would know,
I didn't question her knowledge of SW, correct. I said extra details after my question, that then infers sexism to those that place them as intricately connected ideas. Trust me, I know about this because my girlfriend takes my sentences to her a similar way because I say extra shit that detracts. It's really confusing instead of clarifying. I should probably stop that...but I won't learn.

but because she's a girl and vader is not and that mismatch looked to him like evidence of ignorance.
Nope. See above reply.

it didn't come off to me as sexist
Thanks.

Azrael wrote:Although, we all know perfectly well he wouldn't have corrected a guy for being the wrong race had they made the same joke.
Why do you know anything perfectly well about someone else that you don't really know. You can get a good impression, sure. I have one of you, but I'm willing to not know everything that comes out your mouth is going to follow an Azrael guideline.

If the information was given to me, just as it was with Shro's gender, that some person was a different race than that of Vader... there is the possibility that I would inquire about it as well. While it's not in-universe, Darth Vader's voice is played by a black man, so if he were black or white it would be a sort of non-issue. What of other races? It's a good question, but I'm not going to postulate for your amusement. Let things happen naturally and let them be and call me a jerk then, if you must, but most likely it would be fine. Just as it's fine with gender. (Not that this is ever a winning argument, but I have a friend who is black (while I am not) (also white, asian (chinese), female. You know how that works, you may as well), and while society gives a stereotype that they must love certain types of music, he loves all kinds including heavy ass metal (same as I). It's okay for me "wonder" at this, but in the end all that matters is what he enjoys and what we can enjoy together.)

General reply to Azrael: *sigh* I don't know where you get your impressions from. As you can see, others don't find that same stuff that you do. If you're just hyperaware of issues related to women or gender, great. But try to temper that with how you approach those issues. Like, asking a fucking question at me to clarify instead of just assuming you're all-knowing and that I am exactly who you say I am. Sorry, you're not God. On Earth we should probably check our "facts" before going to war. I hope you enjoyed your rant. I guess I could say that I did as well. Sorta. If you do have more to say, is it possible to do so in the form of questions instead of accusations? :shock:
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26168
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:42 pm UTC

azule wrote:Vader discussion: I don't believe Lucas, I just realize that it's his shit, it's made up shit, therefore the shit doesn't matter enough for me to care that there's a rough draft that Lucas jizzed on that says Vader is "Invader". As a writer or creator, it's his fucking right to write whatever the fuck he wants and to justify it however the fuck he wants. As long as he's consistent and doesn't fuck up with conflicting ideas, such as trying to say Luka and Leia weren't romantically involved but the evidence is they kissed, so fuck you Lucas, that's the reality. I'm looking forward to hearing about anymore in-world examples of conflicting shit. I don't really care to argue about rough draft decisions (that's how writing works, so don't dog it by making us stick to every decision we made along the way). I will enjoy reading about the potential history, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.
You can make the argument that on film, Luke & Leia didn't have anything approaching a romantic relationship. She kissed him twice, once in an escape excitement, the second to piss off Han. In other instances, even in #4 and Luke explicitly saying "She's beautiful", their interactions were more friendly than romantic.

However.....Splinter of the Mind's Eye, a Star Wars novel (the first, I believe) written in 1978, so before Empire. Official Star Wars branding, so it was approved by Lucasfilms. Anyone knowing that Luke & Leia were bro and sis and not wanting to reveal that information would have not approved that book. It's not like they screwed, or even made out in the book. But there was incredible amounts of sexual tension that, knowing they're related, is incredibly fucking awkward. George Micheal and Maeby's relationship is less awkward.

As far as the rest of it goes, let me summarize

Az : You're being a sexist jackass for these reasons
Normal Person : Oh! Shit! I didn't even realize what I said could be taken that way! Maybe I need to take a moment to reassess the language I use in order to avoid problems like that in the future (or just fake it and say that I will and completely ignore it because I think Az is being an idiot, but I'm not going to say this.)
You : !!!!!!!DOUBLEDOWN!!!!!!
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby azule » Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:35 am UTC

Pfhorrest, money issues cause most of the world's problems. Sorry that yours is so close to home and infuriating. I've loaned people money, and while that seemed fine, not only did I never get it back, but they, like in your situation, squandered it. It's just not worth it, according to me. But, this is your mom, and fuck if I know how far to go with that situation. Cutting her off might seem cruel, but maybe there's another group of people that can help her with managing her finances and rent. Being so personal with the people that you have a financial arrangement with never seems to go well. The familiarity usually concludes with taking advantage of, which you can't do with these other organizations.

Pfhorrest before striking out wrote:i hop eyou all die in a fire because every last fucking human being is a miserable sack of shit who doesnt deserve to live
I often agree with you. Just look at what I have to deal with below. But there are often some good people that never fuck you over (verbally or otherwise), so y'all can live. ;)

Weeks wrote:
azule wrote:I attempted to be gentle in my proddings, but to you you've taken it to be jerk language regardless... O. K. :?
Beg your pardon, my good sir, but you are an arrogant, obnoxious, ignorant, and generally unpleasant human being, whose presence we could surely do without. Please do not take me for a rude man, because that I am not. I bid thee farewell.
When have you talked to me? Azrael has. I'm not sure why you're butting in. Based on a few statements of mine? Let's look at a couple of your "dispicable opinions":
Spoiler:
Weeks wrote:Because terrorism is fun, duh. Just ask 4chan!

Weeks wrote:If it won't torture then what's the point?!
Are these opinions who you are? Are they out of context? Do I dare ask you, as if you were a human being, to clarify? Hah. You don't have to have anything to do with me. You seem a bit familiar but I couldn't find an exchange that we had. Apparently it's better that way.

doogly wrote:"Female" isn't that much more gentle, should've gone with "m'lady."
I don't understand. Do y'all propose a genderblind society? (Similar to the colorblind society we have?) What else would I call someone besides female? It's the most fundamental term there is for someone of that gender. Start a conversation or direct me to how to handle this besides putting blinders on.

Yakk wrote:azule: You are wrong. You are being a jerk.
I assume this is due to having an opinion and explaining myself and all that. If that makes me a jerk, I guess that's how this shit works here. Do you have a particular reason for saying this? Otherwise, good job on the name calling, that's constructive. *rolls eyes*

SecondTalon wrote:As far as the rest of it goes, let me summarize

Az : You're being a sexist jackass for these reasons
Normal Person : Oh! Shit! I didn't even realize what I said could be taken that way! Maybe I need to take a moment to reassess the language I use in order to avoid problems like that in the future (or just fake it and say that I will and completely ignore it because I think Az is being an idiot, but I'm not going to say this.)
You : !!!!!!!DOUBLEDOWN!!!!!!
The big issue here is, you're assuming Azrael's language is perfectly fine. He came at me with forceful language and insults.Then you say that I need to reassess my language? I assume this must be because Azrael is always right and lowly azule can fuck off anytime his opinion doesn't match Azrael's. *scratches head* I've never heard language being an issue in the rant thread (granted I've only read since my post was merged into here). Is this because the language is being directed at real live members? Maybe that's how we should rant even when directed at our kin or bosses who aren't members here. If you propose that, please make it universal, otherwise the language seems fucking fine and this is the fucking place to do it. (I look forward to the new rant thread with only nice and thoughtful language. /sarcasm)

You are calling me "not a normal person". I don't believe that is what you meant. I believe you really meant to say my opinions don't jive with the ruling order here. I'm not saying things to put down any gender. Can someone freely do as they please without the iron fist of azule stopping them? Oh, yes, they can. The iron fist is decorative. It sits on a shelf. Where have I harmed anyone or caused anything else bad save for having opinions that don't align (at least on the face of it) with some others here?

As for being a "sexist jackass" and how I should just agree to something I don't...remember, there are others here (not that it matters) that don't agree I was being sexist. Should I do as in your scenario because of who the person is that says it? This person, is she female? I'm pretty sure she is not. If so, I'll take it under consideration, but even then, this is only an issue for Shro (who also may not be female despite information reporting otherwise). Being the "normal" person that I am, I actually did realize all this could be taken whatever way. Which is why my first order of business was to use the most proper term I know for someone who calls themselves a "girl". I could have used the term "girl", but I've grown to acknowledge that this can be a tricky term. I felt better going with a technical term. I guess "normal" people would say "m'lady", get chastised for it, then apologize, they don't think ahead. Hah. Whatever.

Deva wrote:(At no particular person)
Please be mindful of your words. Realizes this thread's purpose and title. Convey your feelings. Accomplishes more without spears, however.
I actually was being mindful of my words, so this must be directed at others. hah. I was mindful when I use an extreme phrase, to see if it attempts to convey the correct feelings. Sometimes it's through sarcasm, sometimes it's direct. Mindful I am. Perfect I am not.

If you look at where this started, please tell me where I used spears? I directed a question at Shro. Azrael came at me with spears. I may have attempted to reply in kind, but whatever, it's a rant thread, no? I wasn't trying to be all tactful if I didn't have to be according to the rules of this thread, but I still was (to some degree).

General statement: As Deva conveys, if y'all could attempt to engage in a conversation with me without fucking spears, and were mindful that I am not a fucking jerk (and that's the only term I'm comfortable using, all that's said boils down to that for me) but can reason and think critically, I would probably have an easier time ingesting your opinions (of my opinions). Bite at me and I'll snarl back, but I don't want to fight. Argue, sure, but not a pointless fight. I hope we can make a point out of this and not just have it be a case of "ganging up on azule". I often will defend people with less than popular opinions if they are totally being misunderstood or similar. I don't defend them based on agreement, but because they should be heard so that real critiques can be made and real thought can be put into the discussion. We don't need a society of all the same kind of people.

Thank you to any who took the time to read this with an open mind (and haven't "foed" me). If you're done with this, so am I. If you want the last word, please be as amiable as you can. I'll let it stand as long as it's not total asshat. (But it won't necessarily mean I relent or agree with any unreplied to statement.)
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Azrael » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:01 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Nor does it matter one tiny bit if it was a girl who gave that name to the barista. Because Darth Vader is fictional. Everyone knows she isn't really Darth Vader. Just like they'd know they weren't in danger of being cut the fuck in half if I gave Beatrix Kiddo as a name.

