Setar (huge)

This is for capturing content that might otherwise be disappeared, primarily Baboollie stuff, but not rigidly constrained...
Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Setar (huge)

#1

Post by Eucliwood »

tardling wrote:
mood2 wrote:Where I'm less comfortable is knowing that a bunch of posters are discussing 'outsiders' in secret with each other,
You're...not comfortable knowing that some of us know and trust each other more than we know and trust you or other relatively new people?
Yes, he turned gossiping about outsiders in secret with each other (isn't this breaking that rule those tards agreed on, or is it okay if it's a newbie they dislike?) into "trusting them more than they trust new people." Yes, in order to trust your friends, you must talk about outsiders for the petty reasons you have, and decide they already suck. That's the point, they're NEW. Lay the fuck off. I know you talk about them like a dog for hardly any reason.
tardling wrote:
mood2 wrote:I think it would be a good idea for the secret forum members to agree not to do this. It wouldn't prevent the personal support element, but it would help the in group/outgroup vibe.

My assessment of your point is, thus, that you don't like the fact that you're not trusted. Which really isn't much of a point at all.


Are you fucking serious, setar? Where in the points so far did he even moan about not being trusted? Not trusting someone isn't an excuse to be a bitch, anyway.

tardling wrote: even if you aren't saying it outright, you're explaining yourself perfectly: you have a problem with us not trusting you. you want us to trust you. ya know, I get that you'd like that, but it's a bit...entitled to act like it's a bad thing when you walk into a space and aren't instantly trusted as some wonderful amazing person =/
Oh yes, they're being ENTITLED that they don't like you acting like fucking judgmental self-righteous bitches towards them as soon as they walk in. Right, Setar. How dare someone not like being dogged out. "You're not saying it outright, but you have a problem with us being over judgmental and jumping to crazy conclusions about people we don't knowsimply not trusting you! Now that made me kind of mad.

Uh, the victims of this should be the ones not trusting those who do it, not the other way around. What a freak.

tardling wrote:
mood2 wrote:True. And sometimes people will be deliberately shit-stirring. Human nature being what it is tho, if someone feels they've been misunderstood and are being judged before they can explain, they're going to go straight to defensive mode, which isn't the best frame of mind for listening. They're more likely to just keep trying to explain aren't they, until they feel they're being heard. If it is a genuine misunderstanding, it will more likely escalate to the point where nobody's listening, just trying to show 'I'm right you're wrong' if you start from a position of confrontation rather than clarification.


Anyway, all I really wanted to do was throw a different perspective into the discussion. It has its own pros and cons, but I think it's worth bearing in mind with dealings with noobs.
Unfortunately, the onus really falls more on the person who is getting defensive about what they said to work around it, considering that they're (generally) coming from a perspective that says things that step on feet. Again, you can't fault the person whose foot is being crushed. New users are given the basket of links to read, and that really should be their "TREAD CAREFULLY" warning. Because not treading carefully in this space crushes feet and opens wounds for those that trust it and its users.

That, and we do accept a level of tone-policing in I&A because...well,that's where people go to learn. It's the other forums where you really have to be careful about venturing into 101-land because I&A is supposed to be that.

And oooofff course, mood2 offers an awesome truth. Nothing untrue about what he said. All setar does is say "well most of the time the person getting defensive (which really means, the new guy in the argument, since A+ people are sure to be "getting defensive") is actually DOING SOMETHING WRONG! We gave them a basket! We aren't crushing them, they're rubbing salt in our wounds!" God, I am so tired of that shit. "No no, you're hurting us, so badly. We're the ones that always get to be right and play the victim trump card. We don't fuck up. We aren't the ones to throw salt in new people's faces."

Setar wrote:
irkthepurists wrote:What I mean is that if you think the person saying 'fuck you' is being totally unreasonable and has no grounds for getting mad, then walking away/ignoring them is a better tactic than tone-policing them (which is forbidden here anyway).
And in the process present no counterargument, making it appear as though you do not have any. If they have no grounds for getting mad...well, wouldn't there be some sort of good counterargument you could make?

