rules for thee, but not for me
rules for thee, but not for me
To be clear, not talking about this community, obviously 😛.
What's the point of writing down rules, if mods just do what they want? But I suppose that's the risk you take when you call someone a liar in a small community; they might be a mod.
Edit: I'm not trying to say that mods suck, they perform a useful and often thankless job. Just that it can be difficult for small communities to get a healthy number of good mods, which can become a problem.
You're viewing a single thread.
I need to make a pie chart.
Reasons I have been banned from subforums:
20% swearing at trolls.
20% swearing at Nazis.
60% genuinely polite interactions catching a boot in the ass for incomprehensible reasons.
Do you think you were the good guy in that thread? You came off incredibly hostile. I would not have banned you for just that, but still I can see why.
How.
You signed off every comment with a snide shitty oneliner. Even if your point is well founded, conversing like that is going to catch you flak.
The hell I did. One's an explanation, one is literally "thanks," one is the only sentence and pointing to the initial not-remotely-hidden explanation, and one is that explanation made even more explicit.
What the fuck else was I supposed to say? Do I have resting bitch font - are people just automatically reading things in the shittiest possible tone of voice? Read it conversationally and there's none of that alleged tone.
This and so many other conversations go 'Why are you mad?!' 'I'm not and I don't know how to convince you of that.' 'Ah-HA!' There's no winning. Once someone's assumed you're fucking with them, somehow, the words don't matter.
Saying things like
"Go on, tell me...."
Or "thanks for playing along"
Is the stuff. Nobody likes that.
Yeah I don't think that's the issue, when the person who showed up to tell me and play along took the first one completely literally and the second one as sneering sarcasm. Where the goddamn mod chimes in is after a bone-dry run-down of how both were misunderstandings. Their scolding simultaneously blames me for expecting people to be psychic and also for talking down to them. How the fuck is anyone supposed to deal with that self-contradictory blend of bad-faith readings?
Ok
Yeah I don't think that's the issue,
That's absolutely the issue. You were being condescending. If you can't be polite then don't respond at all.
How could I be any more direct and polite with someone that confused about what I said? I'm not sneering at their idiocy and making remarks about their parentage. I walk them through a rhetorical device they demonstrably did not understand, and apparently that was the wrong thing.
What the fuck was the right thing?
What sequence of words do you want, instead? At this point I'm not convinced there is a right answer.
Someone else already mentioned your "go on, tell me" and "thanks for playing along." Both of those offer nothing to the conversation and only exist to be condescending.
'Here's what you said wrong!'
'What should I say instead?'
'Here's what you said wrong!'
Over and over and over. None of you are listening.
And it's NOT condescension, it's building a fucking comparison! It's a sixth-grade-reading-comprehension rhetorical device. It's getting ahead of an obvious yeah-but someone might make... and then someone made that yeah-but anyway. And then got mad that I told them: I agree, thank you.
The fuck was I supposed to tell them? If there was no right answer - none of this criticism means anything.
This is the exact kind of aggression people were saying was unwelcome.
Literally none of this was there. I'm annoyed at all of you - but not the guy I was talking to, in the first place. You are inferring something that was not there.
From a bare explanation of agreement.
Being concise didn't help. Being verbose didn't help. Being conversational didn't help. Being literal didn't help. I tried everything and all of it is still being misinterpreted as the polar fucking opposite of what I actually fucking wrote.
Being concise didn’t help. Being verbose didn’t help. Being conversational didn’t help. Being literal didn’t help. I tried everything and all of it is still being misinterpreted as the polar fucking opposite of what I actually fucking wrote.
Same here, so I'll try it your way:
You're acting like a hyperaggressive, condescending dickhead in every single one of those comments, and though I personally agree with you, I still want to slap your teeth straight because you're being an utter prick about it.
Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean you're not doing so in a hugely offputting manner.
Same here
Same where? You had one comment and it's just the same tutting. That's not comparable to the variety of ways I tried de-escalating with the initial guy.
Now you want to claim you agree with me - about the widespread misreading of anything I write in the worst possible way - and you're threatening violence over that same misreading. What the fuck is this conversation?
'You were very rude disagreeing with that guy.' I said I agree with them and thanked them.
'Well you were aggressive toward people critiquing your rude disagreement.' I told them there was no such thing, because I said I agree with them and thanked them.
'It's plainly these specific turns of phrase.' I have invited half a dozen people to suggest what I was supposed to do besides agree and thank them.
'Hey buddy, I agree with you, but I wanna kick your head in for explaining how you're unhappy with all this condemnation.' This topic has been the most compelling argument I've ever experienced, against trying to be nice to people online.
In a normal conversation you'd absolutely come across as a massive dick. You don't have "resting bitch font" you just sound absolutely insufferable. You can make your point while not being a dick about it, you just need to choose your words better and not go for the "uh huh, definitely, here's why you're wrong and why I'm right, now piss off"
'here’s why you’re wrong'
I agree with them.
I am abundantly agreeing with that confused dingus. They're making the comparison I was making, in the first place. They just keep going 'then what did you mean?!' as I repeatedly clarify what was never a mystery.
This is a trolling tactic. I don't think they did it on purpose, but the effect is the same. It creates no-win situations, where all responses can be twisted in bad faith and cast as vicious mockery. Even when it's 'I am not yelling at you... you are yelling at me.'
Do y'all think rhetorical questions are automatically hostile? If someone answers one, and I tell them it was rhetorical, and they still demand to know why I asked - what the fuck am I supposed to say? What sequence of words is not going to be labeled condescending, sarcastic, or backhanded?
Once everything gets read as insincere, the words don't matter. Nothing I write will be taken seriously. A dry and complete accounting, just trying to smooth things over, is labeled "semi-friendly shit" and publicly shamed. No roads lead out of that trap.
Would any apology have worked? Or would it be read as more of the same sneering tone that is 100% inferred and 0% implied?
From where I sit, you replied to a comment about Judaism with a comment assuming the person you were replying to thought the same thing about Islam, and wondered why he got mad.
The thread is about criticism of Islam.
I would've linked more context if it worked properly on Lemmy.
Your mistake was interacting with internet hatethiests. The only interaction you should ever have with them is reminding everyone in the room that they were a big part of the rise of the alt right and that the movement never underwent even a little bit of denazification.
Hey look, a worse take than 'how dare you say yes.'
I'm on your side, dumbass.
No you are not.
Fuck the lot of you.
Because people gave you answers to the question you asked?
Because people gave the same aggressively uncharitable reading of repeatedly telling someone 'yes, I agree.'