Her joke was hilarious, as was the barista's response. "Oh noes, you gender swapped the character." Shut it.
I know there's a big gender identity equality thing here on the fora, but seriously, it's still okay for people to identify with their similar gender. If "she" identified with Vader, genderwise, she would tell me...

I guess I wondered about it because of the word "Vader" that is supposed to mean "father". Some here say it probably doesn't. Language is one of my main interests so therefore I might ask an uncomfortable question while investigating. Here's some random ramblings:

I can mother a child I have fathered. I can be female characters in games while I am male outside of the game. ("She" could, too.) Women can wear fake mustaches (or have real ones). Women wear "boy cut" clothing all the time, some of it is even sexy. Men can rarely wear such feminine things (even ones labeled "boy"). Society isn't all perfect in these regards. I'm not trying to make it worse. But open and free (from being forced to stop) discussion is a good thing that might help change things...


This is you irrefutably demonstrating that you are hung up on the gender mismatch displayed in a pithy Starbucks cup joke. The gender of the cup holder is entirely inconsequential to the story. It means nothing. That your instinct, when faced with such an inconsequential gender mismatch is to resort to 'gentle prodding' speaks volumes about your default assumptions -- namely, that you think there is something wrong or unusual going on that you simply must explore further. You may not be trying to make it worse, but in this case you are by dragging the gender mismatch up when it is entirely irrelevant.


At yet another level, the default to questioning like this is widely seen as an expression of privilege; that the non-conforming person owes you an explanation and has some obligation to help you learn. They don't. Now You Know.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26168
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:05 pm UTC

Wonderbolt wrote:
azule wrote:I know there's a big gender identity equality thing here on the fora, but seriously, it's still okay for people to identify with their similar gender.

...Did you seriously just pull the "cis people are so oppressed!" card? >_>


We're rockin' the suburbs here, folks.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Shro » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:39 pm UTC

Azule wrote:I asked the question if she was female (still assuming female because no reply). The follow up sentence was to explain why I asked. This is how communication sometimes works.


First sentence.
Azule wrote:Are you female, btw, as details propose?


Why you asked.
Azule wrote:Because Darth Vader is a guy, not just a "darth" person. (And "vader" means father. Darth Mader).


What you are claim to be communicating:
First Sentence: Inquiry into gender.
Second Sentence: Reasons for your inquiry.

Azule wrote:Like, asking a fucking question at me to clarify instead of just assuming you're all-knowing and that I am exactly who you say I am.

Okay. Let's start from the very beginning.
The quick one liner story that I posted was deliberately meant to be concise. Some of the humor derives from this stylistic choice (see: pithy). The story does not require much window dressing to be entertaining, and I'm someone that likes to get to the point quickly. If I had wanted to share further information to flesh out this anecdote, I would have done so, so I ask why do you feel that this question is an appropriate/relevant one? Why are you curious? When on the internet, sometimes your interactions with other people happen when you don't have all the information about them, so the only thing you have to go on are their posts and other clues that you can pick up. What about the clues you were given were so confusing to you, that you had to clarify if I was a certain gender or not? Does it detract from your enjoyment of the story at all, or is it an general question about my fora presence?

I want to know why you think the expression of your curiosity in this matter is justified. Do you ask people outright about their age, weight, sexuality, IQ, marital status, or various other data points? General Best Practice is to wait until that information is offered - whether on the internet or in real life. It is a social convention to allow people to offer personal information when they are comfortable revealing it.

Thus, what was communicated, in the context of general best practices/social convention:
First sentence: I want to know if you're female, and am asking because I do not want to wait for you to offer that information.

This is, in fact, somewhat rude because it also communicates that your desire to satisfy your curiosity trumps general social conventions put in place to allow people to feel comfortable in any environment.

Moving on to the second sentence; you haven't really explained why your it clarifies your desire to know. Everyone does in fact know that Darth Vader is a male character. You yourself were offended at the suggestion that you even needed that fact explained to you here:
Azule wrote:Are you sure you're not totally self-absorbed in thinking that I need explained by you that everyone and their mother knows Darth Vader has a burnt off penis?

So we have established that not only is it so obvious that Darth Vader is a male character, but it is also very obvious that everyone (and their mother!) knows that Darth Vader is a male character. But then why would you word it like this?

Azule wrote:Because Darth Vader is a guy, not just a "darth" person. (And "vader" means father. Darth Mader).


If you only wanted me to know that you wanted to know if I was female because Darth Vader is a male character and that discrepancy confused you, why did you not word it that way? Why did you further try to clarify that he was not just a "darth" person and that "vader" means father? If you did not think that I knew who Darth Vader was, then why on earth would you have added this information? I know a lot of times people who feel like they know things want to share those things that they know, but when you start to offer information to "clarify" and that information ends up being redundant, it ends up helping no one. You've wasted other peoples' time, and put them on the defensive, because repetition of simple/universally known information is seen as condescending.

Azule wrote:I didn't question her knowledge of SW, correct. I said extra details after my question, that then infers sexism to those that place them as intricately connected ideas. Trust me, I know about this because my girlfriend takes my sentences to her a similar way because I say extra shit that detracts. It's really confusing instead of clarifying. I should probably stop that...but I won't learn.


You have an idea about how these extra details detract from your communication, but have expressed being stubborn in your ways. Why won't you learn? What do you need to hear that lets you know that you are communicating at sub-optimal levels? That the people you are communicating with are, in fact, confused as to why this information was presented, instead of however you think they should be feeling.

Note: What makes these questions okay to ask versus all of my examples of outright questions that aren't generally asked given above? I am responding to Azule's explicit invitation to ask questions - even with this explicit invitation, he is not obligated to answer any of these questions. Or if he does answer some questions, that doesn't obligate him to answer all of my questions. Because social conventions.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby azule » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:41 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:This is you irrefutably demonstrating that you are hung up on the gender mismatch displayed in a pithy Starbucks cup joke. The gender of the cup holder is entirely inconsequential to the story. It means nothing. That your instinct, when faced with such an inconsequential gender mismatch is to resort to 'gentle prodding' speaks volumes about your default assumptions -- namely, that you think there is something wrong or unusual going on that you simply must explore further. You may not be trying to make it worse, but in this case you are by dragging the gender mismatch up when it is entirely irrelevant.
I'm not hung up on anything. I said something in passing to someone else. Since then, we have been discussing this thing for far too long. I'm actually fine with that, but please don't take it that I'm hung up on an issue that is only perpetuated by other people. Think of it like a girl going into the men's room to use the facilities. They can go in, most likely legally, and maybe vice versa. But is NO ONE going to bat an eyelash that they are using the "wrong" room? They could have good reasons, they could have no reasons. Nothing bad or even interesting is likely to happen. But I don't see why I couldn't note this.

At yet another level, the default to questioning like this is widely seen as an expression of privilege; that the non-conforming person owes you an explanation and has some obligation to help you learn. They don't. Now You Know.
That's how it's seen, but that doesn't make it true. If you ask a person a question, they can answer you or not answer you. Where is there this part about obligation or privilege? :?

doogly wrote:I have no idea what would give you the impression we currently have a colorblind society, but egads do I not have time or patience for this.
We live in a text only society (on this fora). What I was saying was that it's not colorblind but that it's sometimes proposed that we have one. You could call my statement sarcasm.

I was just making a joke about fedora culture, with this "gentle" thing you had going.
I know of this. I just didn't realize that you had come in to make a joke and not to take things seriously. Sorry, I'll assume humor was meant instead offense if you happen to make a similar comment in the future. :)

Wonderbolt wrote:
azule wrote:I know there's a big gender identity equality thing here on the fora, but seriously, it's still okay for people to identify with their similar gender.

...Did you seriously just pull the "cis people are so oppressed!" card? >_>
Doubtful. You can PM if you'd like to further discuss, but in this environment it wouldn't be productive.

SecondTalon wrote:We're rockin' the suburbs here, folks.
I'm sorry, this is offensive. This kind of assumption from y'all, but I can't ask a non-assuming question to another member. I have lived in many places, including the suburbs, including the really bad neighborhood, including a car, including fuck you. Y'all can think whatever the fuck you want of me, but it's probably based on bullshit like this. I hope y'all are happy with your way of putting people down which is way better than "my way of putting people down". It's not, btw. If you don't like something you say I did, then don't fucking do similar shit to others, yourself. :evil:
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:36 pm UTC

azule wrote:Edit: New page, folks. Rock this page good. We only need personal ramblings/rants here, not in-fighting.
Shall we take that to mean you won't be responding to the "damsel" herself's point-by-point takedown of your crap?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5949
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Sprocket » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:51 pm UTC

addams wrote:Darth Mutter does have a ring to it.

It makes me want Indian food.

Similar story - I was being jokey and punny with a barista yesterday and eventually he asked "what name would you like this under" and in that mind set I was like "Alfred Von Tacklebottom the 3rd, Prince of Soviet Kazakhistan."
Among various meaningless thing that have been said here, (Kazakhstan is a place, Kazakhistan is not. It's not a Soviet place anymore, Kazakhstan doesn't have a prince) I also called myself Alfred *GASP A BOIS NAME!?* and a prince, which is a male title.

In a nut shell, nobody gave a fuck about any of this. The barista chuckled, we moved on.

Now I mostly, though I was taken aback by his "WAIT THATS A BOIZ NAME BUT YOU IS A GRRL!" comment (What are we, five year old who are kind of obsessed with the differences between girls and boys? Is Ozzy Osbourne upsetting us cuz he has long hair LIKE A GIRL!?) I assumed Azule just wanted to make some puns about Vader meaning Father and in reality didn't actually think you were "doing a wrong thing" by giving your name as that of a male character. He just wanted to set up a platform on which to A) Look impressive, when he was in fact wrong. The character was Vader from his inception and the fact that it could be translated as Father may have inspired stuff later or not. and B) To make a silly joke about the idea that you could have a 'Darth Mutter' if you take Vader to mean father or whatever.

