A LANDFILL

I work 70 hrs a week. I do not have the time to answer everything immediately but I will eventually get to everything. I said that I would.

I'm sorry for assuming you were ignoring my posts when you've done so multiple times in the past.

You seem to have seen and then recalled a drastically different version of these events, as if we have two completely different sets of eyes with different types of rods and cones exclusive to each other. Maybe one set of eyes has a fault that projects phantoms onto a normal situation. Or the other has blinders to a problem that is there.

The reason I didn't know about this information is because unlike you I wasn't privy to behind-the-scenes secrets. All of what I saw of the goings-on was the main thread. But I think the reason the subforum only attracted a certain kind of person was partially because the stuff done there was only appealing to a certain kind of person (chatting about vidya in a genchat thread is simply /more accessible/ than a weeks-long game, and no amount of open arms will change that). (Also, I note that you make no mention of the mspafa clique stuff, when that really /definitely/ happened.)

This would be my intention. (Excluding the part I lime'd.) Not cliquishness, but having two separate cultures that share geography alone. Because, as you said, "to abridge a point jac is making: you are assuming that everyone is able and willing to 'work things out.'" It is not possible at this point to get those who are so deep into one culture to see even far enough to compromise with the outgroup, so my intention was to make a second, separate forum - hence the emphasis on 'this is a separate forum'. People could be part of both if they wanted, just as people can sign up for two different forums on two different websites, which is why the lime'd portion does not follow.

So...the response to my concerns is "yeah, that's what I want to happen." I...can't really say anything to that. Other than I guess: there is already bitterness about this subforum and these ideas, there is already friction, how is the "lime'd" part so ridiculous that you don't think it's worthwhile to consider how to prevent it.

that is not what I wanted this to be. I agree with the idea of 'don't be serious' on this board. And I agree with the idea that if someone asks me not to ask anything of them I won't (the catch being you can't ask anything of me - don't ask of others when you are not willing to even listen to someone else).

then how do you plan to deal with conflicts on this forum, if isn't through "both parties have to discuss"

this is why I do not ask or expect someone who does not demand things of others and takes a more laid-back approach to social interactions like Red to listen and I won't pester them with long things. After they made clear their social apathy, I was like, yeah, that's fine if they're the type who just wants to do their own thing and let others do theirs without incident, I respect that attitude. It's consistent, and it fulfills the principle of 'first, do no harm.' Some people on that board voiced disgust at that voicing of apathy - which unfortunately ties in with how they are the type of person that cannot let others with different posting styles or outlooks be their own dang selves on another board.

hey, maybe you could not degender romy. she's a girl, and she has NEVER used 'they' pronouns. the fact that you choose to refer to her with those is...well, it's kind of suspicious. also, romy's a super close friend of mine, and she's fine with having her social missteps corrected because hey: she doesn't want to accidentally hurt people and push them away! maybe while you're talking about how I shouldn't 'mislead others' by having a view that I 'haven't done my homework on,' you could not use a friend of mine as your pet example of how you're so tolerant and others aren't. especially while misgendering her.

On the other hand, I will not leave alone people who demand things from others while saying "no, you can't tell me anything, who are you to tell me things?"

If you (the general you) don't want to hear long things from me, do not a)demand things from me b)mislead others by imposing a social view publicly that you haven't done the homework on and has factual inaccuracies or omissions that I can correct for the sake of your audience not being demagogued by you. For b), try to empathize: isn't it really frustrating when you hear a smörgåsbord of ideas that misconstrue a topic you've learned and care a lot about? For instance, wouldn't you get mad during a conversation where someone keeps referring to feminism as the idea that the social order should be flipped so that women become dominant over men?

It's hard to address this part because it's not technically directed just to me, but:
1) this sounds oddly like you're annoyed about being told you can't participate in certain discussions about privilege while also being told you need to follow certain social rules. forgive me that's not what it's about!
a) is telling you not to condescend or spin-doctor people's words or mock them really a 'demand'
b) again: sorry for not knowing all the back-room deets that you were privy to in that situation. funnily enough, your point (b) works well as a refutation of your own propensity to rhetoric on social issues you don't experience!
I think you realize this, since you grossly try to equate a situation in which I (and the other people you are directing this to who are women) are trying to argue for our rights as human beings with a situation in which you're trying to make a small internet community be less cliquish. maybe don't put those on the same level?


anyways, to cap this all off...you still haven't addressed taking my words out of context (not that I really thought you would)! I'd also like to bring up that beru, whom you choose to mock in that old post, genuinely meant her statement to ix as advice and phrased it a little more flippantly than perhaps she should have. I believe she said this in the thread, and you ignored it. I would have assumed you'd changed, but you brought up the post again without making any explanations or apologies, so I guess you still stand by using your rhetorical power to publicly mock a person with less skill with words than you? because...that's what happened.

p.s. when a lot of people tell you the way you interact with them/others distresses and bothers them, it's not them making unfair demands of you while not acceding to your demands, it's a sign that maybe the way you interact with others is distressing and you should maybe think about that instead of dismissing everyone.

p.s.s I agree with loather and schazer that going "ok, you've been sarcastic enough times, now you deserve to be hurt" is a really fucked up way of going about things. it's one thing if it was an emotional reaction that you regret...but, uh, it's a little creepy to stand by guilt tripping someone as the 'right' thing to do in the situation?