|
trump?
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
also welcome, d&d thread refugees, to our underground bunker that guards us all from the fishmech-infested surface world please deposit at least one TRUMP per week to cover our operating expenses and feel free to explore our fully featured collection of threads, such as "Jordan Peterson is a gigantic shithead" and "The Jeb Crew" Jazerus has issued a correction as of 02:09 on Oct 23, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:PJ you're claiming your approach is apolitical and from the perspective of personality psychology...and your subject matter is voting blocs and political behaviour. Rethink this from first principles. that is the subject that the framework has generally been applied to, since it originated in a political forum, but it's not limited to that. narrativism is a particular cognitive approach to the world that affects literally every aspect of a narrativist's life - by tying all of those aspects together into a grand unified story instead of the more compartmentalized and analytical cognitive strategy typical of a non-narrativist. the political behavior of a particular narrativist follows from their internal story, yes, but so does literally all of their behavior. the GOP is really good at providing a story that easily slots into the most popular types of personal narratives among narrativists, and the dems are, uh, not, which is why the voting bloc behavior emerges Jazerus has issued a correction as of 02:21 on Oct 23, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
basically it's all about modes of thought and how they differ in benign or pathological ways between people
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
a narrativist is the sort of person who thinks that when their computer has a glitch it's because the devil is waging spiritual warfare against them their cognitive boundaries are nonexistent - no knowledge or experience is siloed away as its own separate thing with separate causes and effects. all of their experiences tie back somehow to the central narrative, even trivial ones. now, excessive siloing is also a bad analytical strategy - that's why there's been such a push for interdisciplinary science in the past 15 years or so. the world is actually one thing and we divide it up for convenience, and sometimes our boundaries between bodies of knowledge are more of an obstacle than a help. but the narrativist goes to the other extreme, where the world is all one thing and so everything boils down to a simple, human-comprehensible story that completely links everything. a narrativist might have a few silos for things they understand very well - a narrativist electrical engineer is probably not going to view electric circuit behavior through the lens of their story - but life in general just blends together into the story
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
and fwiw there are dem narrativists too, as has been shown rather strikingly in the last two years they're the ones that are still devoted to Mother, the folks who hate bernie more than anyone else because he somehow ruined the grand story of The Triumph of Women by means of the First Woman President, who was the Most Qualified Candidate in History, until those devious bernie bros came along
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Reading through both that article and the Altmeyer blog that was posted earlier there is one thing that just occurred to me. There seems to be a rather significant difference between my own work and the academic world: the academic world seems to view behavior and decisions as ultimately being driven by beliefs. Whereas in my work behavior and decisions are driven by worldview* first and foremost and beliefs are structured in such a way to provide a socially acceptable justification for the individual's behavior and decisions. analysis of purely internal phenomena is very out of vogue and has been for decades, because it is much less amenable to quantitative analysis than speech and behavior. learning theory is probably the branch of psychology most closely aligned with your approach - since learning is an internal phenomenon, it is forced to grapple with mental structures in a way that computationalist psychology tends to avoid. sociology also focuses on external behavior, and your work is at the intersection of the two. your approach is what i would call old-school, pre-computationalist cognitivist, applied in a sociological context. you place emphasis on the arrangement of knowledge - how a mental structure, once formed, shapes and constrains the further acquisition of knowledge (in a broad sense - not just factual knowledge), as well as how that new knowledge is integrated into that mental structure. the bypasses are perhaps best understood, within this sort of framework, as a sort of key to the inner sanctum of the narrativist's mental structure - almost any knowledge, unless it is extremely discordant, can be attached to the core, the story, through the use of a bypass. some people are not vulnerable to this, because not all minds have a strong central "core" like that. i would venture to say that most don't. to me, that's why the existence of a central narrative is the consistent linking trait that connects the clusters - without the narrative, bypass logic bounces off the mind because it doesn't fit very well into a typical mental structure. i don't know that i agree with you that bypasses create narrativists, except perhaps in childhood by hampering the development of a normal distributed mind - it seems to me that in adults there must be a latent vulnerability, an existing "little narrative", for the bypass logic to cultivate into a grand narrative
