The Good State of Offtopic

[red_elk]

Whether Mary was or was not bullied is immaterial. The point is that she felt that she was bullied.

I think the current argument is about morality. Whether posters who challenged her opinion should feel responsible for her strong reaction.

Looking at the facts, she adopted a very controversial opinion, doubled or tripled down on it when challenged, would not defend her position and got a bloody nose for her efforts.

IMO yes, that's exactly what happened.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

IMO yes, that's exactly what happened.

If you change "got a bloody nose" to "had a nose bleed" I'd agree too.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Mary was waaay too sensitive, but that is my opinion only (see what i did here ).

The only obvious thing is she got along very well, otherwise we would not have this discussion right now.

 

[Ironsided]

Discussions on politics and news are supposed to heat up on issues you feel strongly about. If they don’t they aren’t very good or even interesting discussions. The fact that posters form social bonds is probably inevitable but ultimately detrimental to the honesty of discussions.

I see the same pattern we had when the OT forum split. There are posters who keeps insinuating and prescribing acts of personally directed malice where there is none to be had. “Rude” posts are often the most lucid to the opinion of the poster and usually a last resort when the antagonist is being wilfully smarmy and unwilling to moving the discussion forward.

At the forum-split there was also an expressed need for a “higher level of discourse”. What complete and utter shambles that was. Predictably the “diamond” level section of higher discourse was so boring and uninteresting that it literally withered and shrivelled up to nothing - in plain sight. The same posters who fought for higher discourse, and fight they did, and still do; slowly trickled back to second-class because I guess they could only take so much of themselves.

It's the heat in discussions that keep interest alive.

 

[red_elk]

Mary was waaay too sensitive, but that is my opinion only (see what i did here ).

Yes, she should man up and face the challenge.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well this turned into a celebration of all things ot alright.

 

[rah]

Mary is entitled to believe she was bullied. Others are entitled to believe she wasn't. No good is ever going to come from this discussion unless "SPECIFIC" examples are brought forward and then discussed. It won't resolve either's beliefs but some may decide to use it as a guideline in further discussions.

 

[Berzerker]

I've also gotten likes from...oh, hey, you, so clearly that's not the defining element of this "club" that you are so fetished over.

As to TMIT, I have nothing against him. I've tried three or four times to get a particular point across to him here, which I wouldn't bother to do if he was on that short list of two trolls that I would just as soon left the site voluntarily or otherwise that I mentioned to Manfred earlier.

Following the likes led me to the 4 posters I named. Are they your friends? If so, following the likes helped me identify your friends. Where's the issue? If you have nothing against TMIT why were you so obnoxious to him? I said judging by your response he isn't in your club and I was right about that too. But if thats how you treat posters who aren't friend or foe, why would anyone want to be in your club?

I doubt you matured into bullying, so maybe you're thinking back to grade school and how you told the children you bullied you were just joking around. Thats what a bully would say...and then he'd complain about trolls cuz bullies and trolls have nothing in common.

There are some people who tend to all like each other's posts, but there's some overlap between "groups", some people who don't have consistent tendencies, and some arguments within groups on occasion. This shouldn't be surprising, as you're going to get at least some clustering of agreement on basic ideas if you throw enough people into one spot, doesn't need some hugbox/concerted effort. I don't get the big deal made of this lately. This isn't some other-forum dogpiling or some reddit mass false flagging campaign or something.

The likes I'd follow to identify Tim's friends are the ones following his insults, odds are they like insulting people too.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The likes I'd follow to identify Tim's friends are the ones following his insults, odds are they like insulting people too.

People who aren't my friends like insulting you as well. I think from a more practical standpoint "following likes" identifies the people that the majority of the community would just as soon never see again rather than being any indication of how they feel about the person that happens to be saying "get lost" at that particular moment.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think that for the vast majority of likes it just comes down to general agreement on whatever is being discussed and people need to stop reading so much into it. Personally it's a bit frustrating to see @Berzerker consistently call me out for ganging up on him via likes because it completely ignores the many great interactions we've had (and the likes I've given) when talking about space or whenever he goes after Trump on particular subjects. Then I realize he's probably only hoisted himself up on the cross of dis-likes as a means to get a rise out of Tim and anyone else that will give him negative attention for it and then I stop caring one way or the other.

I'm also reminded whenever people complain about how they don't get likes of the adage that when you run into one person that you think is a butthole, he's probably a butthole. When everyone you run into a butthole, it's probably you that's the butthole. Frankly if you spend all day whining about how the people you're arguing with get all the likes you are very likely being an ass. I wish he would just own it instead of trying to gaslight everyone into changing their behavior out of guilt.

 

[Berzerker]

People who aren't my friends like insulting you as well. I think from a more practical standpoint "following likes" identifies the people that the majority of the community would just as soon never see again rather than being any indication of how they feel about the person that happens to be saying "get lost" at that particular moment.

Your club is not the majority... Its just you and 3-4 other people who are more or less ideologically aligned defending the same sacred cows. If I'm insulting anyone its probably you and in response to your flaming. No, you're the forum bully and you admitted doing it intentionally. You admitted stalking people to piss them off while you complain about trolls.

