RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC
10-14-2014, 06:17 PM
I agree with the majority of what you're saying from an ethics perspective, Wheat, but by starting this whole thing off by framing the dissenting opinion as "people on tumblr", you're generalizing about and dehumanizing an outgroup (and a very heterogeneous one at that) yourself. That pretty much guaranteed that anyone who disagreed with you would be on the defensive and have no interest in seeing things from your perspective since you just strawmanned them as a bunch of crazy social justice warlocks and set the tone of this conversation as something very ugly.
As for Jac's post, the only thing that feels productive to comment on is the idea of making this a "dedicated shitposting forum": that essentially says "do not let conversations happen organically", or "conversations should only happen the way I enjoy them/want them to happen", or "everybody smile and have fun all the time, la la la, nothing serious here". All of those are I think stifling and toxic results. People should be able to just... talk. Respond to things the way they feel is appropriate. Get policed by the community if it at large thinks there is a problem with that particular person or particular instance, because trying to impose hard rules on what is essentially an extended social circle (especially when those rules are... very vague) has a chilling effect on conversation. What is too serious? How do you know if someone's posting an opinion here because they "think [it] would not be accepted on the rest of the board" as opposed to because no topic or circumstance on the rest of the board would have lead to a reasonable time and place to post it? What is shitposting even, and if we have rules requiring it can people be penalized if an authority figure or group of outspoken people think their posts aren't shitty enough? I don't want to have to think about whether a response I have is too serious or not lighthearted enough to have a place here; I just want to have conversations (mostly pretty goofy ones, if precedent is anything to go by) with people I know. If those conversations end up moving in a more serious direction, I don't think the participants should be forced to end it or deliberately retune it to levity. Just... talk about shit. If someone has a problem with something, they should address it or have someone they trust address it for them; having an authority figure act as a mouthpiece for people who, for whatever reason, cannot or do not want to speak for themselves just ensures that the tenor of the place conforms to whatever that authority figure wants, rather than what individuals or the community as a whole do.
As for Jac's post, the only thing that feels productive to comment on is the idea of making this a "dedicated shitposting forum": that essentially says "do not let conversations happen organically", or "conversations should only happen the way I enjoy them/want them to happen", or "everybody smile and have fun all the time, la la la, nothing serious here". All of those are I think stifling and toxic results. People should be able to just... talk. Respond to things the way they feel is appropriate. Get policed by the community if it at large thinks there is a problem with that particular person or particular instance, because trying to impose hard rules on what is essentially an extended social circle (especially when those rules are... very vague) has a chilling effect on conversation. What is too serious? How do you know if someone's posting an opinion here because they "think [it] would not be accepted on the rest of the board" as opposed to because no topic or circumstance on the rest of the board would have lead to a reasonable time and place to post it? What is shitposting even, and if we have rules requiring it can people be penalized if an authority figure or group of outspoken people think their posts aren't shitty enough? I don't want to have to think about whether a response I have is too serious or not lighthearted enough to have a place here; I just want to have conversations (mostly pretty goofy ones, if precedent is anything to go by) with people I know. If those conversations end up moving in a more serious direction, I don't think the participants should be forced to end it or deliberately retune it to levity. Just... talk about shit. If someone has a problem with something, they should address it or have someone they trust address it for them; having an authority figure act as a mouthpiece for people who, for whatever reason, cannot or do not want to speak for themselves just ensures that the tenor of the place conforms to whatever that authority figure wants, rather than what individuals or the community as a whole do.