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
R. Dieovich posted:no, i definitely think this theory is a dead end and moves people away from truly liberatory frames of thinking. but that has nothing to do with probations given for kale-style narcissism and we've discussed this ad nauseum over pms. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:feelin pretty attacked here dude i'm not sure that driving out boosted and fishmech counts as compaction there were parallel compactions in the hillary and bernie camps during the election, but unlike a narrativist group, we came back together into a single forums population afterward. it's a much more normal community dynamic than the narrativist groups tend to have
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
T-man posted:You're pretty consistently a massive idiot and a terrible mod. Piss off with this third rate political analysis, you sound like a 19 year old who just read the communist manifesto for the first time. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:For example: I feel that the Anabaptist community represents a Structuralist (low-compaction)Narrativist society that has maintained its stability across 500 very chaotic years of human history. In modern times Narrativism typically annihilates a host society, but the Anabaptists have managed to find a way to make it work. This occurred because the Anabaptist form of Narrativism goes to great lengths to minimize the occurrence of compaction cycles. it's worth noting that anabaptism has historically been in high-compaction situations as well modern anabaptism is the survivor of a persecution that was fueled by the rest of european society getting very tired of the antics of high-compaction anabaptist narrativists, so it's maybe unsurprising that they adopted community norms that discourage compaction - the anabaptists who didn't were largely killed or otherwise punished
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
there is no such word because the nature of the brain's operations is still mysterious and heavily debated. even your base assumption that the brain "computes" as such would stir some research psychologists upPrester Jane posted:I'm looking for a term for a small cluster of Neurons that fire together to move information through the brain in a particular thought. Not necessarily a tiny piece of a thought as a given cluster could be potentially used in many different thoughts are different types of thoughts, or potentially looped through to be used multiple times within the same thought. (A given complete thought like "I want pretzels" would involve at least tens of thousands of these little pieces of thought interacting together.) generally speaking, these aren't thought of as discrete units. the entire process is usually regarded, among computationalists, as a long series of algorithmic transformations of the input data. a person might study a "cluster" in this sense of a single functional unit and say meaningful things about it, but neurons often are part of more than one functional unit, so even that is a bit high-level for what you want to express. we're too uncertain of the details of how input and output interface with consciousness to put formal names to the "building blocks of thought" or really describe how they work. current science focuses on individual neurons and connections between them, or on larger-scale structures like thoughts and concepts. some people would dispute your assumptions that thoughts and behaviors are "built" in the way that a computer program is, while others would agree with you but not have anything meaningful to really say on the topic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:PJ I think the word that you are looking for meaning “thing that is manipulated in a logical framework” is ‘symbol’. Other words somewhat matching “points on a mental map” could be: idea (really the most appropriate), thought, concept, notion, or sense. A cluster of ideas is often called a complex. agreed you want to stick with mental concepts rather than physical ones since the means by which the physical gives rise to the mental is mostly unknown
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 11:59
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:Homex's criticism was 100% valid, and the reaction was to demand he leave and not post in the thread. being an op doesn't make you invulnerable to someone calling you out on your bs it's unfortunate then that d&d is a toxic wasteland that made having a real discussion about this topic instead of dealing with fishmech impossible anyway the topic of this thread is not "all right wingers are crazy cultists unlike us" and you are not being very generous in summing it up like that. to put it in cspam terms it's basically about trump derangement syndrome and the mechanics of the absurdly irrational worldviews that, for example, allowed evangelicals to enthusiastically support trump without experiencing cognitive dissonance. the cult of Mother and their utter hatred of the perfidious bernard brothers is a good non-right-wing example of narrativism. now please excuse me i have a jar of posts to huff