However as this has gone on, I am starting to wonder.
Last edited by Sprocket on Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:08 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26168
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:56 pm UTC

azule wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:It's a bloody song reference.
Including Will's contribution? I guess he knew it was a song, too, but wrote me special lyrics. That was nice of him. /sarcasm

Edit: New page, folks. Rock this page good. We only need personal ramblings/rants here, not in-fighting.


Spoiler:
Let me tell y'all what it's like
Being male, middle-class and white
It's a b*tch, if you don't believe
Listen up to my new CD
(Sha-mon)

I got sh*t runnin' throught my brain
It's so intense that I can't explain
All alone in my white-boy pain
Shake your booty while the band complains

I'm rockin' the suburbs
Just like Michael Jackson did
I'm rockin' the suburbs
Except that he was talented
I'm rockin' the suburbs
I take the cheques and face the facts
That some producer with computers fixes all my sh*tty tracks

I'm p*ssed off but I'm too polite
When people break in the McDonald's line
Mom and Dad you made me so uptight
I'm gonna cuss on the mic tonight

I don't know how much I can take
Girl, give me something I can break

I'm rockin' the suburbs
Just like Quiet Riot did
I'm rockin' the suburbs
Except that they were talented
I'm rockin' the suburbs
I take the cheques and face the facts
That some producer with computers fixes all my sh*tty tracks

In a haze these days
I pull up to the stop light
I can feel that something's not right
I can feel that someone's blasting me with hate
And bass
Sendin' dirty vibes my way
'Cause my great great great great Grandad
Made someones' great great great great Grandaddies slaves
It wasn't my idea
It wasn't my idea
Never was my idea

I just drove to the store
For some Preparation-H

Y'all don't know what it's like
Being male, middle-class and white
Y'all don't know what it's like
Being male, middle-class and white
Y'all don't know what it's like
Being male, middle-class and white
Y'all don't know what it's like
Being male, middle class and white

It gets me real p*ssed off, it makes me wanna say
It gets me real p*ssed off and it makes me wanna say
It gets me real p*ssed off and it makes me wanna say
F*CK!

Just like Jon Bon Jovi did
I'm rockin' the suburbs
Except that he was talented
I'm rockin' the suburbs
I take the cheques and face the facts
That some producer with computers fixes all my sh*tty tracks

These days
Yeah yeah
I'm rockin' the suburbs
Yeah yeah
I'm rockin' the suburbs
Yeah yeah

You'd better look out, because I'm gonna say 'F*ck'
You'd better look out, because I'm gonna say 'F*ck'
You'd better look out, because I'm gonna say 'F*ck'
You'd better look out, because I'm gonna say 'F*ck'


Or, if you prefer, watchable.

The song was written to mock the sort of suburbanite teen who was a huge fan of Rage Against The Machine and the like - music written about oppression, pain and angst when the average fan of the music's worst experience was probably getting a participant award in the 5th grade.

Which, granted, isn't to say that person doesn't have real problems, I'll grant you. But in reference to the specific comment Wonderbolt reference, we all know it's okay for people to identify with the gender the doctor said they were upon birth. That's so incredibly common and understood that it doesn't need to be said at this point. And probably won't ever need to be said. Which makes saying the alternative - that it's okay to identify with a gender that doesn't match what society would assume - all the more important.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

cphite
Posts: 1275
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby cphite » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:59 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I didn't get the impression that azule thought shro was ignorant about Star Wars because she's a girl and thats not the kind of thing girls would know, but because she's a girl and vader is not and that mismatch looked to him like evidence of ignorance. I agree that its ridiculous to imagine anyone of any sex is that ignorant of such mainstream culture, but it didn't come off to me as sexist, any more than if he had thought a guy ignorant of some media because that guy had used the name of a female character (like say, dressing in green and brandinhing a sword and calling himself Zelda).


The impression I got was that he was making a joke, especially because he followed it with the bit about the guy being "sued" for dun-dunning the Imperial March theme...

After he doubled-down on it, I just assumed he was trolling.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby azule » Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:50 pm UTC

I would only spell it Graham. It's also the spelling of graham crackers in the US.

Irrelevant Shit:
Spoiler:
gmalivuk wrote:No, he didn't write you special lyrics. He wrote the lyrics of the song.
I'll trust you. I looked up the lyrics and didn't see those words when I skimmed. The site I used was a mess, probably missed them. I still don't know why it got used in reply to me, but whatever, your guys' opinions don't really matter, just like mine doesn't.

gmalivuk wrote:Shall we take that to mean you won't be responding to the "damsel" herself's point-by-point takedown of your crap?
You did understand that damsel was rhetorical language I was applying to Azrael's rant, not something that I thought, right? Anyways, I have replied via PM, if that's important for you to know. I didn't do anything here for attention or what have you. She's free to share it with you, but if she doesn't post it then please don't bring it up.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:38 am UTC

Same irrelevant shit.
Spoiler:
azule wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:No, he didn't write you special lyrics. He wrote the lyrics of the song.
I'll trust you. I looked up the lyrics and didn't see those words when I skimmed. The site I used was a mess, probably missed them. I still don't know why it got used in reply to me
They're literally from the first two lines of the song. And it wasn't used directly against you, but against the "cis people are oppressed" interpretation of your helpful "reminder" that it's okay to identify with the gender you were assigned.

gmalivuk wrote:Shall we take that to mean you won't be responding to the "damsel" herself's point-by-point takedown of your crap?
You did understand that damsel was rhetorical language I was applying to Azrael's rant, not something that I thought, right? Anyways, I have replied via PM, if that's important for you to know. I didn't do anything here for attention or what have you. She's free to share it with you, but if she doesn't post it then please don't bring it up.
You do understand that my issues with your words have never had anything to do with this too-literal understanding of your rhetorical language you keep explaining to me, right?

I just thought it might be better for the discussion with Shro to be public, so she doesn't singlehandedly have to explain everything herself and so we maybe have something to point others to when similar issues come up in the future.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Azrael » Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:32 am UTC

azule wrote:New page, folks. Rock this page good. We only need personal ramblings/rants here, not in-fighting.


Oh god, the irony:

azule wrote:But open and free (from being forced to stop) discussion is a good thing that might help change things.


So we're gonna discuss this as we please, whether you like it or not. Because discussion is good, and might change things.

Think of it like a girl going into the men's room to use the facilities. They can go in, most likely legally, and maybe vice versa. But is NO ONE going to bat an eyelash that they are using the "wrong" room?

Do you really see an equivalence here? You don't think this is like comparing, I don't know, going into the wrong restroom and something that's not even remotely similar? Honestly, you're comparing an opposite gender name on a cup with something you think is mostly likely legal.

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Shro » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:27 pm UTC

Azule wrote:Edit: I chose to PM you rather than post. If for some reason you want to post anything said here, you have my permission. I won't post anything you PM me unless you also give permission.

I have decided to move this back into the main thread in case it may contain helpful information for others. I hope it does.

azule wrote:
Shro wrote:If I had wanted to share further information to flesh out this anecdote, I would have done so, so I ask why do you feel that this question is an appropriate/relevant one? Why are you curious? When on the internet, sometimes your interactions with other people happen when you don't have all the information about them, so the only thing you have to go on are their posts and other clues that you can pick up. What about the clues you were given were so confusing to you, that you had to clarify if I was a certain gender or not? Does it detract from your enjoyment of the story at all, or is it an general question about my fora presence?
Thanks for these question, and hopefully the rest (once I read them).

Why am I curious? I am a curious person. I didn't want to be wrong just because you have a title (that you can't change but might have had a hand in choosing) that says one thing. If that wasn't there I probably wouldn't have asked (no, not even based on your avatar).

Why did it matter, in terms of the story? Because I wanted to ask you how it felt when it happened. You chose to call yourself Vader but you didn't choose to have the anthem hummed for you. Did it make you feel macho, or is there an equivalent feeling that stays within your genderline (if that's an okay thing for me to term; I don't mean to cause any more offense, especially if I have)? Did this do nothing of importance to your feelings? I know (hear) that women are often more comfortable with gender bending than men.

Does it enhance or detract from you story? No, it doesn't. I first react. A brightening in my face or smile or whatever. That doesn't always get posted (which is probably why everyone thinks all I care about and was focused on was your gender). Then I pontificate. If there's anything to contribute in a post, or a question unanswered, I will usually post that. Just curiosity. To be clear, it sounds cool, but I wouldn't do that. Remember, I refuse to give out my name and don't substitute it with a fake name. You people are much more carefree than I. I envy that, it sounds like fun. (But in this body and mind of mine, it's a bit mortifying, as a socially inept person.)

To be clear, it’s this expression of curiosity that is being criticized. You may not think much of it; it’s just an offhand remark that is gathering more data so you can try to understand the world better. There is nothing wrong with being curious about these things, or wanting to know how other peoples’ differences cause different outcomes and interactions, these are very interesting subjects to explore. You seem especially interested in gender and gender presentation, which is where your original asking if I was a girl question came in. Here is the thing: I get asked that ALL THE TIME. There are SO MANY of you! One of your rants was actually about having a question asked that you didn’t want to answer, and how it made you uncomfortable being asked that everywhere. Now imagine that you’re asked that question at completely irrelevant times, in what are supposed to be small, passerby interactions: “Here, I held the door open for you, what’s your name?” “Thank you for picking up my scarf for me, what’s your name?” You might get incredibly uncomfortable, and even though you can refuse to answer, or ignore the question, that feeling of being annoyed or a sense of having to give out too much information stays with you. In essence, that’s a lot of what it feels like to be a girl on the internet, in a lot of places – people feel like they are entitled to know this information, and that even if it might be uncomfortable for someone to hear the question, they are going to ask it anyway. Can you see how this can be annoying and make people not want to interact socially in certain situations? This community has decided that it enjoys the presence of women, minorities, and everything on the spectrum of sexuality and gender presentation – so these outright questions are seen as rude. And maybe it is too much of an unspoken convention that people seem not to know about, so I am trying to speak it loud and clear as many times as I can: This is a social convention that is meant to make people more comfortable here. Its benefits are considered more important that allowing people to freely express their curiosity. The burden falls on the person asking questions to be aware of the effects of these questions. I will expand on why this is so important from a brain perspective in the next section.
azule wrote:
Shro wrote:I want to know why you think the expression of your curiosity in this matter is justified. Do you ask people outright about their age, weight, sexuality, IQ, marital status, or various other data points? General Best Practice is to wait until that information is offered - whether on the internet or in real life. It is a social convention to allow people to offer personal information when they are comfortable revealing it.
That makes sense, but in person you sort of force people to reply to you with whatever you say. That's not the case online. I have been ignored more times than I can count. If you were to ignore me on this question, I would not have investigated further. I just wouldn't know. Probably no one would offer the information. Doesn't matter after that.

