Yo!
I'm back, sorry been mad busy with stuff in flesh and blood land lately. Anwho, first up, Kate, I'm just gonna skip over your post and go straight to Tess', not cause I'm playing favourites or anything but cause I think I end up covering most of what you were after, and it'd just be easier this way, plus It's kinda already a long enough post I'm posting.
Now-
Tesseracts wrote:Logan, you know what the answer is already.
Of course I do Tess', that's not the point, the point is this is an important milestone type situation for me to be in considering my views, I need to do some aul soul searching over this, and given I've been here over four years, I just didn't want any ambiguity here. What I have a problem with here is a real impasse for me now, and before I get down into some actual hard-core thinkin' on it, what I was really hoping for was a straight up "this is how it is, take or leave it" so I can get the crystal clear idea of where we all stand. And then I could go from there.
The whole "you know that we know that we all know what the deal is you know" is too vague for me at the best of times, let alone at a potential crossroads. I'm not trying to be a hard ass or nothing, but I genuinely did look at that as a way of simplifying and speeding up things.
Plus I'm not a hundred percent sure you get what I'm objecting to. As I think parts of what I've responded to show me. What I'm objecting to isn't people thinking and saying Noodle-Fox is a bigot or has said bigoted things, that's a topic for debate, and one I'd like to have. What I'm objecting to is when Gisambards said this:
"I think it's ridiculous to have concerns that someone like Noodle might feel unwelcome because people keep suggesting they're prejudiced when they go off about what useless freaks trans people"
Now to be fair, that's not technically saying 'Noodle-Fox said transpeople are useless freaks", not quite anyway.
But to me it is putting it out there for anyone who comes across it as saying 'Noodle-Fox said transpeople are useless freaks", when she said no such thing. Now if one had said "what Noodle-Fox has said on this forum is no better than saying transpeople are useless freaks" or "it was tantamount to saying they're useless freaks" or "SHE'S A 1000 TIMES WORSE THAN SOMEONE WHO SAYS THEY'RE USELESS FREAKS!" that'd be different. That's just giving one's stance, not making a claim for all the world to read that someone said something very specific that someone didn't say.
And no, I don't think it's the same as calling someone a bigot because you think what they said was bigoted or a rape-apologist because you think something they said was rape-apologisty. These are things where, however hurt the person called such may be, the other person is still just giving their stances.
Whereas the other is putting it out there someone said something specific and extreme that they didn't say. I understand that some people don't see the difference. May not have any clue what I'm even talking about. Think I'm a crazy bastard etc. But that's not really the point, I do, which is why I'm making the issue of it.
I think people here should have a reasonable expectation that when other users put across what they've said, that they won't put across words that weren't in their mouth that form a very specific statement different to what they actually said. I think that's worth complaining about.
Now of course it wouldn't have to be exact for it be a fair restating. If Noodle-Fox had said that transpeople were 'freakish and she had no use for them' or they were 'abominations with no value in society' or 'mistakes of nature who couldn't do anything', then that would have been close enough for it in my opinion, which is after all what I'm basing all this on, to count as fair.
But as Gisambards has pointed out, this is what that accusation was based on-
"I'm all for trans rights. I'm a pro person, an egalitarian. BUT I'm also a realist: do you think it's a good idea to have people who have been statistically proven to be physically and mentally unstable and have a suicide rate of 40% in everyday life on the front lines?
To have a trans person who sees themselves as something else, who will eviscerate their body and constantly undergo horrific and painful procedures to feel normal, be able to proclaim, "Yes, I am healthy to join the military. I'm stable enough to fly a helicopter into an area where I'm going to be shot at. I'm going to be able to stand around doing nothing for hours on end, follow orders clearly and concisely, and I'm definitely able to stay clam when I'm being shot at."
Now you can say that's as bad as calling transpeople useless freaks, or that in your opinion someone who says this probably thinks transpeople are useless freaks, that's just giving your opinion and your opinion is now open to discussion ala-
"well I don't think it is."
"well I do."
And so on, and that's cool. But it isn't saying transpeople are useless freaks. To put it there as though it was and have that be something not even on par with starting threads calling out other users in the very first post here, then that's a problem for me. Because this is a moderated forum, which already has rules based on how others should be treated, I view this as akin to lying about someone. And therefore if this is okay, if I log on tomorrow and see Johnny McJohnson has said-
"That D-Logan guy, I'm sick of him always going on about how all Chinese women are useless wenches" and I'm like-
"I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT!"