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Zas posted:something Guyovich brought up that I never really understood was the whole thing about like... well, everyone constructs narratives and lives their lives by them to some extent. so, maybe it's a little trite, but like, "where do you draw the line." sorry if i'm misunderstanding the basics or whatever the kind of narratives non-narrativists construct are limited in scope. they are about things like their dreams and ambitions, careers, romantic interests, interests, etc. and a person might have many different narratives in different spheres of their life. a narrativist has a "grand narrative" - a single, mostly all-encompassing narrative that is invoked to explain most of the events in life. grand narratives tend to fall into categories, such as religious, conspiratory, nationalist, etc. and the narrativist connects most of their life into this grand narrative - although unless they are very radicalized or mentally ill they are unlikely to actually admit to this inner grand narrative. instead, they present to the world an "outer narrative" - a safer explanation for their beliefs and behaviors that won't raise as many eyebrows, and even if it does come under attack, it's not as distressing because it's not their real position. this explains, for example, the rapidly shifting nonsense logic of right-wing media - any given 'issue' is a new outer narrative that really serves the purpose of further defending the inner narrative. narrativists are essentially disconnected from reality in important ways because the narrative shapes their perceptions, and the narrative can in turn be shaped by other people either in person or in media. any narrative can, of course, but a non-narrativist has many small, simple narratives, so any one narrative doesn't dominate their worldview. narrativists can be convinced of many absurd things by appealing to the inner logic of their grand narrative, while most people have at least some degree of reality-based logical reasoning there's a lot more to say on the topic but i'm kinda tired atm so i'll leave it there Jazerus has issued a correction as of 00:26 on Nov 3, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:again i gotta ask: the gently caress do you think this forum even IS? i mean, fishmech literally can't post in cspam, he's not allowed because we told him to gently caress off extremely hard. it is in general a place you can tell anybody to gently caress off though and people should do so i feel like there is a weird refusal on your part to actually engage with the large body of material prester has written about all of the points you've raised in your last couple of posts. this isn't exactly new, the d&d thread was years old and the OP of this thread links to prester's blog where she lays this all out. there's been an ongoing discussion about this stuff for years so is it a surprise that there are a few bits of specialized vocabulary involved? this poo poo is not actually complicated, or even particularly far outside of currently existing psychological theory once you mentally transform it from prester's vocabulary into more standard terms. which requires reading it in detail - that's not going to be everybody's cup of tea and that's fine but that doesn't make jargon gibberish. Willie Tomg posted:"who isn't a narrativist?" is probably a better question most people are not narrativists. some people have been in the past and aren't now, others aren't right now but will be in the future, and most people never will be. it's not a clinical pathology - it's a system of logical reasoning that a person can be talked into believing in, or talked out of believing in, and which ties everything into a larger-than-life narrative about a conflict between good and evil. the exact details vary according to the person's culture, interests, and experiences, of course - one narrativist might believe that life is a story about a left behind style rapture that'll happen any day now, another that the reptilians control the world through the UN, another that the end of civilization is coming and so they must stockpile food and weapons for the post-apocalypse. all of the familiar varieties of crazy that make a normal person go "  " because they're people living in weird all-encompassing fantasy worlds. some of those people can pass for not-crazy - those are narrativists with an outer narrative.it's certainly true that people use "genteel social signifiers covering power relations" but that's not exactly what is going on for a narrativist - the power relations part is the perspective of non-narrativists who feed the narrativists their narrative, while the narrativist is living a fantasy where they're the Good Guys fighting the Bad Guys. a lot of the folks who do nonsensical poo poo to "own the libs" are thinking on this symbolic fantasy level where their actions will contribute to the spiritual war that they perceive as happening all around them. narrativist theory is about the dittoheads, whereas the "rhetoric covering power relations" part is rush himself, to use a very last-decade comparison here. this isn't something that you are unfamiliar with, willie - it's just viewed through a different lens. people in this thread aren't compelled by a grand narrative of narrativism. narrativists aren't the evil enemy, even if they're often easily fooled by grifters and authoritarians into supporting regressive poo poo, and we don't build our lives around a perceived conflict between narrativists and non-narrativists. narrativists simply are part of the human condition, an aspect of human society that is more usually treated as many discrete phenomena rather than a unified one. that's where i think PJ's writings really have value - they identify commonalities between disparate groups of folks who are disconnected from reality-based reasoning, and explain mechanically why we see certain behaviors and dynamics in these groups. is PJ right about everything? no, certainly not, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to take seriously here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