Wouldn’t you prefer to learn what questions are appropriate in which settings so you don’t have to deal with being ignored? Asking a question whenever you’re curious is convenient and works for you, because you don’t have to spend extra brain power trying to decide whether or not to ask this question. However, it requires brain power on the receiving end, because if the person did read it, they’d have to decide whether or not they were comfortable answering this question. And if it’s a question on a sensitive topic, you have now also triggered an emotional reaction in the reader. You have shifted the burden of trying to decide whether things are appropriate from your brain, to the brain of the person you are trying to communicate with. Communicating in this manner is very tiring to the brain of the person that has to do the extra work. The most interesting conversations happen when the participants share both the intellectual, social, and emotional burdens of social interactions.

There is a reason that I can get along with “socially inept” people, and that’s because I’m very used to shouldering the emotional and social burdens during intellectual conversations. This is not some fluke, it is not magic, it is real, hard work that my brain has to be constantly calculating. This often takes my ability to share in the intellectual aspects of the conversation, since executive functioning is a finite brain resource. When people are engaged in supporting each other emotionally and socially, people are more likely to be more of themselves, and less afraid to offer novel ideas and contributions to the interaction. This is why you have small talk with people you don’t really know, and really interesting conversations with people you feel comfortable around. When you’re around people you don’t really know, you’re thinking about what that person is like, what they like to talk about, what kinds of interaction is expected from you, when to end the conversation, and so on. You can’t really talk about Dostoevsky or the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics in that kind of dynamic, your social brain is too busy.

The same way your social brain is busy in these types of interactions where you don’t know people, the same way my brain is occupied in a social space like the internet. I would prefer to use my neurons to think about if I have relevant contributions to the conversation. If I am constantly thinking about whether or not to supply certain information, those are neurons taken out of the equation for thinking about how I should be contributing to the conversation. When you learn about how to properly apply social conventions (and of course, the appropriate times to shed them), you are helping others reach their peak performance.

azule wrote:I know what you're saying when you speak of this best practice. Except, a lot of that information you listed can be gleamed when you interact with a person...in person. If someone were to ask me a question of something I did not offer, then I either have to refuse (as I said about the food ordering and giving my name) or I begrudgingly tell them and then probably avoid more interactions like that in the future.

I'm sorry if you didn't feel you could ignore me and instead relied on this practice. I, obviously, won't be asking around in the future until the topic comes up explicitly. (Like if someone said "my life as this gender is hard" but don't say what gender.)


I appreciate that you are willing to change your practice to make other people more comfortable. Sometimes, when people are on the internet, they specifically rely on the idea that not everything about them can be gleaned from a textual interaction, and that they are in control of the release of information. Just as you did not like to give your name in real life, sometimes these data points are deliberately left ambiguous. I do not go out of my way to make my gender ambiguous, but as I don’t enjoy the coded behavior of certain males when they find out that I am female, I have a tendency to not offer the information unless it is relevant. There are many other reasons that this data is desired to be left ambiguous, but these reasons is also information that people should retain control of. So instead of apologizing because "I didn't feel like I could ignore you and instead relied on this practice" you can apologize for actually going outside of the confines of this practice, and as a result, making someone uncomfortable? The way you worded it comes off as a non apology of the "I'm sorry if you were offended" type. Especially as I don’t have the data to predict whether or not my ignoring you could cause offense to you or not; my brain is still doing a lot of extra work.
Azule wrote:
Shro wrote:You yourself were offended at the suggestion that you even needed that fact explained to you here:
Azule wrote:Are you sure you're not totally self-absorbed in thinking that I need explained by you that everyone and their mother knows Darth Vader has a burnt off penis?
Actually, I wasn't offended. It's one of those things that doesn't translate to text. A rhetorical device I used. I was having a good old fashioned rant-off with Azrael. (I was surprised how many people were taking this thread to be some other thread where we weren't encouraged to rant. Sorry that it confused you as well.)


Perhaps offended was too intense a word, but umbrage was likely taken. You would not have wanted to rant about it otherwise. Conclusion: it definitely made you feel some type of way. I wanted to address that so I could tie your personal feelings into my conversation, to use it as a stepping point to show you how someone like me could be feeling.

Azule wrote:
Shro wrote:I know a lot of times people who feel like they know things want to share those things that they know, but when you start to offer information to "clarify" and that information ends up being redundant, it ends up helping no one. You've wasted other peoples' time, and put them on the defensive, because repetition of simple/universally known information is seen as condescending.
I can understand that. But, it's like, am I saying you are probably not tall enough (as most females would be shorter) or some other aspect of Vader? It might offend you, since you knew, but being that it's on a public forum, I was posting also for others. If I knew explicitely that you knew all of this, maybe I wouldn't have added the rest. But it's sorta how I talk. I say "You know how Darth Vader is Luke's father?", the reply is usually a pair of rolled eyes, then I continue on with saying "Him wanting to fight his son to the death is called...". It's just how I bring up subjects sometimes, and I guess it pervades into sentences like it did with my question to you.

I, honestly, don't know what I was going to do with the information. I probably would have said "oh, thanks" and asked you the questions I asked above. But what did it matter? I can't think of anything. Then why did I ask? I don't go based on the assumption that I know the outcome of everything. I ask, hopefully it's not offensive, and then take what I am given, and do something or do nothing with it.

BTW, I never assumed you didn't know about SW. You said Vader, you said he hummed the Imperial March. I'm not sure why everyone thought this. Well, I do sorta, it's in the next quote you have of mine.

When the way that you speak depends on that kind of feedback (eye roll, in your example) from the people you are trying to communicate with, people are eventually going to want to stop talking to you. Again, this is an example of shifting the social burden, which as discussed, makes more effort for the person you are trying to communicate with. You should practice using hooks instead, presenting your information briefly, but in a way that invites questioning to engage your audience, instead of instantly making them defend their position of knowledge. For example, my story was brief, and did invite questioning. But why is a question of gender not the proper question to ask? Because this is one of those sensitive data points we don’t ask about unless it is offered. Instead, if you are intrigued (for the various reasons you have provided, ie, the exploration of gender presentation), you have to learn not to ask about it outright. Instead, you have to invite someone to talk about themselves in a way that would make them feel comfortable, and you may find out the data you were seeking. A proper question would take this form: “That sounds really cool; I wish I could do something like that. Can you tell us more about this story?” In this case, you are using the information provided (the story) to be the jumping point to satisfy your curiosity. I can then decide how much information I am comfortable sharing at that point, and our conversation can move from there. This approach also requires sensitivity, as you should be analyzing the tone and terseness of the response to gauge whether or not even further inquiry is welcome.

I ask so much about why you are curious so I can ask to weigh your personal satisfaction of that curiosity vs. the social burdens of others. I choose to act in a sensitive manner because I believe that all people deserve a place where their burdens can be shared – it may occasionally be a minor inconvenience to me, but I believe that this small filter I can place will make a much more welcoming place to people who may not have something like this in their real life, or other places on the internet.

Azule wrote:
Shro wrote:
Azule wrote:I didn't question her knowledge of SW, correct. I said extra details after my question, that then infers sexism to those that place them as intricately connected ideas. Trust me, I know about this because my girlfriend takes my sentences to her a similar way because I say extra shit that detracts. It's really confusing instead of clarifying. I should probably stop that...but I won't learn.


You have an idea about how these extra details detract from your communication, but have expressed being stubborn in your ways. Why won't you learn? What do you need to hear that lets you know that you are communicating at sub-optimal levels? That the people you are communicating with are, in fact, confused as to why this information was presented, instead of however you think they should be feeling.
I'm not stubborn in my ways. I meant, it's hard to stop. I do try. I try to figure out where I should stop adding and then I do my best to stop there. It's not stubbornness. It's just being very used to doing something. If I slam a door closed and it's always worked, great. But then I have to not slam them when there's a small child around who will sneak in where they can and might get hurt. See, the thing is that I might still slam it, such as when they're not around, or when I know where they are and are out of harm's way. Otherwise, I have to not slam or they might get hurt. Why don't I (and others with a similar habit) just stop slamming the door ALL the time? I hope you understand what I'm saying there.


I do understand, and to explain things, I will borrow and extend your analogy for a bit.

(1)Slamming doors is convenient; it makes it so you don’t have to do a little extra work of holding onto the door a bit longer, maybe taking an extra half step, maybe less of an arm extension. Since we try to minimize the work we do, this pattern has become ingrained, and whenever you are presented with a door, you tend to slam it.

These are our coded behaviors we have when presented with a situation. This is how we are used to interacting in these situations. We don’t usually think about how we act this way, we don’t analyze our motivations for doing so, it’s just easy to do it this way, and no one has said anything about it before, so there hasn’t been any negative feedback to keep us from doing things this way.
(2)When we introduce a variable that requires you to be more careful in closing the door, it ends up as more work for you. Not only do you have to close the door gently, but you have to consciously pull yourself out of the thought pattern that has become ingrained without that added variable.

This is other people approaching you and telling you that your behavior is unacceptable. It sometimes seems hard to adjust, because this habit is no longer a conscious one, it seems to be so ingrained in our habits, sometimes we conflate it with our personality. A lot of people become defensive when someone points out that an added variable can be a reason to stop slamming doors, that the risk of occasionally slamming a small child shut in a door is not a good enough reason for them to stop. Or sometimes they will deny that there are any small children to worry about.

(3)Because it’s hard to adjust out of our ingrained habits, sometimes it’s hard to only adjust our ingrained habits some of the time (when the variable is present). When we’re learning, often we have to stop ourselves completely, just so the pattern of neurons that fire with our ingrained habit doesn’t strengthen when we are trying to dismantle it.

