sadmanbarty
Well-known member
I’m not posting this to rehash old arguments (so please don’t). I completely appreciate people have different perspectives on things, so I don’t think anyone’s done anything wrong, but I hope it does illustrate a point:
I appreciate other people might feel differently from me, but as I see it the tone of the first set of quotes is light-hearted and playful whereas the second quote seems to be intended seriously, it’s condescending and vexed.
In terms of content I think saying “oh come off it, you’d love it if it all went a bit Mad Max” to an environmentalist isn’t as severe as accusing people of anti-Semitism and saying they’re ignorant (in the presence of a Jewish poster who’d expressed concern about Corbyn and anti-Semitism as it happens).
The first set of quotes was condemned to some extent by about 7 users. The 2nd – arguably more objectionable- quote wasn’t called into question by anybody (not that I think it should be).
This is absolutely not me being passive aggressive or wanting to give the poster of the 2nd quote a bollocking. Both quotes are 100% fine; there’s no malice in either of them or anything that I’d take umbrage with.
What I would say is that it shows there are some users whose posts are seen in the worst possible light and as such elicit far harsher reactions than posts by other users.
It’d be nice if those users received the same benefit of the doubt that everyone else gets. There’d be less spats if people assumed that nobody means to upset anyone, that nobody’s out to genuinely imply something awful about another poster, that people might not realise they’ve crossed some line (or actually they haven’t crossed any line at all), there’s not some convoluted hidden meaning in what they’re saying, etc.
I’m a bit sensitive and don’t like negativity in general. Moreover I’m more trepidatious about posting if I’m worried that some seemingly innocuous conversation I’m party to is suddenly viewed as some grave offence and I’m then berated by a hoard of users who refuse to acknowledge my perspective on things.
Let’s just assume we’re all nice, decent blokes (and non-blokes) who like talking about jungle and hopefully end the boom and bust cycle of the forum.
“This is one of the things Ballard got right. We are all aware our feet have never touched the ground. We are desperate for disaster. We are hungry for The Real. We are not content with global warming, we have to accelerate it. There is no way out of this logiv. We all know our secret desires. We want to turn the world upside down. The protagonist in any Ballard novel only comes alive once the worst has happened. We want it. We need it. The vultures waiting on the street lights and telephone wires.
Not just droid. Droid most obviously but all of us.
As I say this tendency is seen most clearly in droid (which is why he reacts most vociferously) but it's present in all of us. Cheering on the apocalypse.
Of course this tendency co-exists with dismay, horror, fear but even the ability to feel fear is something we have been estranged from and welcome.
(In response to Droid) The more you thrash and flail the more you reinforce what I'm saying.
I keep saying this isn't about you droid! What I'm saying is obvious and uncontroversial”
“What you and other posters have done here, and indeed what Barty has done in the first post by quoting CAMERA propaganda to attack Corbyn is casually conflate the actions of a ruthless and influential global power with the Jewish people themselves, an act of antisemitism in itself. Apart from the dodgy title, this thread is a car wreck marked primarily by the catastrophic ignorance of many of the contributions.”
I appreciate other people might feel differently from me, but as I see it the tone of the first set of quotes is light-hearted and playful whereas the second quote seems to be intended seriously, it’s condescending and vexed.
In terms of content I think saying “oh come off it, you’d love it if it all went a bit Mad Max” to an environmentalist isn’t as severe as accusing people of anti-Semitism and saying they’re ignorant (in the presence of a Jewish poster who’d expressed concern about Corbyn and anti-Semitism as it happens).
The first set of quotes was condemned to some extent by about 7 users. The 2nd – arguably more objectionable- quote wasn’t called into question by anybody (not that I think it should be).
This is absolutely not me being passive aggressive or wanting to give the poster of the 2nd quote a bollocking. Both quotes are 100% fine; there’s no malice in either of them or anything that I’d take umbrage with.
What I would say is that it shows there are some users whose posts are seen in the worst possible light and as such elicit far harsher reactions than posts by other users.
It’d be nice if those users received the same benefit of the doubt that everyone else gets. There’d be less spats if people assumed that nobody means to upset anyone, that nobody’s out to genuinely imply something awful about another poster, that people might not realise they’ve crossed some line (or actually they haven’t crossed any line at all), there’s not some convoluted hidden meaning in what they’re saying, etc.
I’m a bit sensitive and don’t like negativity in general. Moreover I’m more trepidatious about posting if I’m worried that some seemingly innocuous conversation I’m party to is suddenly viewed as some grave offence and I’m then berated by a hoard of users who refuse to acknowledge my perspective on things.
Let’s just assume we’re all nice, decent blokes (and non-blokes) who like talking about jungle and hopefully end the boom and bust cycle of the forum.