in conclusion,
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:i contend that none of this is true merely because you assert it in earnest, and prefer previously existing scholarly explanations of this behavior instead. i have provided more support for my ideas than you or PJ for yours, because i've read things about this subject and shared a couple of them--though not nearly enough things to begin formulating grand unifying explicatory theories of my own. do you understand the problem? i mean it's not true because i'm asserting it in earnest. that would be stupid! i am explaining prester's ideas to you. they are not necessarily accurate and need a much more scientific approach to be shown to be "true" inasmuch as science can approach the concept of "truth", but i personally feel there is value in exploring explanations based on this framework as prester develops it even if it is still rough and has not been empirically tested. all models start out untested. unlike prester i am educated in this field and do have an awareness of the scholarly explanations about all of these things which is why i'm not asserting that everything PJ says is true - however, PJ's framework is not really in opposition to anything i have ever read. it is a very different perspective that has some overlap with existing scholarly writing but also raises new points worthy of discussion and eventually study, once she's in a position to do so. you are kind of coming into this mid-stream and making assumptions that the people posting in this thread are hanging on prester's every word to discern the Truth or whatever. that is not the case - we're well aware that this isn't the most solid set of ideas ever created. prester is aware of that, even - the whole point is to help prester, who is passionate about this but not well-educated, to assimilate these ideas into the previously existing scholarly explanations while retaining the parts that seem to have new explanatory power. if it was just nonsense i wouldn't be posting, and if it was a super-solid academic theory that required no further discussion, i wouldn't be posting either. Al! posted:big jordan peterson fans itt lol 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:
what the gently caress show yourself, coward. i will never stop lmaoing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Former DILF posted:pj is unironically the best socialist on this forum, not only is she using her labor to directly create material of benefit to the proletariat, that material is useful for direct contravention against fascist thought on the levels it needs to be addressed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Cactus posted:I'm asking in good faith. Why would people at the top of a society strive to weaken the very society that enables them to live a privileged life at the top of it? so that they can rule over it with feeble lies instead of anything that requires more effort
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Thank you, I'm a hack and I know it but I'm doing the best with what I have. My ultimate training for all this is that someday academics will take this all much further than I could ever dream of and refine it into something better than I could ever make. i think the core issue is that many academics don't have high regard for unsolicited email from a layman. while i don't think you should stop developing or discussing your ideas at all, there is a real difference between someone emailing a professor with a question and someone emailing a professor with their fairly extensive body of writing. a solid 95% of the latter emails are legitimately from cranks. you aren't a crank, but your lack of credentials does create a barrier here, in approaching academics in this way. twitter might be legitimately more productive than email, weird as it seems. you are doing good work pj and don't view what i'm saying here as me gatekeeping you. i'm just trying to express how our society does in fact gatekeep whose ideas are considered legitimate. the left as a whole faces this kind of gatekeeping on what is allowed to be "serious thought" all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
i am not necessarily on-board with all of helsing's criticisms but i agree that the self-referentiality of your writing is a growing problem now that i understand what he was getting at part of why i think you're onto something real here is that your ideas do connect well with academic concepts that already exist, particularly in the study of how people learn and acquire beliefs about the world. narrativism in particular is an idea with a lot of potential. but i think your non-awareness of these connections is limiting the growth of your ideas at this point - a large part of your work since your original establishment of and elaboration upon the narrativism framework has been more about expanding the breadth of your explanations rather than the depth. i don't think you need to be in personal contact with academics to learn things about academic subjects. that feels like a stumbling block you've been focused on for a while - but at your level you are better served with books than people unless you could actually enroll in a few courses at a university. you don't need a doctorate to understand what you need to know to go further - just a basic understanding of the academic perspective on the things closely related to your work