I think that for the vast majority of likes it just comes down to general agreement on whatever is being discussed and people need to stop reading so much into it. Personally it's a bit frustrating to see @Berzerker consistently call me out for ganging up on him via likes because it completely ignores the many great interactions we've had (and the likes I've given) when talking about space or whenever he goes after Trump on particular subjects. Then I realize he's probably only hoisted himself up on the cross of dis-likes as a means to get a rise out of Tim and anyone else that will give him negative attention for it and then I stop caring one way or the other.

I'm also reminded whenever people complain about how they don't get likes of the adage that when you run into one person that you think is a butthole, he's probably a butthole. When everyone you run into a butthole, it's probably you that's the butthole. Frankly if you spend all day whining about how the people you're arguing with get all the likes you are very likely being an ass. I wish he would just own it instead of trying to gaslight everyone into changing their behavior out of guilt.

Yes, I know... You like my posts when I'm criticizing Trump. And when I'm criticizing the Democrats, I'm being an ass. I didn't call you out for anything other than being one of Tim's friends, you're actually the least offensive in that group. I'm not whining about all the likes you guys toss back and forth, Tim wanted to know how I identify his friends - thats how. Follow the likes. I'd feel guilty if I liked Tim's bullying, I'd feel like I'm a bully too.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And when I'm criticizing the Democrats, I'm being an ass

Nope. That's when you spend page after page trying to bait everyone into stupid arguments to get a rise out of them then pretend you're being persecuted. Buttery males anyone?

 

[Berzerker]

Does that happen when I'm criticizing Trump or the Democrats?

The thing is, I rarely start a debate about eg Hillary. I dont bait you guys, you guys bait everyone who didn't vote for her. And when you're challenged you get mad.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Does that happen when I'm criticizing Trump or the Democrats?

It mostly happens when you're arguing with Tim.

 

[Berzerker]

I rarely start arguments with Tim, if you find us in a flame war it wasn't me who started it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I rarely start arguments with Tim, if you find us in a flame war it wasn't me who started it.

And I've lit up Tim on more than one occasion for the way he acts toward OneJay. A lot of that would apply to how he acts toward you but OneJay isn't here pretending he's innocent in all of it. You are - and then you take it further by acting like there's a cabal out to get you. And yeah, I'm being a sanctimonious ass right now.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

I think in order to restore OT to a good state we need to settle the beef between @Timsup2nothin and @Berzerker. I'm thinking a pistol duel to first blood, but I'm open to suggestions. If we don't act now, we may never experience peace again.

 

[Berzerker]

And I've lit up Tim on more than one occasion for the way he acts toward OneJay. A lot of that would apply to how he acts toward you but OneJay isn't here pretending he's innocent in all of it. You are - and then you take it further by acting like there's a cabal out to get you. And yeah, I'm being a sanctimonious ass right now.

How am I pretending to be innocent and of what? Where'd I say you guys were out to get me? Tim's the stalker, not you - and he admitted it in this thread. Can I say you're his friends without you turning it into a conspiracy or are you baiting me now?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How am I pretending to be innocent and of what? Where'd I say you guys were out to get me? Tim's the stalker, not you - and he admitted it in this thread. Can I say you're his friends without you turning it into a conspiracy or are you baiting me now?

Telling absurd lies about what another poster "admitted" when people can just go back and look to see that it is a lie is really ridiculous, but so typical of you.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't know your motivations. Whether you're lying depends on whether the false information is stated while you know it's false. I'd estimate that's not your angle in this particular case and that you believe what you're saying, but I can't know it for sure.

A false belief is still false however.

So prove she wasn't bullied.

But at least you aren't claiming to know my motivations. That's a step up from some people around here.

Mary in context of "there is no such thing as misandry".

That's one of the points she made with which I happen to disagree. But since we're respectful of one another's past life experiences, I can understand why she has that perspective.

Quoted is both ad hominem and painting false intentions...something your signature asks people not do to you.

My signature (the red part) was inspired by people who make a habit of those behaviors with me, ignoring or dismissing any attempt on my part to explain where they have interpreted things incorrectly and insisting they know my inner thoughts and motivations better than I do. The blue part was inspired by another person who managed to cross one of the lines I have regarding apologies.

It's my perception that I was asked to list the things that make me feel bullied in order to use them against me. It's happened before by people who acted concerned and sincere, and then turned on me. Since I don't know you well enough to tell if you're one of those people, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I have enough stress in my life these days.

I have not bullied anybody, nor do I wish to do so.

Then why did you?

I argued with other people in those threads, too. Were they all also bullied? Is pointing out someone's statement is inaccurate or that they're saying something unethical bullying? By your own standards you have bullied a large number of people in this thread, because you've established no standards. Since that's not a useful conclusion, there needs to be standards for the assertion to even be meaningful.

There's arguing, and there's arguing with the intention to hurt the other person.

In contrast to the previous point, I *will* assert that a refusal to demonstrate these standards while insisting something occurred is dishonest.

Assert away, it's your energy to use as you see fit.

I'm operating from evidence. Can you?