This is just how our brain works. The behaviors we use a lot have shortcuts in our brain. It has to do with the way neurons are connected to each other – and when we use these particular circuits, the pathway of these firing neurons get better and better at firing all of these neurons in that particular order. When we realize that we should slam doors around kids, we could try to only practice that while there are kids around, but it will be more effective in destroying the habit if we at first practice complete abstinence of the problematic practice.

(4)But when you stop slamming these doors, you realize that it has a ton of great side effects. The door frames and the doors themselves end up lasting longer, because you are taking better care of them as well.

When we start taking care of other people, even if it is a minor inconvenience to do so, we will see a change in the way people start interacting with us. (Small children will not be afraid to be around us and a door). When we start carrying some of that social burden, we can get to the real conversations we want to have much more quickly and probably more often with people that are not necessarily like us. Having a diversity of opinions is quite important, and it’s important that we have the tools to elicit them without letting our cognitive biases get in the way of our interactions.

(5)But sometimes you still want to slam a goddamn door. We realized that it’s not the greatest habit to have, but you’ve gotten pretty good, and not slamming the door has become your default. Say you’re in an area you’re absolutely sure no harm will come of slamming the door. Why not slam the door?

You’re in a group of people that are generally closer, and you have evidence that occasional door slamming happens in this dynamic – you will take a risk in slamming the door, but perhaps it will be worth it. This is the defiance of social conventions, and it usually makes people look like a jerk. When someone is intimately familiar with social conventions of a specific place, and realizing when these conventions are no longer serving the specific place, it is then okay to try and flout these conventions – but it takes knowledge of why the conventions exist in the first place. When many people decide to flout a specific social convention, it becomes the new convention, and that’s how we grow as a culture.

Azule wrote:
Shro wrote:Note: What makes these questions okay to ask versus all of my examples of outright questions that aren't generally asked given above? I am responding to Azule's explicit invitation to ask questions - even with this explicit invitation, he is not obligated to answer any of these questions. Or if he does answer some questions, that doesn't obligate him to answer all of my questions. Because social conventions.
I know this wasn't directed only at me. I hope this means you weren't offended that I asked. I don't know where things move along unless someone gets the ball rolling. I did invite you to talk to me, and thanks. And I did leave a few questions of yours without a reply, but if you thought they were important or wanted an answer anyways, feel free to point them out. I have obviously talked too much and you must be sick of me, so I understand if that's the end of things here.

I appreciate you giving me an out – like I mentioned, there are a lot of people out there like you, and I get this, or other personal questions a lot, and I don't always know their reaction to being ignored. I really appreciate the other people in this thread “defending” me. To wear the analogy out: sometimes there are not a lot of small children, and a lot of slamming doors. If there are a lot more adults around, and they already know that slamming doors is going to hurt a small child somewhere, they are going to try and warn you about how you might hurt a small child before you actually see a small child. Because chances are that the first time you run into a small child, you will be slamming a door on them. To prevent that first mistake, which results in pain for the small child, you are given the advice to not slam the door in the first place. And if you’re the child running around, you don’t have time to go around to everybody to make sure that they know they shouldn't slam doors around here.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby addams » Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:09 pm UTC

Did someone make a rule?
A new rule?

We can't ask about Gender?
Gee. Now I want a Gender!

(phew) I have one.
See? I'm a Girl!

Don't make me Prove It!
Giving birth in Public is not something I'm willing to do Everyday.
In this day and age, I can carry a video clip of it. Ya' wanna see?

oh, fuck you.
Men have greater upper body strength.

Man built it:
Man move it.

Woman is busy.
I'll Watch.

Spoiler:
I don't watch the skateboarders.
If I see one get hurt, I have to Act.

I cannot pick a man up and walk away with him.
Even if he wants me to.

I don't want to make a mistake, so I don't watch.
I can't just watch.

Where is your Helmet?
Elbow protection?

See that scab?
It's not sexy.

Elbow protection may help you need the other kind.

Football helmets break up and hurt the wearer.
Not more than a full facial into concrete.

Not my issue.
Spoiler:
Poor skateboarders.

They are so miss-understood.
Surfers rarely need hard helmets.

Water is hard.
It's not that hard.

Unless it's hard water.
Ice is hard water.

Some idiots surf Ice on SurfBoards strapped to their feet.
Some people Surf Ice as a Team Sport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_na ... leigh_team
The team, consisting of Devon Harris, Dudley Stokes, Michael White, Freddy Powell, and last minute replacement Chris Stokes, debuted at the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, Alberta. They quickly became very popular, largely because of their status as the ultimate 'underdog' story of the games. Alongside the novelty of a tropical country competing in a cold-weather sport, the team had very little experience going down a bobsled track, and borrowed spare sleds from other countries to compete. In a show of sporting camaraderie across national boundaries, other bobsledders were quick to give them guidance and support.

They did not officially finish after losing control of the sled and crashing during one of their four runs. However, they showed significant improvement throughout the games and impressed observers with some fast starts.[3]

The Wolrd's Most Famous BobSlead Team.
.....Did not officially finish.

It's funny.
They made a Movie, because it is so funny.

Most Improved during The Games.
That's a funny thought.

Like Card Counting at a Casino.
Come in looking like an Idiot.
Leave looking like a Fast Study.

After years of study and practice,
You too can act like a Blonde.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby K-R » Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:03 pm UTC

Shro wrote:I don’t enjoy the coded behavior of certain males when they find out that I am female
(1)Slamming doors is convenient; it makes it so you don’t have to do a little extra work of holding onto the door a bit longer, maybe taking an extra half step, maybe less of an arm extension. Since we try to minimize the work we do, this pattern has become ingrained, and whenever you are presented with a door, you tend to slam it.

These are our coded behaviors we have when presented with a situation.

"Coded behaviors"?

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Quercus » Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:40 pm UTC

Shro wrote:
Azule wrote:Edit: I chose to PM you rather than post. If for some reason you want to post anything said here, you have my permission. I won't post anything you PM me unless you also give permission.

I have decided to move this back into the main thread in case it may contain helpful information for others. I hope it does.


It's really helpful actually. I'm a bit socially awkward sometimes, mainly because I often find grokking this sort of stuff tricky. Your post had concepts in it that I'd never come across before (at least not stated explicitly) and I'll certainly be filing them under "things to keep in mind when interacting with people". Thanks!

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:08 pm UTC

K-R wrote:
Shro wrote:I don’t enjoy the coded behavior of certain males when they find out that I am female
(1)Slamming doors is convenient; it makes it so you don’t have to do a little extra work of holding onto the door a bit longer, maybe taking an extra half step, maybe less of an arm extension. Since we try to minimize the work we do, this pattern has become ingrained, and whenever you are presented with a door, you tend to slam it.

These are our coded behaviors we have when presented with a situation.

"Coded behaviors"?


'Coded behaviours' are generally indicators of characteristics of people. At the moment one of the only things I can think of is men who act in a more feminine way in films are generally understood to be gay without the directors of the film ever having to mention that their character is gay (because gay people are always flamboyant white men) and society doesn't like saying that they're gay so they 'code' the behaviour to tell you that they're gay.

So when someone says 'Male Disney film villains are often coded as gay and show children that gay people are bad' and someone else says 'well no one said they were gay', you can point at the stereotypical signifiers usually used by the film industry to 'code' someone as gay, e.g. fussy or overly involved with their looks.
(This is a massive tangent btw, it was some film criticism I was reading, I'm just trying to explain with examples where I saw it recently used)

So slamming a door: code for 'I'm angry'. If you're unaware of this and naturally slam doors, other people might be walking on eggshells around you in order not to antagonize you and it might worry them a lot. If it's brought to your attention that slamming doors is a bad thing and you rectify that, you're dealing with your natural habit of slamming doors so that people feel more at ease around you, that's cool. If it's brought to your attention that slamming doors is a bad thing and you jump to explain that it's just what you do, man, that's less awesome.

This whole thing is getting away from me a little bit because I've spent the last whatever amount of time re-thinking this several times so I'm going to try and keep it brief.

Men can be condescending as fuck if they find out you're a lady (coded behaviour that they might not even realize they're doing) and worse. Sometimes, you might not want to have to deal with that shit, so you don't tell people you're a lady, even when people flat out ask. This means that men who have this 'explain to the womenz' problem are never even aware that you're a woman and so leave you alone. This can help women feel more at ease on the interwebs and so enquiring for frivolous reasons that have nothing to do with what you were talking about is seen as rude around here.

I hope that helps and I haven't overly explained.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5949
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Sprocket » Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:18 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote: prelevent.

The intersection or prevalent and relevant.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Any idea what the CC is like for Brad Pitt in Snatch?

*Leprechaun Noises*

She's partial to periwinkle blue.

Fractal_Tangent wrote:So when someone says 'Male Disney film villains are often coded as gay and show children that gay people are bad' and someone else says 'well no one said they were gay', you can point at the stereotypical signifiers usually used by the film industry to 'code' someone as gay, e.g. fussy or overly involved with their looks.
(This is a massive tangent btw, it was some film criticism I was reading, I'm just trying to explain with examples where I saw it recently used)
I'm genuinely trying to think of a disney villain who came across as gay to me and I can't think of any. Gaston was Hard-Het. Jaffar was snake like and a bit creepy. Scar was also a bit snake-like and creepy. I wouldn't say either of them seemed at all gay, though. Unless Alan Rickman in general seems gay to you. I suppose you could argue that there was something a bit stereotypical lesbiany about Ursula if you really wanted to, but she was more just flamboyant and old and powerful and "fuck everyone" enough to be herself. She was just like, an old broadway star or something. Letsee…I can't think of any other male disney villains. Malificent and The Evil Queen were also both kind of shadowy and snake like, though Malificent was more like a scavenger bird/bird of pretty. Maybe the voodoo guy in the frog pricness, but I think he was more of a different stereotype, about race more than gender. That crocodile in All Dogs Go To Heaven seemed pretty stereotypically gay, but he wasn't a bad guy. Maybe this is more about how my perceptions of sexuality differ from people who were 30+ years older than me and making disney movies. Maybe that was what they were going for. IDK.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Quercus » Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:44 pm UTC

Sprocket wrote:
Fractal_Tangent wrote:So when someone says 'Male Disney film villains are often coded as gay and show children that gay people are bad' and someone else says 'well no one said they were gay', you can point at the stereotypical signifiers usually used by the film industry to 'code' someone as gay, e.g. fussy or overly involved with their looks.
(This is a massive tangent btw, it was some film criticism I was reading, I'm just trying to explain with examples where I saw it recently used)
I'm genuinely trying to think of a disney villain who came across as gay to me and I can't think of any. Gaston was Hard-Het. Jaffar was snake like and a bit creepy. Scar was also a bit snake-like and creepy. I wouldn't say either of them seemed at all gay, though. Unless Alan Rickman in general seems gay to you. I suppose you could argue that there was something a bit stereotypical lesbiany about Ursula if you really wanted to, but she was more just flamboyant and old and powerful and "fuck everyone" enough to be herself. She was just like, an old broadway star or something. Letsee…I can't think of any other male disney villains. Malificent and The Evil Queen were also both kind of shadowy and snake like, though Malificent was more like a scavenger bird/bird of pretty. Maybe the voodoo guy in the frog pricness, but I think he was more of a different stereotype, about race more than gender. That crocodile in All Dogs Go To Heaven seemed pretty stereotypically gay, but he wasn't a bad guy. Maybe this is more about how my perceptions of sexuality differ from people who were 30+ years older than me and making disney movies. Maybe that was what they were going for. IDK.