(Remember, this person is mad because they're seeing bad arguments from you...)


Um, wow. I'm really tired of the fuckers there calling it tone policing every time someone says "hey, you're being a jerk to me for no reason!" People have a right to do that, you know? With what they call tone policing, I could come right back and say THEY'RE tone policing ME. The only thing tone policing should cover is telling someone not to swear or to "tone it down" *in general*... saying "wow, you're being a jerk *directing hostility at ME, a person capable of being hurt and getting offended* is not "tone policing." I can imagine school bullies going around saying their victims are simply tone policing them. That's all these people are, anyway. Assholes.

And then when Setar implied that his crew gets mad because the other person is wrong/using bad arguments. Seriously? Bitch, no. There's tons of times you lot get mad, and the person can use AWESOME arguments with nothing wrong with them, but you flunk them because you don't like it and aren't willing to change.

Setar wrote:so a summary of things so far:

we've had a lot of complaints about our conduct, with little evidence that hasn't been cherry-picked if not outright mined.

we've also had a lot of demands that we, for some reason, need to admit that we're human and susceptible to human foibles. said demands have used language that indicates that being human and trusting people we know more than people we don't is somehow unfair, despite insistences that this is not unfair, we just need to admit to it for unknown reasons.

and yet, the people making these complaints and demands still have not acknowledged, much less responded to, these criticisms of their complaints, the full iterations of which I shall provide here for the sake of completeness:
Yay, Seetard prepared his cute little summary. Here's the fucker, AGAIN, calling complaints of conduct "not liking that you aren't trusted." What the fuck does trust have to do with it? Should people even be taking actions against someone just because they *think* they might be shady? Hello - when you do that, YOU'RE the attacker. You're the aggressor. Stop making all-purpose excuses. When people say in general what they do in conduct, they say "gimme some evidence. Dig it up." When people dig it up, they say "well, damn, you're cherry picking! You picked out specific instances! that's cherry picking and thus invalid!" What the hell, you detestable neonate? Do you want them to go and make a huge archive of everything done there so it's not "cherry picking"? It'll be tree rooting then? No one should have to do all of that. People should own up to their shit (or whoever they're defending's) instead of going "prove it!" It doesn't even matter if someone is "cherry picking." Newbs are scrutinized to death for every little move they make. I've seen it. If people can criticize newbs by individual action, why can't they judge you fuckers that way too? What's wrong with that? You did it, after all. Don't do it if you don't want people to 'cherry pick' it.
Setar wrote:Oh no. I have told someone to fuck off. Forgive me for this display of...of...working-class behaviour. I really should do better after all, as befits our wonderful capitalist society, by displaying some class.

Okay, so someone uses telling someone to fuck off as an example of his mean-ness. He complains that people say how mean he is sometimes. He turns saying "hey, you're being a bitch!" into someone being a stuck up prude about "class." Nice try, seetard. Some of them always spout similar shit, whether is someone is saying "Um, don't be so hostile for no damn reason" or "wow, you're throwing a tantrum just telling me to fuck off, nice argument there, buddy." Always going "no, you're tone policing me and saying I wasn't being classy!"

Seetard wrote: see, thing is, people here have had specific problems with me. and they've brought them up to me. and I've tried to fix them. so, yes, there are some problems with my behaviour. which makes it mind-boggling as to why marinerachel and kbonn have been able to come up with absolutely no examples of how supposedly super toxically mean either me OR TLC are =/
That's a hoot. That's a real hoot. He said "OR TLC." The guy followed with plenty of examples of TLC being a total bitch, of course, because the guy's a total bitch. Yes, you can be VERBALLY ABUSIVE, atheismplus. Stop backing such abuse up by calling "tone policing" every time someone complains that one of your cronies is being an ASSHOLE. That the_laughing_coyote guy is definitely an abusive bastard in conduct on that forum. I used to be friends with him but broke it off. He's nothing but a hateful bastard, and the examples that Orenda guy posted reminded me of that. Sometimes all he does is throw a tantrum and just try to abuse people into feeling hurt or something. He's abrasive as *fuck*, yet when people they don't like supply half the venom he does, they're being assholes.