[Saavik]Sarcasm... it is a difficult concept.[/Saavik]

You jumped in on my discussion with Valka. She asserts Mary was bullied and that other people agree with her. That is a significant part of her justification of the false claim. I chose the analogy I did to reflect that.

You laugh at me, but it's Valka's position you're refuting.

This is a public thread. People are apt to jump into conversations.

There is no false claim.

Whether Mary was or was not bullied is immaterial. The point is that she felt that she was bullied.

Looking at the facts, she adopted a very controversial opinion, doubled or tripled down on it when challenged, would not defend her position and got a bloody nose for her efforts. Welcome to OT. You guys don't always "play nice" here and sometimes it gets a little rough. Posters have to be prepared to be challenged and to defend their assertions or this doesn't work. I'm sorry, but that is reality. You can have a forum full of bland agreement or you can have a forum with lively discussion. It's your choice. With some restrictions, OT is what you make it.

It's very sad that Mary chose to leave. I have said this before, and I do wish that she would come back. But if she does, she has to understand that it isn't always roses and sunshine here. People have strong opinions on controversial topics and they defend them, and as long as they don't violate the rules, they should do just that..

There's a saying this reminds me of... something involving kitchenware... oh, right. Pots and kettles.

This is my off time. Why should I have abuse heaped on me during my off time and turn the other cheek? No one else has to do it. Why should I?

No one should have to put up with abuse on this forum. Not the posters, and not the moderators. I do put up with quite a bit, and sometimes it's even warranted, but my point is that I shouldn't have to. And neither should you.

Some people reminded you that you don't "play nice" either, at times. And then you started complaining about being "abused." Welcome to OT. You're right - it's not always roses and sunshine. I've taken breaks to get away from certain people and situations here, sometimes as long as two months, and some people started PMing and emailing (those who have my email address here; not many do) to ask what was wrong and if I intended to come back. No doubt Mary has received such messages, as well.

It's bemusing to see people lecturing about how tough OT is. Well, it can be, but it's a picnic compared to some other sites. The forum where I met Mary has a hidden, opt-in forum where people discuss issues similar to the more serious ones in OT (politics, religion, abortion, vaccinations, transgender issues, sexism)... and there are several threads that are an absolute free-for-all. The only rules there are no racist, sexist, or homophobic/transphobic posts allowed. Anything else is allowed, whether posted by member to member, staff to member, or by member to staff. I've been called some appalling names there, and while I don't like it, I am allowed to throw it right back if I decide to (surprise, some of the staff there don't like having to take what they dish out; one of them is the admin).

I'm not saying that's the kind of behavior I'm partial to; I would rather try to work things out amicably, but some people are just not into that and I've learned that if I don't defend myself, it just invites others to heap on more of the same. When the conversation is about interesting things, it's really enjoyable. When things deteriorate into a dogpile and bullying, it can get brutal. Mary holds her own in that forum and is generally well-regarded. For the people she can't stand there, that's why the ignore list exists. It's interesting that she'd rather be there than here right now, given current circumstances.

Discussions on politics and news are supposed to heat up on issues you feel strongly about. If they don’t they aren’t very good or even interesting discussions. The fact that posters form social bonds is probably inevitable but ultimately detrimental to the honesty of discussions.

I see the same pattern we had when the OT forum split. There are posters who keeps insinuating and prescribing acts of personally directed malice where there is none to be had. “Rude” posts are often the most lucid to the opinion of the poster and usually a last resort when the antagonist is being wilfully smarmy and unwilling to moving the discussion forward.

At the forum-split there was also an expressed need for a “higher level of discourse”. What complete and utter shambles that was. Predictably the “diamond” level section of higher discourse was so boring and uninteresting that it literally withered and shrivelled up to nothing - in plain sight. The same posters who fought for higher discourse, and fight they did, and still do; slowly trickled back to second-class because I guess they could only take so much of themselves.

It's the heat in discussions that keep interest alive.

The Red Diamond designation (I loathe the term "Real Discussion" - as though all non-RD threads are devoid of serious and interesting and useful discussion) nowadays is supposed to mean stricter moderation and a more serious level of discussion being required. The rules surrounding RD threads is still unnecessarily confusing, and if you have two separate threads on the same topic, one designated RD and one not, it seems ridiculous to me that the same trolling comment posted in each one will garner an infraction in one but not in the other. Some things are trolling, no matter where they're posted.

Of course those reading this who joined after the migration to XenForo are probably wondering why it's called "Red Diamond" in the first place. There used to be an icon in the main thread index in the shape of a red diamond to indicate those threads were to be serious discussion only, and more strictly moderated.

I think in order to restore OT to a good state we need to settle the beef between @Timsup2nothin and @Berzerker. I'm thinking a pistol duel to first blood, but I'm open to suggestions. If we don't act now, we may never experience peace again.

Back in my day there was this thing called "mediation." I used it successfully in one case of two members who had a long-time feud. It doesn't always work, but then all parties (including the mediator) have to go into it in good faith and be willing to commit to a good-faith attempt to fix the problem(s). It's a beautiful thing to see when it does work.