I'm not sure that Fractal_Tangent was saying that Male Disney villains were deliberately coded as gay, just that some were coded in ways that happen to code for gay as well as other stuff - Captain Hook was who immediately came to mind for me - he was deliberately coded as a "fop", but being overly concerned with appearance and fashion stereotypically codes for gay in the modern era (I don't think it did in 17th century England when fops were a thing).

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:53 pm UTC

So we're clear: the whole Disney Villains gay thing was a piece of film critique that I read and it was a place I could remember someone saying that 'things were coded as gay' so not my opinion. I thought it was an interesting piece though. Gaston was definitely pointed out as an exception. Jaffar was pointed at as overly preening, Governor Ratcliffe in Pocahontas was fussy/effeminate because pigtails with bows and lapdog.

I think it was definitely more about male Disney Villains & Ursula is a goddamn queen and I will cut anyone who thinks otherwise (I will not cut anyone who thinks otherwise).
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
SurgicalSteel
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:18 pm UTC
Location: DMV, USA

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby SurgicalSteel » Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:10 am UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:Jaffar was pointed at as overly preening, Governor Ratcliffe in Pocahontas was fussy/effeminate because pigtails with bows and lapdog.
I don't remember Jaffar preening much, but it's been well over a decade since I saw Aladdin, and never saw any of the sequels. I do recognize Governor Ratcliffe's tropes in other villians, though I'd always taken it to represent materialism and excess, especially as many times the hero is is shown as more in tune with nature or spirituality, or comes from poverty and hardship. Was the critique you read meant to be viewed through any particular lens?
"There's spray paint on the teleprompter
Anchorman screams that he's seen a monster (mayday)
There's blood stains on his shirt (mayday)
They say that he's gone berserk."
--Flobots "Mayday"

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:17 am UTC

Simba: You're wierd, Uncle Scar.
Scar: *with faint lisp and leer* Oh, you have no idea-a-a...

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Neil_Boekend » Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:23 am UTC

Shro, thank you. That told me a lot I needed to know.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4798
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:00 am UTC

I just want to comment on the topic that Shro is writing about, just to say that on the topic of the shifting of cognitive burdens, there is an open question about where the proper balance point lies.

There is definitely a point to be made about being sensitive and aware of the kind of things your statements and even questions will make other people feel, and there is definitely a problem with being too blunt in that fashion and putting all the burden on everyone else to just deal with it. But the kind of thing that people have been jumping on azule for, and some other similar kinds of behaviors that I see here and there on this forum, strike me as pushing the cognitive burden too far back in the opposite direction.

The metaphor that comes to mind is walking and avoiding obstacles. Of course you have to be mindful of where other people are and where they are moving to make sure you don't bump into them. But there is a difference between that and walking through a minefield, or to weirden the metaphor a bit, a crowd of people who will fall over and shatter or explode if you accidentally bump them. That just makes me not want to walk there at all, which, if there's not anywhere else to walk, just makes me feel like I need to sit quietly and still and not move because there are too many dangers around. I feel like it's not a safe place to get up and walk around, just being ordinarily mindful not to walk full tilt into someone else's face, yet with brushing elbows and bumping shoulders in crowded spots not being something terrible to get all anxious about.

The general tone of discourse on the internet seems to have changed gradually over the past decade or two in that regard. I feel like, at least in the places I visited, in the olden days you had people (to use the above metaphor) milling about generally mindful not to smash into each other, occasionally having accidental collisions but people generally just apologizing and moving on, and a few assholes who liked to run headlong into everyone but a general community consensus not letting them run the show or influence the norms, yet without swinging too far in the other direction. But now, it seems like some corners of the internet (*cough*4chan*cough*) are run by the assholes who get shits and giggles smashing into each other like bighorn sheep, and everyone else is taking the far opposite reaction and enforcing strict arms against merely brushing elbows with people in the crowd. That is how interaction in the real world feels to me more often than not (always either offended by some assholes or anxiously worried about offending the people who aren't assholes), so I'm not surprised that the internet has become more like that as it's become more populated with ordinary people who've displaced the norms of the early adopters, but I really really miss the days when there were places that weren't overrun with assholes and yet where you wouldn't get shouted at for asking an innocuous question without even realizing that it's somehow, for some convoluted social reasons completely alien to your experience, a major taboo to some people. And then shouted at even more when that understandably puts you on the defensive and you say, in effect "What? What did I do? I didn't do anything!"

Now I'm going to go sit quietly and still in the corner and not move because this feels like an unsafe place to be walking right now.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Shro » Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:22 pm UTC

I want to answer this first, and I'll go back to the coded behaviors thing since I want to relate the great job Fractal_Tangent did at explaining what they are back to my post.

Also, the more appreciative people are (esp. the lurkers), the more I am willing to keep at this. If you find this kind of discussion helpful, please PM me... it keeps me going!

But the kind of thing that people have been jumping on azule for, and some other similar kinds of behaviors that I see here and there on this forum, strike me as pushing the cognitive burden too far back in the opposite direction.


I will attempt to justify why this is important. Our community's identity is a choice that we've all decided to reinforce. We value the voices of people whose voices can not get very loud in other places. I can understand why the "conform or leave" dynamic can be so anathema to certain demographics, especially ones that feel that they have been excluded from real life social interactions and exposed to bullying, and so on.

I want to also make clear that all of this is a lot of work for me. I am feeling in the mood to do this work. This is not always the response you are going to get. People get "jumped on" for seemingly (to some people) innocuous behaviors because this is the millionth time we've had to deal with it. It might be your first question like this, but it's the millionth of the same question that the responder has had to deal with. It's not even like this situation is without precedent in the comics. You may have only asked for pics once or twice, but that girl has been solicited for pics a lot more than that. So the next time you might feel like someone's response might be exaggerated, perhaps think about if it's a behavior that they deal with often. Since analogies tend to be helpful, imagine you're IT support and you work on solving peoples' computer problems all day. And when you get home from a long day of work, one of your family members asks for help with their computer. It's a simple enough problem, but the family member just seems to not understand, and you're just too tired to patiently explain one more time... you're not even getting paid for this! This relative shows a disdain for your work, doubts that it's even that difficult, and feels entitled to your time. Your frustration has been building up for the whole day, and this is the situation that just makes you want to lay the beat down, but you refrain, and try to explain that this is work for you, you're doing them a favor, that a little appreciation would be the correct reaction, instead of disdain. But then it happens again. Are you going to want to explain it again? Maybe, but begrudgingly. What about the time after that? And then once more for good measure? After being asked the same question again and again, and getting the same obtuse responses and reactions back, how long is it going to take for you to snap? There's only one of you, and a lot of relatives; do you think you're going to have the patience to explain to all of them that your skills are valuable and that you deserve to be treated with the requisite respect?

The metaphor that comes to mind is walking and avoiding obstacles. Of course you have to be mindful of where other people are and where they are moving to make sure you don't bump into them. But there is a difference between that and walking through a minefield, or to weirden the metaphor a bit, a crowd of people who will fall over and shatter or explode if you accidentally bump them. That just makes me not want to walk there at all, which, if there's not anywhere else to walk, just makes me feel like I need to sit quietly and still and not move because there are too many dangers around. I feel like it's not a safe place to get up and walk around, just being ordinarily mindful not to walk full tilt into someone else's face, yet with brushing elbows and bumping shoulders in crowded spots not being something terrible to get all anxious about.

I am really really good at avoiding these obstacles. I could probably go running full tilt in a room full of explodey people and not touch a single person. Or if I did, I would be able to find out how to defuse it before it happened. Just as running though a minefield requires some mad DEX, my skills require some mad CHA (I have worked in retail environments for a long time and am supremely comfortable with strangers and will probably be placed in client-interfacing roles for the rest of my life because of those skills) It's something that I had to learn, and I am crazy proud of it. Being faced with a situation where you don't think you're leveled up enough for, do you think you should dive in immediately or maybe grind somewhere else before attempting a dungeon run? I can see a complaint about perhaps not having an area to grind, and everywhere you want to interact being dungeons being kind of valid: people expect top performance when they should be expecting entry-level, but again, whose responsibility is it to get to the point where the dungeon is doable? You don't aggro social interactions, you have to seek them out. And sometimes you make mistakes and die. But your respawn is literally an apology/atonement away.

