A LANDFILL

I don't really care so much about slurs because, while I find the defence of someone's right to use horrible dehumanising language kind of abhorrent, I don't expect wheat or anyone else actually intends to throw around slurs and this is just an unforunate expression of an ethical point he wants to make

what does matter to me is that there's apparently some desire for a space on the forums where our rules don't apply? that there was enough feeling that the tenets of "don't troll", "try not to antagonise people", and "post in the correct subforum" are so restrictive that we need an outlet for everything that doesn't fit under those rules
what is there that doesn't fit under those rules that is worth posting?

As a tiny community of friends and friends-of-friends we naturally don't need a whole lot of rules or governance but that doesn't mean that there's nothing here that can hurt people

do you know what would have had to change so far in this subforum if we had the standard forum rules? literally nothing at all. all the fun we've been having has been completely within the rules as written
I liked this subforum when it was, as far as I was aware, essentially the shitposting topic but as a subforum. We were having fun! Then suddenly I find out that's not necessarily everything its creator had in mind.

a place where we have fun ignoring usual posting conventions as enforced elsewhere on the board is a cool fun time for everyone, that's a good idea for a subforum
a place where we... talk about topics with serious merit, things that you'd usually agree would be inappropriate for a family gathering for instance, but cannot appeal to anyone but ourselves if we feel we have been mistreated, because "there's no rules" is definitely not?
especially if, at the same time, there is shitposting mixed in? and a fun times topic might suddenly become a serious times topic without any warning? (or more dangerous, try to be both at once)
I think that's a huge mistake?

There are two sentiments I can understand wanting to avoid the rules for, one of which I can sympathise with and the other of which I have more problems.

Firstly: It's actually really shitty that Schazer has to end up being essentially the community police. That's really no kind of stress we should be putting on anyone, excepting the fact that... someone still has to do it sometimes. Schazer's done a sterling job keeping everything glued together which is probably not often enough acknowledged and taking some of that off their back so they can chat without worrying about whether executive power is strong-arming people into agreement is nice.
I can see why that would be desirable.

Secondly: Worry that people you are trying to argue with might ask Schazer might strong-arm you into line and leave them alone. If there's no "don't be an ass" rule, then nobody who ""misinterprets"" your well-reasoned points as assholery can reasonably ask a mod to step in and tell you to stop.
Now... this is the one I have more problems with.
Because frankly, in pretty much any case that the wrath of the gods have been called down it's because people are making asses of themselves.

I'm not going to beat around the bush, some people here are bull-headed as hell. I'm definitely one of them. Some of us are just louder than other people, we are self-important and make ourselves look more important through whatever grasp of the language we've picked up. We've learned or been socialised to have bigger voices, to expect to be heard and taken seriously as a default, so that it comes across in our words that they are important.
Not everyone has this advantage! Not everyone is allowed to think that their opinion might by default have some kind of merit, and when there are a couple of scarier, "smarter", ""more intellectual"" people trading paragraphs of what could be reasoned debate or might actually just be a comparison of ego sizes then they pretty much just get left out.

I have a problem with this, I've always largely been told by everyone that I am smart and important and valuable and that my words have weight and so I am easily able to put myself across with conviction. To the point where many people have said their first impression of me was intimidation. That is a problem, not an inherent character trait.
The correct response in this situation is not to create an environment where everyone has to deal with me, it is to ensure that if I am intimidating someone into silence that they have ways out.
I should not be content to just run over people with my massive walls of condescending prose, ideally I should be in a situation where people can say to me "Hey you're being kind of an ass, can you cut that out?" or, if they are not confident enough, be able to get someone else to do that for them. Until I am able to converse without making people feel like shit just for holding an opposing opinion.

You are a scary person to disagree with Wheat. You spring essays in the middle of casual conversation and talk down to people constantly. I don't know if you do this consciously or not, but it is not an endearing or desirable trait. I know multiple people who would rather stop talking in a topic or IRC room than have to deal with it, once you get into your flow.
It must be frustrating when what you thought was just a reasoned explanation of your beliefs is met by someone telling you to cut it out because you are making people uneasy, but it is not a problem with them. Not everyone can just say "please stop condescending to me" to your face, and to be honest I'm not sure what the reaction would be if they did.

If there is no phantom of authority, even one that is rarely exercised, there is no baseline for discussion. You do not get a fair representation, you get the strong voices trampling everyone else.
Everyone else is suddenly made to work around the people who are incapable of talking without condescending, or not say anything at all.
People should not have to work around you. If someone thinks you are condescending at them, they should absolutely have an option to get someone to sort you out.

If we have a subforum with no rules and start using it for "political" discussions then what we will not get is a free-willed exchange of ideals but actually these same small group of people riding over the top of everyone else with their loud, sarcastic, patronising walls of text while other people with less socialised confidence in their beliefs are left ignored, intimidated into not posting, or fire out a couple of sentences of anger because it seems like the only way anyone's going to hear them.

And I don't think there should be a place for that on this forum. It does not seem like a thing we should desire to have. "No rules" discussion does not mean everyone ends up talking like adults, and frankly I'd rather just shitpost without worrying that suddenly we're having a "reasoned" discussion about cultural marxism

this is my subforum idea:
can this please just be the shitposting subforum and have nothing to do with venting opinions you think would not be accepted on the rest of the board? please?
can we not just continue to act as if the standard rules apply? none of them forbid shitposting within a designated shitpost area after all, as this whole subforum is
this topic has already turned from fun times into a serious discussion people feel excluded from and already it's not fun any more