But the response to any complaint is-
"Well that's how Johnny interprets something you said whether you said it or not, so it's fair game."
That doesn't strike me as fair on a moderated forum. If Johnny trully believes that may as well be what I think or that something else I said means is as bad as that, he can say that and I can defend myself, but I think he at least owes me having it be made clear that's not something I actually said.
And I know you gotta give leeway in normal human conversation. I mean if you say "Kevin says he lives in a big house" whereas Kevin actually said "He resides in a large home", then that's not crossing any line. But there needs to be a line, or it's fine to be lying from my view.
Again, that's the issue, not I'm against calling people bigots if you think they are, or saying things someone has said are bigoted if you think they are, but I am against the act of putting out there that someone said something so specific that they didn't say.
I understand people have gotten the wrong impression, that I am objecting to people calling people bigots when they think they are. But no, that's a conversation I quite like and enjoy, but it was the wrong place to let it happen here while I was making an actual objection.
I have learned that!
I hope that's clear now. And I know it's my fault if it isn't.
You know Gis did not break any rules.
Yes I know, I've checked the rules section since and bloody hell! There isn't a rule against this. I honestly probably never would have been cool with that at the time, Given how absolutely fundamentalist I was on the sanctity of people's words when I first got here. And I was WAY worse about that back then. I've really soften my stance on the matter since. But that's on me of course. If it's that important to me I shoulda made sure at the time. I just assumed it was at least frowned on.
But as I said starting a thread where you call out other users in the first post is at least advised against. So I have potentially something to justify certain things. Hence my request at some kind of official clarity. Not cause I'm asking for a bone to be thrown so I can trick my own mind into getting what I want, but to ensure I'm moving forward with all possible information.
I suspect you are insisting that I repeat myself because you want an excuse to leave.
Well not you specifically. Any mod would do. And it aint about needing excuses, it's about what's the right thing to do.
For me it is genuinely a question of me. It's not about the forum itself. Am I condoning acts that I claim to be against? Am I being hypocritical? Do I put my money where my mouth is when it comes down to it?
And conversely, am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill? Is it not better to argue a case? Is it standing one's ground to stay or is it standing ones ground to leave?
I mean it's some heavy shit for a devil-may-care hipster like me. I wanted to start it off with a very clear beginning point. But I understand that my request may actually make people uncomfortable, so I can just go ahead with what information I have that I assume to be correct, it's a little shaky for me, but needs must as the devil drives and all that.
In spite of everything I still think of you as a friend, and I don't want you to leave. I remember the old days on Cracked and I feel strongly about this community.
Thank you Tess', I'm very touched by that. Thems were some crazy times weren't they. And what a ride it's been.
Just so you know, I'm not doing all this for fun. I'm not doing this out of spite or anger. I'd prefer not to do all this. I aint one for the drama, well maybe some times, but not this situation, but given how clearly I've made my stances on certain matters, it strikes me as worse if I don't least reconcile some matters for myself.
I think I'd come off as hypocrite if I didn't. To myself in particular.
Kate and Marcuse both disagree with me on a lot of issues including trans issues. They are allowed to disagree with me, and I am allowed to think other people's views are transphobic. If we can't say, reasonably and civilly, that we think something is transphobic, we do not have free speech. I believe in free speech and support it as much as possible. I think Noodle should be allowed to say Hollywood has a gay pedophile problem. I think Noodle should be allowed to say I, Tesseracts, am a child rape apologist. It hurts me and I find it insulting, but it's not a violation of the insults rule.
Yeah. As I say that's not what I was objecting to, but again I get why people would think it was. And I do think that right there is a great conversation to have. And you are of course free to do that.
Noodle can speak her mind. If you think she's being bigoted or whatever, you should get to say that. And then if someone thinks you're being unfairer to her by saying that, they should be free to say that.
That last parts important by the way. If someone thinks you're being unfair to someone by calling them a bigot or suggesting they are, then they're no more silencing you by saying that, than you are silencing the first person by saying what you think of them.