The general tone of discourse on the internet seems to have changed gradually over the past decade or two in that regard. I feel like, at least in the places I visited, in the olden days you had people (to use the above metaphor) milling about generally mindful not to smash into each other, occasionally having accidental collisions but people generally just apologizing and moving on, and a few assholes who liked to run headlong into everyone but a general community consensus not letting them run the show or influence the norms, yet without swinging too far in the other direction. But now, it seems like some corners of the internet (*cough*4chan*cough*) are run by the assholes who get shits and giggles smashing into each other like bighorn sheep, and everyone else is taking the far opposite reaction and enforcing strict arms against merely brushing elbows with people in the crowd. That is how interaction in the real world feels to me more often than not (always either offended by some assholes or anxiously worried about offending the people who aren't assholes), so I'm not surprised that the internet has become more like that as it's become more populated with ordinary people who've displaced the norms of the early adopters, but I really really miss the days when there were places that weren't overrun with assholes and yet where you wouldn't get shouted at for asking an innocuous question without even realizing that it's somehow, for some convoluted social reasons completely alien to your experience, a major taboo to some people. And then shouted at even more when that understandably puts you on the defensive and you say, in effect "What? What did I do? I didn't do anything!"

It's not like I personally haven't brushed elbows before. I have been yelled at and people have been upset with me. My reaction, however, wasn't "What? What did I do? I didn't do anything!", but "Damn, y'all are mad at me for some reason. I don't understand yet, maybe I should think about why I elicited these reactions, and adjust my behaviors accordingly. I will try to be better and more aware of this new data the next time".
People are nice to each other in real life because being nice is REALLY IMPORTANT. For awhile, the people on the internet only gave two shits about the "meritocracy of ideas" or whatever, and this is what those "old days" were like, i.e. people only had to worry about interacting with people that were very similar to who they were. Most of the people on the internet in the old days fit into a certain demographic group. When speaking to people in similar demographic groups, you are not as engaged in trying to think of, and understand ways to make your communication the most effective, because you know that people will understand and are more likely to forgive you when you make mistakes - they are like you, they understand you, they give you the benefit of the doubt. You have to do less work to be understood. This is all nice and dandy, but I am asking everyone... please be better than that. Here is an article that I would like for you to read:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-smarter/
Do we value the diversity of opinions and experiences more than we value our own egos? Do we want to step out of our comfort zones and make mistakes and learn about how we want to interact with the world, or stay in our own little worlds, of our own making, filled with people that are like us and never challenge us in the ways that people who don't know us can? Do you value innovation and new ideas? Because exploring them requires experiencing the pain of leaving old ideas behind. It requires the pain of leaving our very way of thinking of things behind. Are you good at shedding the thoughts that no longer serve you? Or do you hold on to them because they are comfortable?
Improvement never happens without discomfort, without failure. Familiarize yourself with these feels. Learn how to work through these feels to achieve your ultimate goals. Sometimes it's hard because we interpret it as an attack on us, as a person. It is not, do not think of it that way. It is showing you the pieces of you that you should take out, examine, and ask if it serves you in this situation. I spend a lot of time doing this, and I spend a lot of time helping others do this as well. It is a lot of work to tell yourself that a part of you isn't working out - in some aspects, it's kind of like breaking up with pieces of yourself.

These explorations of emotion and understanding how humans interact with one another has long been the purview of religion. I've often felt that if I had been born in another century (or would have been any sort of religious), I would have ended up as clergy of some sort. I really want you (all of you!) to know that I get you, I understand you, I can feel where you are coming from. I understand the difficulties of being male at a time where females are being told that they can be anything they want, but people aren't telling you the same. I want you to know that I have a lot of experience examining social situations and the lopsidedness when it comes to my gender. Would you like help in talking about yours? I wish you would ask.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby K-R » Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:19 pm UTC

Shro wrote:I want to answer this first, and I'll go back to the coded behaviors thing since I want to relate the great job Fractal_Tangent did at explaining what they are back to my post.

I don't feel like Fractal_Tangent actually did do all that good a job of explaining, in the sense that I still don't really have an understanding of your meaning when using the term. I can't entirely put my finger on specific reasons for the lack of clarity, but it just doesn't seem to fit within the context in which you used it. Certainly not the first time (about the way men react to finding out your gender), at least. It figures slightly better into the door-slamming example, but I'm still not entirely sure it fits completely.

I can see a complaint about perhaps not having an area to grind, and everywhere you want to interact being dungeons being kind of valid: people expect top performance when they should be expecting entry-level, but again, whose responsibility is it to get to the point where the dungeon is doable?

Does it matter whose responsibility it is if there's nowhere that it can be done? If there's no area to grind, there can be no grinding, which leaves the options of "keep getting killed in the dungeon" and "never go into the dungeon". While it's certainly not fair to force everyone in the dungeon to go easy on the newbie, it doesn't exactly seem fair to leave the newbie to their own devices either.

You don't aggro social interactions, you have to seek them out.

I'm not familiar with "aggro" as a verb.

And sometimes you make mistakes and die. But your respawn is literally an apology/atonement away.

This is not a true thing.

I have been yelled at and people have been upset with me. My reaction, however, wasn't "What? What did I do? I didn't do anything!", but "Damn, y'all are mad at me for some reason. I don't understand yet, maybe I should think about why I elicited these reactions, and adjust my behaviors accordingly. I will try to be better and more aware of this new data the next time".

I get the feeling that either you've spent time and effort cultivating this response, or you're not representative of the average person in this regard. Defensiveness is a pretty typical reaction to being attacked, particularly in the moment. I know there are times I've reacted defensively at the time, but the next day realised that the other party had a point. It does take some emotional and probably temporal distancing from the situation, though.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Carlington » Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:28 pm UTC

At least in regards to that last point, I feel that a bulletin board/forum environment is probably the most forgiving in that respect. It may be difficult to create that distance in the moment, but the response you share in a given thread doesn't have to be the response you feel straight away.
(This is something I'm still learning to do, but) it's possible and often useful to read a post, and spend some time working out your response, or even if you really want to respond, and it's very much okay to wait longer than you would in nearly any other form of communication before responding.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby K-R » Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:34 pm UTC

Even consciously deciding to take some time to respond is, to me, a non-defensive response that would take time and space to make. Or practice, obviously.

I personally often find that my immediate response to such things is to get upset enough to want to leave the situation, which ends up in the same place anyway. But I'm sure there are others who would immediately get defensive, which I can also sometimes do. Depends on what the attack is, really.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:49 pm UTC

Shro wrote:It's not like I personally haven't brushed elbows before. I have been yelled at and people have been upset with me. My reaction, however, wasn't "What? What did I do? I didn't do anything!", but "Damn, y'all are mad at me for some reason. I don't understand yet, maybe I should think about why I elicited these reactions, and adjust my behaviors accordingly. I will try to be better and more aware of this new data the next time".
This right here is really important.

No one in this thread has exploded or shattered on contact, metaphorically. It really is more like the original "bumping into people" analogy.

It's just that, if you bump into someone accidentally, and a couple people respond like, "Dude...", hoping you'll get it, but instead you ignore it, and then someone (e.g. Azrael) notices you ignoring it and thinks maybe it's because you don't care or you did it on purpose because the person you bumped was a girl and calls you out on it, and then you double down and get really defensive and act like it's everyone else's problem, that is when people start getting angry with you.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4798
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:28 pm UTC

Shro wrote:I can understand why the "conform or leave" dynamic can be so anathema to certain demographics, especially ones that feel that they have been excluded from real life social interactions and exposed to bullying, and so on.


Shro wrote:Do we value the diversity of opinions and experiences more than we value our own egos? Do we want to step out of our comfort zones and make mistakes and learn about how we want to interact with the world, or stay in our own little worlds, of our own making, filled with people that are like us and never challenge us in the ways that people who don't know us can? Do you value innovation and new ideas? Because exploring them requires experiencing the pain of leaving old ideas behind. It requires the pain of leaving our very way of thinking of things behind. Are you good at shedding the thoughts that no longer serve you? Or do you hold on to them because they are comfortable?


This is what gets to me. "We value diversity, so either conform or leave!" "Challenge yourself and do things that make you uncomfortable, by not saying things that make me uncomfortable!" It's asking other people to do something so that you don't have to do it as much, and while the clear answer to that apparent hypocrisy is that both parties have to do some of it, it's up for debate how much of that burden falls on each side.

I love diversity, of opinion and otherwise. I also value tact a lot. But the way I see true tact and diversity, that means dealing with other people accidentally making you uncomfortable so long as they're not actively doing anything clearly malicious or negligent, and assuming that there is such diversity already present that it's always plausible that someone has no idea how or why they might have offended you, and that outside of your own personal and social history, such things might not be found offensive at all. For example, if a foreigner from a country with almost no black people and no history of black-white race relations comes to America, meets a black person, and remarks on how very very dark he is (because that is strange and remarkable given his background), we Americans would probably initially be aghast at that because we, with our social knowledge and context, know that that's something likely to cause offense, and would expect that one of our own people doing so would thus be trying to cause offense. But we should, instead of assuming automatically that the foreigner has that same contextual knowledge and is just choosing to violate that taboo, recognize that he probably isn't aware of it at all, and isn't actually doing anything intrinsically offensive, even if we find offense in it because of our cultural history.

It does also mean that if someone politely asks you to avoid something because it makes them uncomfortable, you go along with it so long as it's a reasonable request, as in, with good reason given, not just scorn and disdain and how-dare-you. To revisit the analogy of the overworked IT guy earlier: he comes home from dealing with dumb users all day, and his dumb user family want him to do more work for them for free, so he should tell them "please, I deal with this all day, I don't want to deal with it more now off the clock", and they should be respectful of that request. But his friends shouldn't sigh and glare and "how dare they even ask" at his family in response, and the family would be quite justified in getting defensive at that and demanding that good reason be given why they should carefully sidestep an apparently innocuous request, and asking for that reason should not be seen as further offense. If they, those specific people, keep asking over and over again after being told why they shouldn't, then they are being jerks. But a lot of other people having asked before doesn't make a random new person asking automatically a jerk. (It's still understandable why the overworked IT guy would still be frustrated with it anyway, but that's not the new questioner's fault, and the burden is on IT guy to realize that the new people won't know his history of constantly being asked to fix things and why he would find yet another request so frustrating).

