Mods shutting down threads for threadcrapping

[Umbran]

That's a false duality, Umbran, and I think you know that.

So, now we see one example of why things go awry in discussions.

I gave two examples, with a useful contrast between them. The idea that these comprised a duality that completely covered the ground did not come from me. I said no such thing.

Let's not confuse outrage with real harm.

Right. I was referring to people who had suffered real harm. The idea that I am confusing outraged people with those who have suffered harm is again, from you.

The strawman - filling out another's arguments with details they didn't actually say - is one of the barriers to real discourse and discussion on the internet.

I'm not going to bite on the strawman.

 

[Mercurius]

So, now we see one example of why things go awry in discussions.

I gave two examples, with a useful contrast between them. The idea that these comprised a duality that completely covered the ground did not come from me. I said no such thing.



Right. I was referring to people who had suffered real harm. The idea that I am confusing outraged people with those who have suffered harm is again, from you.

The strawman - filling out another's arguments with details they didn't actually say - is one of the barriers to real discourse and discussion on the internet.

I'm not going to bite on the strawman.

Yet this itself leads to discussions going awry: Resorting to claims of logical fallacies as a way to avoid the point being made.

My point is that your two sides were rather artificial and un-helpful: you contrasted people who experienced "real harm" with those who are callously dismissive, when the vast majority--at least in the context of these discussions on RPGs--are somewhere between the two. Again, outrage is not the same thing as real harm. And not being outraged is not the same thing as being dismissive of real harm, but of the interpretation that leads to outrage. That is a very crucial distinction that is brushed over.

Again, most people who seem to be "dismissive" are not being dismissive of real harm experienced through racism and bigotry. What they are being dismissive of is the outrage generated through interpreting things as constituting racism or bigotry. They're dismissing the interpretation, and thus feel that the outrage is misguided.

 

[payn]

nvm

 

[Umbran]

Yet this itself leads to discussions going awry: Resorting to claims of logical fallacies as a way to avoid the point being made.

Eh, no. Still not going to engage with a strawman.

Have a nice day.

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree! That's exactly what I'm saying. One can express disagreement without invalidating others' experience or impugning their motives.
It's not walking a tightrope. It's not complicated. And one won't be considered a troll or uninclusive. Win-win!

To be fair, I don't know that you've ever tried to engage in any of those conversations from the 'other side' but I'm willing to bet that you haven't, because the ordeal is more like walking a tightrope while juggling swords while doing cartwheels. I've been called racist and nazi and about everything else imaginable just for disagreeing about whether some fantasy race was real world racist. IMO. That's harmful. That's impugning my motives and invalidating my experiences.

The most recent thread this one is about - I avoided that entirely because of all of the above.

*Just another perspective

 

[Irlo]

To be fair, I don't know that you've ever tried to engage in any of those conversations from the 'other side' but I'm willing to bet that you haven't, because the ordeal is more like walking a tightrope while juggling swords while doing cartwheels. I've been called racist and nazi and about everything else imaginable just for disagreeing about whether some fantasy race was real world racist. IMO. That's harmful. That's impugning my motives and invalidating my experiences.

The most recent thread this one is about - I avoided that entirely because of all of the above.

*Just another perspective

That's true, I haven't. I've read threads here, and I haven't seen that happen, but I don't read everything posted here.

I'm sorry you've had that experience. I would expect better from the ENWorld posters.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'm sorry you've had that experience. I would expect better from the ENWorld posters.

People on ENWorld are still just people. We get the full range.

 

[Hex08]

People on ENWorld are still just people. We get the full range.

For some reason I read that as "People on ENWorld are still just people. We get full of rage."

 

[Thomas Shey]

For some reason I read that as "People on ENWorld are still just people. We get full of rage."

Anymore, that's probably not all that inaccurate...

 

[Fifth Element]

I've been called racist and nazi and about everything else imaginable just for disagreeing about whether some fantasy race was real world racist.

In all honesty, not trying to be antagonistic here, but I've seen this sort of claim hundreds of times in various discussion forums about a wide variety of subjects, in discussions I've participated in directly, and very often the "just for disagreeing" part is inaccurate. It's often the result of the human bias towards defensiveness, where hackles go up and prevent us from being able to honestly assess the things we've said from another perspective.

Normally, it's not just because someone disagrees. It's because something they've said in defence of their opinion was offensive to someone. It's easy to leap to "I was just stating my opinion" without considering the implications of things we've said from a perspective other than our own.

Not saying this applies in your case necessarily, since I don't know the discussions you're talking about, but it's extremely common online, and I thought it was worth noting.