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Which books in particular? idk off the top of my head because it's been a few years and mostly i learned through pdf excerpts assigned by professors rather than ever owning dedicated texts but anything geared toward learning theory/educational psychology (the real stuff not the fad books geared toward elementary teachers) or the sociology of belief would be a good place to start i'll see if i can find good sources Jazerus has issued a correction as of 08:16 on Jul 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
prester i've been in this from the beginning and like, wasn't one of your goals to gain an academic grounding even if that didn't involve university itself? i keep talking about it because i thought it was one of your plans. if you're totally disinterested in how your stuff lines up with academic stuff then i'll stop and just read what you write instead of contributing, i guess. you aren't really putting out much analysis at the moment so people are going in other directions with the discussion. i feel like you're still sometimes responding to the people in this thread as though we're the d&d trolls rather than a mix of new folks and people who have been reading and contributing constructively since the start. how are our posts keeping you from completing your thoughts??? i just don't get what the tense atmosphere in the thread right now is even about, honestly. Jazerus has issued a correction as of 23:58 on Jul 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
his whole conduct in the entire thread, sheng-ji, not just that post in particular cool to know i can't report people in this thread because you also have a bizarre d&d-rear end hardon for being lovely to PJ 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
sheng-ji yang, such a cowardly shithead of a mod that he strolls into a thread about understanding authoritarian cults that's being derailed by insane weirdos pushing a succ dem level disingenuous narrative about how actually that thread is a cult, and probates the OP instead gently caress off back to d&d if this is the kind of "moderation" you think is appropriate in cspam
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:a thread of lib psychobabble to write off all conservatives as cultists should be in d&d. if it wants to be cspam it can and should be bullied not all conservatives are cultists under prester's take on things. you're literally parroting the line that fishmech et al. used as a troll because they couldn't be bothered to understand what prester was posting. like if i had to summarize this thread, it's about radicalization and the dynamics of groups, especially online groups, which are radicalizing. and the internal belief structure that people who radicalize based on non-factual reasoning build up in order to defend that reasoning and shield it from contradiction. the terminology is obviously non-standard but it's not psychobabble lol the radicalization process in fact demands that most conservatives not be cultists. they are the ones who slough off during compaction as they are transformed by the radicalizing core of the group, into the enemy. the vast majority of any broad ideology's believers are non-compacted. Jazerus has issued a correction as of 13:44 on Aug 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:people are radicalized based on their material conditions. more people have radicalized in various ways because material conditions have worsened - inequality, poverty, capitalist alienation, economic stagnation. trying to explain away radicalization through this dumb psychobabble poo poo is liberal refusal to accept reality - that american liberalism has failed to benefit most people, and so they have radicalized in seek of new solutions. it's not explaining it away. it's diving into the mechanics of how radicalization functions within the mind of the person radicalizing. yes obviously material conditions set the stage for more and more people to be open to radicalization. but then what? how does it actually happen within the groups that are radicalizing together, what's the social dynamic of it, how does the radical then defend their beliefs if those beliefs won't objectively improve their material conditions? that's what this thread is about. it's not 'liberal' in any sense - the libs would have you believe it's a mental health crisis to be medicated away without examining what's actually happening. prester's work is not incompatible with marxism in the way you seem to believe. most marxist radicals are not narrativists, because marxism is objective reality. there is no need to defend marxism against examination through deflection and multiple layers of belief - it welcomes examination, because it knows that it will survive it. also material conditions are somewhat insufficient to explain all of the radicalization we see currently. the cult of Mother is a good example - almost by definition, someone who is still With Her is not subject to material deprivation. their constantly-building incandescent rage toward bernie is a narrative that they are unconsciously deploying to avoid self-examination, one which drives them all to make increasingly hysterical proclamations about racist sexist bernie who stole Her Turn. they are radicalizing even in the absence of feeling like liberalism has failed them, as a purely social phenomenon. certainly some of it is because they think they'd be less privileged in a socialist america, which is true, but preservation of their narrative of "hillary good, bernie ruined her ascendance" is equally important you sound like bf skinner refusing to admit that "thoughts" exist Jazerus has issued a correction as of 14:38 on Aug 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:clinton liberalism is incredibly easy to explain materially - theyre almost universally members of the coastal professional class who are would most benefit from her policies. the preservation of her legacy is important because it counters the strength of the left and strengthens the political heirs of clintonian ideology - buttigieg, harris, etc. they are simply trying to defend their class. absolutely, but there's room for there to be more to their thinking than purely rational class warfare. people aren't perfectly rational economic golems, they have a need to feel like they're doing the right thing. the narrative allows them to defend their class interests without confronting the fact that, by their own metrics of "progressive decency", they're poo poo people for doing so. this allows them to radicalize more comfortably, especially since they are all surrounded by the same twitter discourse bubble. they can be worse and worse without having to feel bad. narrativist theory is not operating on the same level of analysis as marxism. they are complementary, not in conflict. marxist materialism says, 'they will defend their class'. narrativism is an explanation of how they can defend their class while still earnestly believing that they are actually defending the downtrodden masses. sort of an examination of the precise mechanics of false consciousness Jazerus has issued a correction as of 15:11 on Aug 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
ross perot in hell posted:now permabanned e/n mod this would be a good username
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:what is CSPAM to you, exactly? be precise. lol i would think that your pretentious posting and sheng-ji's moderation approach were dumb in the context of cspam for any thread. the fact that it's one thread in particular just makes your pathological projection of your belief that prester is somehow different from anyone else even more obvious. cspam has no place for this weird forums grudge that has been imported from d&d where the worst posters in that subforum elevated her as uniquely bad and then accused people who thought that was ridiculous of elevating her as uniquely good. look the bottom line of what i'm saying here is, the cspam folks posting seriously in here aren't deluded. this frame of analysis has genuine use alongside traditional marxist analysis even if it is in an unpolished state. nobody thinks prester jane has a direct line to the truth. i even agree with you that prester doing more research into pre-existing academic work would be a good idea, but your approach is ridiculous. this deserves a thread where it can be discussed with the usual cspam rules of making shitheads gently caress off instead of this d&d-style "ignore trolls, probate prester for existing" special case that is reserved for this thread. that poo poo is literally what this thread and most cspam posters left d&d to get away from in the first place. our silly modding culture is not an excuse for evilweasel style discourse policing and hasn't been since boosted was ousted. that is the whole point of cspam. Jazerus has issued a correction as of 17:56 on Aug 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:so why does willy get this and jane gets probed the made-up-on-the-spot rule against telling someone to  as if that wasn't literally a cspam tradition Jazerus has issued a correction as of 18:05 on Aug 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:i never read the d&d thread. my impression is purely from this thread, where she refused to address any criticism of her All Encompassing Theory of Everything from the get go and instead accused anyone disagreeing with her as harassing her. i dont care about whatever d&d grudges exist but if youre going to post a thread in cspam dont whine when people disagree, which it mostly seems all this thread does. though i like the actual conversation the last couple of pages. Sheng-Ji Yang posted:transphobia lmao what the gently caress are you talking about the d&d thread did devolve into harassment for years without punishment which is maybe why pj is sensitive about it. the moderation wrt to people implying that she's formed a cult, when this whole thing is about her observations of the way the cult she was raised in but escaped operated, has not exactly inspired confidence that you understand the disagreements well enough to punish people reasonably. joke sixers are one thing; using my report, which you ridiculed, as a reason to examine the thread and punish the person i was saying was being harassed, and then basically saying this thread is uniquely rules-free wrt bullying, that is something else entirely. the non-moderation related conversation has been good in the last two pages tho i agree, if you keep posting reasonably like that maybe we'll get somewhere Jazerus has issued a correction as of 18:24 on Aug 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:reports are not some sacred trust and dumb ones are posted all the time. saying that post is targeted harassment is ridiculous, but i posted it because it happens over and over again with this thread. its definitely some weird legacy of d&d i guess but in that case this thread should be in d&d and not here. this thread became a complete shitshow in d&d as fishmech and the like increasingly gained free reign there. the point of moving here was to escape the legacy of d&d and talk about this in a reasonable subforum, which hopefully might have included moderation against the people actively importing that legacy also: that post in isolation was not targeted harassment. the sum total of willie's meltdown is. should i have written "nice meltdown" as the report reason instead? Jazerus has issued a correction as of 18:42 on Aug 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It feels like a lot of people here want to have their cake and eat it too. If you're going to argue that Narrativism is a predictive theory that can be applied to explain current social phenomena better than other theories then you need a better response to well criticism than "stop trying to gatekeep me." if the disagreements were, in fact, on the same terms as presented, that would be such a vast improvement over the status quo that nobody would be complaining at all. and yet in the same post where you posit that all of these highly reasonable disagreements have been presented respectfully, you slip in a casual implication that the whole thread is somehow inherently dishonest. do you not understand the inherent contradiction in how you approach this thread? if the discussion was actually reasonable instead of constantly edging uncomfortably close to personal attack, there would not be a problem in the first place. even in the midst of bad modding sheng-ji managed to have a more reasonably objective discussion about his skepticism toward the thread topic than most of the thread's regular critics have ever done
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:do you seriously not think this thread is that? of course it's not. in case you've forgotten most of us who are speaking up rn are cspam regulars, not folks who came with the thread and otherwise post mostly in d&d. the centrists literally can't deal with this poo poo, to the point that all reasonable discussion became impossible in d&d. they fall all over themselves to "well, actually" about how social dynamics that promote right-wing radicalism aren't a big deal and besides they're just rural scum so who cares how they think, also you're all insane for thinking mental health could have anything to do with politics or material conditions, etc. etc. the usual centrist crap no one is demanding seriousness in this thread, just good-faith posting. or good-faith shitposting. the good faith bit is the important part Jazerus has issued a correction as of 19:35 on Aug 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:which is why i think it fits much better in d&d, with much stricter moderation based on more clear cut rules. clearly i shouldnt moderate this thread. d&d didn't enforce rules in this thread. cspam isn't like, the rear end in a top hat zone. that's the weird public perception that somehow developed but it's simply not the case. we're free to be jerks to each other but motivation matters. people are punished here for many reasons including when they get oddly personal and post as if they have a huge ax to grind with an individual. even malicious jokes like telling whiskeyjuvenile to pay his maid are really only acceptable because the target has proven himself so contemptible. if you took the time to understand the context here, i think that you would stop seeing this as a disconnected series of oversensitive reports. you insist on viewing it as us using the report system to stifle disagreement, when the entire point of the reports was the tone and bizarre obsessiveness of the disagreement, not its existence
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
look. imo this thread should stay here. there is no better place on SA for this and sheng-ji does not speak for the entire forum. this is a chance to move forward constructively with everyone having a greater understanding of what's going on, if we can talk about it reasonably.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:you accused homex of harassing you & told him to leave for disagreeing with you, when i first got drawn into this thread, then did the same thing to helsing, a few other times i dont remember, and then this popped up. disagreement is not abuse. a six hour probation is not a real punishment. Jazerus posted:if you took the time to understand the context here, i think that you would stop seeing this as a disconnected series of oversensitive reports. you insist on viewing it as us using the report system to stifle disagreement, when the entire point of the reports was the tone and bizarre obsessiveness of the disagreement, not its existence if these folks were simply disagreeing there would not be a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2019 20:07
|
|