In the actual events in this thread, I couldn't see any reason to get offended by azule's post, so it seems extremely plausible to me that he also reasonably had no idea why that would possibly be offensive. An explanation was eventually given, but not until after people had said, as gmalivuk paraphrases, "Dude..." a few times, which is not informative at all and I expect (if azule noticed it at all, as the first that I noticed was Azrael's post) was just confusing; and more importantly, the explanation wasn't given until after malicious and as it turns out incorrect assumptions on his character were made. I think a far better response would have been for Shro herself to politely say "I don't want to answer that because [reasons]", the reasons she eventually gave, and for others who were concerned for Shro's sake to say "hey some people don't like being asked questions like that because [reasons]", although in that case it would still be reasonable for azule to wait for Shro herself to confirm that, accepting that as a valid option if she wants to take it and not pushing her to answer anyway, though not necessarily accepting what he did as intrinsically offensive and something he should never do to anyone anywhere. (Something like "Well ok, if she doesn't want to answer that's up to her, but it's just an innocent question from me, and she doesn't need to fear what you say she might fear from me, cause I'm not like that").

I guess the point I'm driving at is that most things people might take offense to are not objectively, universally offensive, but rather only offensive to some specific person or group of people, sometimes with good reason and sometimes not, so we can't go around crossing off every action that anyone ever found offensive because pretty soon we'll be left with no actions available to us. We should avoid the things that are clearly universally offensive (physical attacks of course, and stuff like direct insults clearly saying "this thing is bad and is true of you"), but we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt that maybe they have no idea why some specific person might find some random thing offensive given their background, give them the reason why that thing is found offensive, and remain open to the possibility that maybe that isn't a good reason. (A quick example of that that comes to mind: religious people might find offense at someone claiming God does not exist, but that doesn't mean that atheists should have to live in the closet... or, while we're on that metaphor, that gay people should have to live in the closet because those same religious people find their love lives offensive). And that a debate might reasonably ensue over whether it is a good reason or not, and that someone isn't some kind of monster for not just immediately kowtowing to any claim that something they did is offensive and shouldn't be done, but instead standing up for themselves and asking that someone show them why the request being made of them is reasonable.

Because the internet is such a diverse place, we cannot assume the same contextual knowledge for everyone, and because of that, tact means having a thick skin, realizing that you are not always in a safe space full of people exactly like you with the exact same history and exact same list of things that have officially been declared offensive because of that history. It does also mean recognizing that other people may have individual histories that cause them to find things offensive that you would never in a million years think could cause offense, and being responsive to their reasonable requests to avoid such offensive. It does not mean automatically apologizing and changing your own behavior just because someone expressed offense without explanation. Instead, it means having a polite discussion about why that thing might be offensive or not, a discussion that does not grant either side the automatic assumption that they are right, a discussion that could turn out either way, as each side tries to defend their position and asks the other person to change their behavior.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Shro » Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:05 am UTC

K-R wrote:
Shro wrote:I want to answer this first, and I'll go back to the coded behaviors thing since I want to relate the great job Fractal_Tangent did at explaining what they are back to my post.

I don't feel like Fractal_Tangent actually did do all that good a job of explaining, in the sense that I still don't really have an understanding of your meaning when using the term. I can't entirely put my finger on specific reasons for the lack of clarity, but it just doesn't seem to fit within the context in which you used it. Certainly not the first time (about the way men react to finding out your gender), at least. It figures slightly better into the door-slamming example, but I'm still not entirely sure it fits completely.

I mentioned that she did a great job explaining what they were. She did not know how exactly they tied into my post, so she was kind enough to give an overview of what is usually meant by "coded behavior" while giving me the opportunity to tie it back to what I meant.

Coded behavior is $x behavior that is expected from you in $y situation when you fit into $z category. If you are in a different category/classification, different behaviors are expected of you. For example, when someone tells me a story about how they hurt themselves by falling on the ice, since I am of the female category, my general coded behavior would be to commiserate, ask if everything was all right, see if there was anything I could do, and so on. Whereas, if it was the same person telling a male this story, their coded behavior response would be something like trying to let people know how they can detect icy patches to better avoid them in the future, laugh at the incompetence, and then make fun of the injured person if any other complaints are brought up.

Note: Coded behavior is inherently stereotypical. I do not endorse these stereotypes, they are just patterns I have noticed in my personal life, and anecdotally, more often than not.
Guys have this coded behavior of when they meet a female, they do the certain things to try and impress them. Different guys will do different things, jock guys will try to show off their athletic prowess, the artsy ones try to show how sensitive they are, and nerd boys like to get explainy. Even without the dating/mating thing, guys will act towards girls this way. But guys do this for a very specific reason, usually because it's one of the ways they seek validation. In my previous example of the injured person, the male responder generally isn't very commiserative or validating. It's the female responder that ends up being the nurturing and validating one. It is very difficult for a male to find another male that is willing to be emotional support for them, usually when a male seeks out such relationships or interactions, the request usually elicits laughter, or questioning the support seekers sexuality, etc. More coded behavior. Males are then coded (because they are the recipient of these coded behaviors- not true, authentic ones) to believe that the only person that can explain why they feel the way they do will be female, usually in a romantic context. Emotional support is something that we crave as humans, even the most supreme rational being has emotional brain circuits that she has to learn how to be aware of. However, somewhere along the way, we decided that females are the ones that were going to be good at "feeling", and males were going to be the ones good at "thinking". When certain behaviors stem from these expectations, that's what I refer to as "coded" behaviors.

K-R wrote:
I can see a complaint about perhaps not having an area to grind, and everywhere you want to interact being dungeons being kind of valid: people expect top performance when they should be expecting entry-level, but again, whose responsibility is it to get to the point where the dungeon is doable?

Does it matter whose responsibility it is if there's nowhere that it can be done? If there's no area to grind, there can be no grinding, which leaves the options of "keep getting killed in the dungeon" and "never go into the dungeon". While it's certainly not fair to force everyone in the dungeon to go easy on the newbie, it doesn't exactly seem fair to leave the newbie to their own devices either.

Yeah, but what about when the newbie comes storming in, wailing about how it's unfair because all of the people that are currently running the dungeon are so much better at it than them and then demands that the higher level players help him out?

K-R wrote:
You don't aggro social interactions, you have to seek them out.

I'm not familiar with "aggro" as a verb.

Stating that you are not familiar with it in that particular state indicates that you are familiar with the word itself. Now verbify it.

K-R wrote:
And sometimes you make mistakes and die. But your respawn is literally an apology/atonement away.

This is not a true thing.

I have found this to be true in my own life. If you would like to explore why it might be true in some situations, but not in others, it would be quite enlightening for me.

K-R wrote:
I have been yelled at and people have been upset with me. My reaction, however, wasn't "What? What did I do? I didn't do anything!", but "Damn, y'all are mad at me for some reason. I don't understand yet, maybe I should think about why I elicited these reactions, and adjust my behaviors accordingly. I will try to be better and more aware of this new data the next time".

I get the feeling that either you've spent time and effort cultivating this response, or you're not representative of the average person in this regard. Defensiveness is a pretty typical reaction to being attacked, particularly in the moment. I know there are times I've reacted defensively at the time, but the next day realised that the other party had a point. It does take some emotional and probably temporal distancing from the situation, though.

I have indeed spent time and effort cultivating this response, and my point is that it is a very effective response to have in this situation (and in almost all situations, ever). Maybe you should consider making it a part of your cognitive toolkit? A forum is probably a best way to try and cultivate this response, since it's not about the pithiest retweets or the most relevant hashtag.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Rant Thread : For all your obscenity screaming needs

Postby Quercus » Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:07 am UTC

Edit - spoilered for being a bit moany and exaggerating. I had a crappy day yesterday, and that tends to manifest itself in me moaning about my insecurities. Today was better, and I realise that I'm not half as bad socially as I make out in this post.

Sorry about the moaning :oops:

Spoiler:
Shro wrote:
K-R wrote:
I can see a complaint about perhaps not having an area to grind, and everywhere you want to interact being dungeons being kind of valid: people expect top performance when they should be expecting entry-level, but again, whose responsibility is it to get to the point where the dungeon is doable?

Does it matter whose responsibility it is if there's nowhere that it can be done? If there's no area to grind, there can be no grinding, which leaves the options of "keep getting killed in the dungeon" and "never go into the dungeon". While it's certainly not fair to force everyone in the dungeon to go easy on the newbie, it doesn't exactly seem fair to leave the newbie to their own devices either.

Yeah, but what about when the newbie comes storming in, wailing about how it's unfair because all of the people that are currently running the dungeon are so much better at it than them and then demands that the higher level players help him out?


This one kind of sucks in both directions, mainly because the "new players server" for social interaction only really seems to be available when you're a child. I've been realising over the past few years that there's all sorts of social training that I should have been taking part in as a kid, but didn't because I was a bookish, introverted only child living in a tiny village with no other kids who spoke the same first language. Consequently I only learned to properly interact in a non-professional setting with about twelve people by the age of 21.

Socialising now, when I am finally feeling the need and inclination to do so, feels like a graduate level course to someone who missed most of high school. I'm sure that I'm a pain in the arse to be around sometimes, because I don't really know the rules or half the language. I don't expect people to make exceptions for me, because that's not a reasonable expectation* , but it can be tricky sometimes (I leave a lot of parties after an hour because I've not managed to get into a single conversation circle).

So far my strategies for improvement are (to extend the video game metaphor):
  • Watch how the pros play.
  • Try stuff out in low-stakes games, rather than ruining a major raid (i.e. in social situations that "matter" more, be conservative, which for me means 90% listening, with occasional expressions of interest and asking for further details).
  • If you're taking damage (i.e. screwing up a social situation) either change tactics or retreat and regroup.
  • Don't be afraid to die a lot, cause it's the only way to learn.

Any other tips?

* "Hi, my name's Quercus and I'm going to make all of your lives more difficult because I have no bloody clue what I'm doing" doesn't really fly.

P.S. As I'm writing this I realise that I'm pretty much fine in any social situation that has a specific context (clubs, conventions, conferences etc.) because then you can talk about the mutual passion that brought you there, and chatting about something you both love is fun and easy. It's unscripted situations I have trouble with (parties, clubs, dates etc.), I guess all I really need to do is find out what the other person is passionate about and have a conversation about that (I have a pretty wide range of stuff I'm interested in, and enjoy broadening that further, so I should be able to use that to my advantage).
Last edited by Quercus on Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests