Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle.
Yes, but maybe the other people don’t like being told that they’re toxic for using a colloquialism. Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction? Why can’t someone sit down and lecture atomicpoet at length about how wrong he is for his failure to get with the program of how other people want him to interact, instead of the other way around, and then ban him if he doesn’t agree to keep all their communities completely free-form where people can express whatever they want, and ban anyone who upvotes or defends his viewpoint if anyone does?
I’ve got no slightest bit of ill will for the guy. His viewpoint makes sense, it’s fine, and also I spent some time trying to really break it down why this approach might be a bad idea, but at the end of the day I wish him well and he’s obviously welcome to set up his stuff and his communities in the way that will spark joy. It’s all good. I do feel like a lot of times this “I have decided the metric for virtue and you must obey it” doesn’t really go along with being willing to accede to other people’s metrics of virtue when they decide to enforce that you obey it in turn. (That is why I keep joking about YPTB banning people who take the viewpoint that anything the mods do is okay because they’re the mods and they’ve got the power within their community.)
Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction?
You’re joking, right? If it only went one direction then none of the posts calling them out for anything would’ve happened in the first place.
You can still criticize someone’s beliefs while respecting them by refusing to refer to them by terms they don’t want. Case in point, this comment: https://quokk.au/comment/1473591
Well, but my point is that these people whose logic is “I own this community, and so therefore I own the people within it, so whatever I think they should be allowed and not is the word of God, QED,” I feel like those people wouldn’t be amenable to the same logic if it were themselves in the peon position and some other person in the “word of God” position. Like if they were banned for voting the wrong way on comments within YPTB, it all of a sudden wouldn’t be a totally logical and understandable thing to have happen.
The fact that YPTB doesn’t work that way, and we can just kind of talk things out here (most of the time), doesn’t really change that. They’re still defending a system where people who think differently cannot criticize them (at least not in a direct reply in the same domain).
I’m literally not talking about any of that, I’m just saying it’s childish that people are intentionally going out of their way to bully someone by calling them bro when they asked people not to. That’s it. That’s all I had a problem with.
Why is banning someone for voting in a way you don’t like, and calling them “toxic,” not bullying?
That’s it. That’s what I had a problem with. A lot of cultures recognize the right to self-defense, and it applies rhetorically as well as physically. And just like in the physical realm, sometimes people recognize the response as extreme when they don’t see their initial provocation as “extreme” in the same way, because the people they were attacking were bad people, and so basically they deserved what they got, unlike me who didn’t even do anything wrong.
Call them a clown. Call them as asshole. Call them a power tripping bastard. Call them an idiot. Tell them “I don’t need to call you bro to diminish your statements, you never said anything of value.” There’s countless ways you can criticize and even insult them without saying bro.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but to me, I am practicing the subtle art of being disobedient without being hostile or unfriendly. Starting to get all mad about it would not be the point, I think I told OOP that directly that I didn’t really agree with people who were getting super-hostile about it back at him either.
It’s like when your sibling announces that you’re not allowed to say “pancakes,” you have to say “flapjacks” from now on. Guess what’s going to get discussed at every breakfast using what word for a while going forward? They might get bent out of shape about it, but if so they kind of did it to themselves, and maybe getting bent out of shape is how they learn that that’s not what’s up and that’s not the way the relationship between us works.
IDK man. I’ve tried any number of ways to explain this. You’re not required to see it the same way as me, but pick any one of those explanations, they are different facets or ways of looking at how I look at it. I tried a few different ways. If you’re not into it, I get it, but you’re not going to have a lot of luck just repeating the other way until eventually you “win” or w/e.
![[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator (!movies@piefed.social being the exception). Content is still available, details in the linked post](https://lazysoci.al/pictrs/image/cb7c5a29-e297-41a8-bde5-698ba205c3fd.png){kind=link}
Yes, but maybe the other people don’t like being told that they’re toxic for using a colloquialism. Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction? Why can’t someone sit down and lecture atomicpoet at length about how wrong he is for his failure to get with the program of how other people want him to interact, instead of the other way around, and then ban him if he doesn’t agree to keep all their communities completely free-form where people can express whatever they want, and ban anyone who upvotes or defends his viewpoint if anyone does?
I’ve got no slightest bit of ill will for the guy. His viewpoint makes sense, it’s fine, and also I spent some time trying to really break it down why this approach might be a bad idea, but at the end of the day I wish him well and he’s obviously welcome to set up his stuff and his communities in the way that will spark joy. It’s all good. I do feel like a lot of times this “I have decided the metric for virtue and you must obey it” doesn’t really go along with being willing to accede to other people’s metrics of virtue when they decide to enforce that you obey it in turn. (That is why I keep joking about YPTB banning people who take the viewpoint that anything the mods do is okay because they’re the mods and they’ve got the power within their community.)
You’re joking, right? If it only went one direction then none of the posts calling them out for anything would’ve happened in the first place.
You can still criticize someone’s beliefs while respecting them by refusing to refer to them by terms they don’t want. Case in point, this comment: https://quokk.au/comment/1473591
Well, but my point is that these people whose logic is “I own this community, and so therefore I own the people within it, so whatever I think they should be allowed and not is the word of God, QED,” I feel like those people wouldn’t be amenable to the same logic if it were themselves in the peon position and some other person in the “word of God” position. Like if they were banned for voting the wrong way on comments within YPTB, it all of a sudden wouldn’t be a totally logical and understandable thing to have happen.
The fact that YPTB doesn’t work that way, and we can just kind of talk things out here (most of the time), doesn’t really change that. They’re still defending a system where people who think differently cannot criticize them (at least not in a direct reply in the same domain).
Exsctly, you’re describing a power trip, see the name of the sub. Why is the OP who posted this in this sub then acting surprised? Lol
I’m literally not talking about any of that, I’m just saying it’s childish that people are intentionally going out of their way to bully someone by calling them bro when they asked people not to. That’s it. That’s all I had a problem with.
Why is banning someone for voting in a way you don’t like, and calling them “toxic,” not bullying?
That’s it. That’s what I had a problem with. A lot of cultures recognize the right to self-defense, and it applies rhetorically as well as physically. And just like in the physical realm, sometimes people recognize the response as extreme when they don’t see their initial provocation as “extreme” in the same way, because the people they were attacking were bad people, and so basically they deserved what they got, unlike me who didn’t even do anything wrong.
I never said that wasn’t bullying.
Counter-bullying isn’t really bullying, though. That’s some “American high school with a zero tolerance policy for violence” shit.
Call them a clown. Call them as asshole. Call them a power tripping bastard. Call them an idiot. Tell them “I don’t need to call you bro to diminish your statements, you never said anything of value.” There’s countless ways you can criticize and even insult them without saying bro.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but to me, I am practicing the subtle art of being disobedient without being hostile or unfriendly. Starting to get all mad about it would not be the point, I think I told OOP that directly that I didn’t really agree with people who were getting super-hostile about it back at him either.
It’s like when your sibling announces that you’re not allowed to say “pancakes,” you have to say “flapjacks” from now on. Guess what’s going to get discussed at every breakfast using what word for a while going forward? They might get bent out of shape about it, but if so they kind of did it to themselves, and maybe getting bent out of shape is how they learn that that’s not what’s up and that’s not the way the relationship between us works.
IDK man. I’ve tried any number of ways to explain this. You’re not required to see it the same way as me, but pick any one of those explanations, they are different facets or ways of looking at how I look at it. I tried a few different ways. If you’re not into it, I get it, but you’re not going to have a lot of luck just repeating the other way until eventually you “win” or w/e.