Setar wrote:
marinerachel wrote:Pretending the forum's management were put in a far worse situation than they actually were and insisting there were no better options isn't constructive. It's coddling.
so says the armchair quarterback from the comfort of her living room.
Seriously, Setar? Obvious ad hominem much? How much do you want to bet no moderator warns him about his fallacies (yes, it's in that stupid newb basket that people are discouraged from using stupid fallacies)

What the fuck does her having a living room have to do with what she said?? She's not allowed to say anyone's being coddled because she dares have a comfortable living room? What a fucking asshole. It's not her fault you (I'm assuming you're not being an outright hypocrite, but you might prove me wrong) don't have one. What a hater. What next? Are you going to use the fact someone has a god damn bed against them too?

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4675
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Setar (huge)

#2

Post by another lurker »

h yes, they're being ENTITLED that they don't like you acting like fucking judgmental self-righteous bitches towards them as soon as they walk in. Right, Setar. How dare someone not like being dogged out. "You're not saying it outright, but you have a problem with us being over judgmental and jumping to crazy conclusions about people we don't knowsimply not trusting you! Now that made me kind of mad.

Uh, the victims of this should be the ones not trusting those who do it, not the other way around. What a freak.
Yay, Seetard prepared his cute little summary. Here's the fucker, AGAIN, calling complaints of conduct "not liking that you aren't trusted." What the fuck does trust have to do with it? Should people even be taking actions against someone just because they *think* they might be shady? Hello - when you do that, YOU'RE the attacker. You're the aggressor

Amen to both those points. Good post eucli!

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am
Contact:

Re: Setar (huge)

#3

Post by Altair »

Eucliwood wrote:
And oooofff course, mood2 offers an awesome truth. Nothing untrue about what he said. All setar does is say "well most of the time the person getting defensive (which really means, the new guy in the argument, since A+ people are sure to be "getting defensive") is actually DOING SOMETHING WRONG! We gave them a basket! We aren't crushing them, they're rubbing salt in our wounds!" God, I am so tired of that shit. "No no, you're hurting us, so badly. We're the ones that always get to be right and play the victim trump card. We don't fuck up. We aren't the ones to throw salt in new people's faces."[/b]
Exactly! anyone who gets defensive after being attacked by them is just a clueless moron who wandered into their safe space without enough bowing and self-deprecation, and then has the guts to actually get offended!

Eucliwood, did you read Paul Fidalgo's article? it basically is the A+ attitude codified. A "privileged person" who interacts with a "non-privileged" person is automatically wrong and has to "shut up and listen". No nuances, no possibility of the other person being wrong, or both being wrong.

That's how they behave, if someone disagree with them it's because they're wrong or they're being trolls, but it can't be an honest disagreement because they're always right because of their "non-privilege". This safe space of theirs has turned not being privileged into a privilege!
Eucliwood wrote: What the fuck does her having a living room have to do with what she said?? She's not allowed to say anyone's being coddled because she dares have a comfortable living room? What a fucking asshole. It's not her fault you (I'm assuming you're not being an outright hypocrite, but you might prove me wrong) don't have one. What a hater. What next? Are you going to use the fact someone has a god damn bed against them too?
Having a living room probably makes her privileged in his eyes. Never mind that he has internet access and apparently a bathroom and a cell phone (or camera), judging by his twitter account. And of course is not because of her work or sheer luck that she has a living room, it's because she's drowning in privilege.
I think Setar really thinks/feels that the whole world is against him. That's probably what keeps him angry/anxious, but also takes away any responsibility he could have, since nothing is his fault.

Nice dissection of Setar's thought process, kudos on being able to withstand this much of his rantings.

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Setar (huge)

#4

Post by Eucliwood »

Thank you, Altair. *bows* His twitter? I'm sort of too afraid to see it, but when I'm too afraid to see something it also compels me to take a peek...

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Setar (huge)

#5

Post by Eucliwood »

Oh, I didn't see you, another lurker. *bows* Hey there. *pets and puts out kitten food*

Post Reply