But that's not this conversation, it's a great one to have IMO, but I don't wanna let myself veer off like this! I'm gonna stick to the topic at hand. I've learned my lesson.
I agree with Gis and I fully believe it is transphobic to say trans people are self-mutilating and disqualified from military service. I think I should be allowed to say that.
Yes. Of course you can. And people who disagree with you and think that's unfair or wrong or whatever should be allowed to say that. And you should be allowed defend your self, and they should be allowed ... etc. etc.
But again, that's not my objection.
My objection would be if in response to someone saying they think transgenderism is caused by a mental illness, that it's a form of self-mutilation and as such they are against people in this situation this serving in the military, you were to say "this person crossed the line with all that 'transpeople are worthless scum' talk" or something else they didn't say. Unless you made it clear in said statement they didn't actually say that, but that's your take on the matter.
I think others should be allowed to call me a terrorist sympathizer and rape apologist in response, although I really hope you don't.
Of course not.
Many people here would agree with what Gis said
And that's my problem. If there are indeed many people who agree it's okay to frame what Noodle said as 'transpeople are useless freaks' when she didn't say it. If that's what they agree with, not just it's a bigoted attitude to have, but the thing I objected to. Yep. That's ... a problem.
so it is very strange in my opinion to single her out specifically. Nothing about what she said is unusual by our standards.
Because I don't see anyone else doing that.
And no someone referring to as a rape apologist or terrorist supporter because of an interpration they took wouldn't be the same. If they said "Tess said rapists did nothing wrong and the victims are responsible for being raped" or "Tess says she supports terrorists and said literal terrorists are awesome" when you said no such thing, that would be the same issue.
I acknowledge people may not see the difference. But I do. So what options do I have? If there's one I'm missing, let me know, it'd help me out.
Let me ask you this. What is the alternative to allowing people to make claims you don't like? If someone does not say, out loud, that they object to something, they will still object in their head. Should they keep their opinion to themselves? I don't think so. I think everyone should express their opinion.
Which is not what I'm objecting to. I support people speaking their mind and voicing their opinions. And as I say I include people both saying someone's a bigot AND people saying it's unfair to call that someone a bigot for that reason and all that goes with it.
What I'm objecting to is framing people as saying things they didn't, to such a specific degree. If this was an unmoderated comment section or something, it's be different of course.
That's why I pushed for people to bring up their grievances instead of keeping it to themselves. I generally think it's better if we discuss things. I'm not certain that was the right decision, because this discussion seems to have just deepened the anger. However the anger would exist even if we didn't talk about it, so it's probably best to talk about it.
Yes it was the right decision. Don't let any of this sway you on that front.
I absolutely did not want NoodleFox to leave. I think this forum needs a diversity of opinions to maintain a healthy atmosphere of discussion. I made every effort to get along with and I spoke with her in PM to attempt to clear up misunderstandings. However, I do not blame myself or anyone else here for her leaving. If she doesn't like what we have to say, that's her prerogative.
Honestly this isn't really about Noodle-Fox or Gisambards, it's the principle of the matter for me. If it wasn't this, the matter would have come up eventually. I'm surprised it hasn't before, maybe it did and I missed it or it didn't occur to me at the time. The thing that this is about for me is if this forum is against people directly insulting other users and sock-puppet accounts and whatnot, but in no way is against framing people as saying things they didn't say so specifically even on an advisory front, than am I, ME, endorsing such a principle?
Because that's what it all MUST come down to at the end. If I don't stand by my principles, what use am I to anyone? And more importantly, am I even actually betraying them?
That's what I find myself pondering.
The election of Donald Trump has really created a rift in this community. The current political atmosphere is causing division everywhere. I don't want it to happen, but I fe?el powerless to stop it. I can't tell people what to think or what to say. I can't tell people to stop reading websites like Kiwi Farms or Rawstory. I can't stop anyone from leaving. I want an atmosphere where people can debate, openly and honestly, about any issue without assuming bad intentions or attempting to shut down discussion.
Well, I think this is the best way to go about it honestly. I know it's unpleasant, but in the long run it'll be shown to be right. Like you say, best to just get things out in the open.
Clean, clear, consise.
BOO-YEAH!
Anyway, that's what I'm currently now mulling over in my trussled up brain.
Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.