Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8526634" data-attributes="member: 18">I think this is an intellectual dishonest approach, sorry dude. I know you don't mean it to be but I don't know quite how else to put it..To me it appears that you're letting your feelings as a fan get ahead of being realistic about this. You're making some really wild claims about how people operate, that absolutely do not hold up to the facts. That you think this reflects on you, and your views, but not at all on reality. People aren't "crusaders" because they point out issues. That's really extreme language for something like listing issues with a product.Also, you complain about people putting words in your mouth, but you're asserting entire complex motivations to people here. That's far worse.This doesn't seem reasonable.You tell me all this stuff about how I'm being unfair to accuse you of saying people can't do this, and then you literally say "It's not valid". Sorry, it absolutely is valid to make specific investigations into issues with products, positive or negative. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. If I want to write 1000 words on why the Ninja class from OA is amazing, and not mention how the Bushi sucks, I can do that. That's valid. If I want to write 1000 words on specific problematic elements in OA, I can do that, that's valid. If I want to write 1000 words on how OA has merits and flaws, I can do that, that's valid. If I want to write 1000 words on the best things about OA, I can do that, that's valid.What is nonsense is you suggesting those things aren't valid. Which you just did. What is you actual position here? That we literally should not be allowed to write about something unless we list all negative and positive points, or that everyone who lists only bad points is what, "a bad person"? Surely not?It's a bit face-palm that you don't get how you're in fact proving my point, esp. re religious language. It seems like you won't even reason this out without resorting to the language of religion, and that's rather sad.I think there is an element of that, but what you don't seem to get is, the "labelled a sinner" is often 95% on the person who is being talked to, or more. Like it said, it doesn't matter how polite you are, how clear you are that the other person isn't "evil" or "depraved" or "a sinner" to use your religious language, some people, not bad people, note, just habitually push back on ANY suggestion that they change their behaviour or thinking in ANY way for ANY reason. Very often the same people then rationalize their pushing back as being told they're a "bad person", even if when they literally told the opposite. I've seen this happen countless times. Some ultra-nice person is like "Hey, maybe we could use this language instead because it's a bit more inclusive, I know this is new, please don't feel bad!" and somebody is still going to say "OMG!!! HOW DARE YOU! HOW DARE YOU SAY I'M A BAD PERSON!!!!!!!!!". You can't tell me this doesn't happen. It happens all the time. It even happened in a work situation to one of my friends, where they got in an amazingly polite and kind person to basically do very mild racial sensitivity training, which went to huge lengths to not demonize anyone or point anyone out as bad, and still one staff member was horribly offended and was abusive to the person doing the training to the point of reducing her to tears.Now, let's be clear, not everyone is nice or polite. Some people are quite jerky and point-score-y about it (I'm certainly not holding myself out as a saint here). But they get about the same reactions as people who are nice or polite, or only slightly worse.I do think religion plays a part here in that a lot of people get quite worn down early in life by being told they're "sinners" or "bad people" continuously by religious figures, when they know they're not, and then later in life, when a secular person makes a narrow request to change a behaviour, even without labeling them a "bad person", it's easy for them to feel this is just a further burden/attack, especially if they already went to lengths to meet the requirements of the religious figure (or suffered consequences from failing to do so). I do agree again that sometimes people are overbroad or lazy in talking about these issues. But as I said, even when they aren't, the reaction is often nigh-identical.Sure.But you can get a pretty good idea about how impacted by racism (specifically), they are*, pretty quickly from the attitudes people have and how they talk about themselves and certain issues. The other elements can be harder to gauge, or they can be very easy to gauge, depending on what the person reveals about themselves. It's also worth noting that a lot of people are kind of fooling themselves about their level or wealth/influence (absolutely in both directions). There was a great example in the UK a while back, when during a debate a politician mentioned the average national wage was X, and an angry audience member stood up to exclaim that this was nonsense, and the average wage was actually "above 4X", as he was earning 4X and he "knew" he was earning "less than average". Of course in fact the average wage was X and the dude was relatively wealthy - but he absolutely wouldn't accept it even when all the people in the debate (on all sides!) and even other audience members were like "LOL dude ur wrong".It's a bit different with Rowling and the whole transphobia issue in the UK. That transition does happen, but it's pretty rare now (for complicated socio-economic reasons definitely not fit for ENworld - it used to be fairly common, even routine). With Rowling and the TERF crew, the issue quite temporally bound - we're really talking about a less-than-twenty-year age range of British leftist academics (who have a few younger followers in the way a lot of outdated sociological approaches do), who all went to uni when certain trends were in fashion, and never updated their thinking, and where this came out because US anti-trans campaigners (of a very different background) started pushing the issue, and Rowling et al realized they agreed with them and decided to push the issue too (despite being fundamentally opposed on most other issues).* = To be more specific, you can generally tell if someone definitely isn't impacted by racism pretty easily - it's harder to tell if someone is personally impacted, or just cares about the issue.</blockquote>

Verification