Support NeoGAF

[Bobby Roberts]

Laying about with anger and indignation and accusing people of not being genuine will only drive people away from your message.

I mentioned this with Chawlie, but (and it seems appropriate since this thread is very much about people taking context into account) worrying about whether negative response to antagonistic posts made with zero good faith could "drive people away" seems a strange concern to have since the people being "driven away" are people that never intended on engaging.

I mean, we're using bigmf's shitpost as the example that sparked this entire line of discussion, yes?

The point is that holding people that are already exhibiting evidence that they're willing (and trying) to maintain an open/honest discussion on the subject to the fire when they don't evenly and calmly respond to an obviously disruptive/demeaning force seems not just unfair, but disruptive in and of itself.

In fact, it can be read (not that you mean it that way, but it can be seen that way) as one of the gentler forms of concern trolling.

If you're cognizant enough to recognize the subtleties of communication to the point where you're offering advice on how best to get through the defenses people might not even realize they have up - then how are you missing that devil's advocating for a more even-handed discourse by attacking the people responding negatively to the blatantly disruptive and demeaning influence is not the helpful act you think it might be?

 

[.GqueB.]

i have some avocado that needs cutting up right now actually.

Should burn it instead.

Then burn the ashes.

 

[freddy]

So to sum up

You came into the thread just to tell us we're not doing a good job of reaching people and "don't feed the trolls" and to chastise us for becoming exasperated for dealing with the same shit every thread

And had absolutely nothing to say about the topic itself

If you think I'm chastising then you're not reading what I said with an open mind. Thug is used pretty much as the dictionary definition defines it where I live and it's been that way unchanging for while, so I don't have much to add on how it's evolved in America.

 

[freddy]

I mentioned this with Chawlie, but (and it seems appropriate since this thread is very much about people taking context into account) worrying about whether negative response to antagonistic posts made with zero good faith could "drive people away" seems a strange concern to have since the people being "driven away" are people that never intended on engaging.

I mean, we're using bigmf's shitpost as the example that sparked this entire line of discussion, yes?

The point is that holding people that are already exhibiting evidence that they're willing (and trying) to maintain an open/honest discussion on the subject to the fire when they don't evenly and calmly respond to an obviously disruptive/demeaning force seems not just unfair, but disruptive in and of itself.

In fact, it can be read (not that you mean it that way, but it can be seen that way) as one of the gentler forms of concern trolling.

If you're cognizant enough to recognize the subtleties of communication to the point where you're offering advice on how best to get through the defenses people might not even realize they have up - then how are you missing that devil's advocating for a more even-handed discourse by attacking the people responding negatively to the blatantly disruptive and demeaning influence is not the helpful act you think it might be?

Because I care more for the message you are trying to get across than an ignorant troll response. It's not an attack. What I'm saying is very close to concern trolling actually, I'll admit that. Unless of course, I'm being genuine and trying to help because I'm cognisant enough see the subtle use of words designed to demean people .

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

I mean really people, when was the last time a white trouble maker was called a "thug".

A white person is called a "thug" about as much as they're called "nigger". Shit was so obvious that it was the codeword for "nigger" you had to have your head buried in the sand to not notice.

A behavior, no matter skin color, is a defining factor for me. So whether I call a black man a thug or a white man a hillbilly or vice versa, I'm not generalizing an entire race. But you can't deny there are specific groups of people who can be attributed to these labels.

 

[Kinitari]

I mentioned this with Chawlie, but (and it seems appropriate since this thread is very much about people taking context into account) worrying about whether negative response to antagonistic posts made with zero good faith could "drive people away" seems a strange concern to have since the people being "driven away" are people that never intended on engaging.

Sometimes people come into threads with maybe not the best intentions - maybe they come in really thinking "Really? This is a big deal! C'mon people it's silly!". With the right approach you can often get these people to change their perspective. If the goal is just to get people who are likely to agree with you, that little extra push - then yeah, ignoring the people who don't put in a lot of effort (or even telling them off) is entirely viable. But I think it's better to fish with a broader net, so to speak, because you might get lucky and grab that rare person who might not normally agree, but has been persuaded by your approach.

I mean, we're using bigmf's shitpost as the example that sparked this entire line of discussion, yes?

The point is that holding people that are already exhibiting evidence that they're willing (and trying) to maintain an open/honest discussion on the subject to the fire when they don't evenly and calmly respond to an obviously disruptive/demeaning force seems not just unfair, but disruptive in and of itself.

I think this whole meta discussion is disruptive, but the reason I (and probably other people) are bringing it up because I've seen quite a few threads that have so much potential for conversation get very heated, and eventually have people who I agree with on topic, act in a way that I very much disagree with - which is frustrating and I guess disheartening.

It's not really about fair and unfair - because it's not just about laying extra expectations in front of posters who are trying to do the right thing. At least it's not just about that for me - I think it's healthier to be more optimistic, to assume better of people and to really just take the high road. I've never seen that go poorly.

In fact, it can be read (not that you mean it that way, but it can be seen that way) as one of the gentler forms of concern trolling.

If you're cognizant enough to recognize the subtleties of communication to the point where you're offering advice on how best to get through the defenses people might not even realize they have up - then how are you missing that devil's advocating for a more even-handed discourse by attacking the people responding negatively to the blatantly disruptive and demeaning influence is not the helpful act you think it might be?

This depends on these conversations and discussions being nothing but attack and defense. I come into these threads with the goal of enlightening myself, and hoping that for everyone else as well. When I see insults get hurled directly at someone, I think it immediately detracts from that goal.

I'm not attacking people when I ask people to try and be more positive and kind and considerate.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Sometimes people come into threads with maybe not the best intentions - maybe they come in really thinking "Really? This is a big deal! C'mon people it's silly!". With the right approach you can often get these people to change their perspective.

I'm not disagreeing. In fact, I'd argue that I've managed to do that, personally, for a couple posters in this thread alone. I understand exactly what you're suggesting.

The problem is that the advocacy you're pushing for is coming in response to a guy who doesn't have the best intentions, clearly, as denoted by his approach, his tone, and his language.

I think it's healthier to be more optimistic, to assume better of people and to really just take the high road. I've never seen that go poorly.

This thread has gone poorly. Wasted optimism will sour. Asking people to ignore both their eyes, their understanding, and their instincts when faced with posts such as bigmf's, for the sake of possibly appearing to a hypothetical outside observer who may or may not be at the tipping point of coming around to your viewpoint is borderline counterproductive, and again - pretty damned close to concern trolling. It's definitely, whether you mean for it to be that way or not, diminishing to what positive gains in the conversation HAVE been made for the sake of appealing to a "middle ground" that is not only NOT being populated, but is constantly moving/shifting based on how "fair" we're being to contrarians whose sole purpose in the thread is to disrupt.

Basically, if someone says "they way they treated the guy who came in and called everyone dickheads made me more inclined to side with that guy" then that hypothetical person was more than likely never looking to move off their gut reaction to the topic, and were simply looking for reasons to occupy the opposite position openly without as much fear of having to explain themselves.

 

[Kinitari]

A behavior, no matter skin color, is a defining factor for me. So whether I call a black man a thug or a white man a hillbilly or vice versa, I'm not generalizing an entire race. But you can't deny there are specific groups of people who can be attributed to these labels.

I think the problem is that you are separating thug and hillbilly into two separate sort of negative labels, and you are applying them to race. Yeah of course, there are obvious connotations to each of these labels, and they may be useful summations if you want to describe particular behaviours - but I think this ends up evolving into something even more negative.

I feel like eventually these labels become these large and unwieldy clubs used to discredit, and they end up further becoming more deeply entwined with ethnic bashing.

I'm not always very coherent, so I'll try and describe it as best as I can, but let me use thug as an example (mind you, I'm black, but I haven't really had a lot of experience with this word as an insult, I just don't think it's vogue in my circles I guess): So you want to describe a group of people you've recognized who are violent, unintellectual, and maybe often dress very similar (poorly, lets say). Thug is the word you use and it is a quick and simple way to describe someone - we do this sort of thing all the time, it's not particularly weird. Now eventually this evolves - thugs wear baggy pants, thugs live in the ghetto, thugs are black, thugs do drugs, sell drugs, steal, rob - etc etc etc etc. Both the physical description (used for recognition purposes) and the nefarious things thugs do grow as people adopt this term and add to it as they see fit. Eventually it becomes less of an ambiguous description and more of a universally held negative. "Oh he's a thug? I know immediately what you mean, and all the negatives that come with it". Now this word is a powerful tool, it's not just a general description of some fuzzy observation/trend - it's a direct and powerful insult/accusation that carries with it a lot of hidden connotation - because people have built it up to be larger and larger and eventually this... racially charged thing.

You might not have seen it, and I haven't really seen it directly myself, but the internet is a wonderful place that has given me plenty of access to things I don't normally see - like people who use thug just to describe -any- black person. It's not just a label they ascribe to just people who meet a bunch of criteria, but they'll happy apply it to anyone who meets any of the criteria - often with a heavy emphasis on the ethnic criteria. What originally was a very specific description with a lot of requirements (baggy loose clothing, violent, unintellectual, angry and aggressive, etc etc) is now used by some people on anyone who is black - with all the negative connotation still intact. Maybe it's not just them being black, maybe it's them being black and wearing baggy clothing. Maybe it's them being black and talking loudly and aggressively - they might need one other slightly relevant bit of information before they're willing to apply the label. So when they do, the requirements are much diluted, but the implications are not - the implication is still that thugs are anti-intellectual, angry, violent, no-good etc etc's.

So I guess what I am trying to say is, I can understand why the label, why all labels like these, can turn into what are essentially slurs. Maybe a good amount of people still use thug to mean a very specific sort of person, but the damage is sort of done. Sometimes now when you use the word thug, you'll be in some way (to some people) associated with the sort of people who use the word thug without meeting all the criteria.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm not disagreeing. In fact, I'd argue that I've managed to do that, personally, for a couple posters in this thread alone. I understand exactly what you're suggesting.

The problem is that the advocacy you're pushing for is coming in response to a guy who doesn't have the best intentions, clearly, as denoted by his approach, his tone, and his language.

I think it being his opening remarks makes that position a bit premature - and regardless of what his intent is, I think some of the replies are just not healthy all around.

This thread has gone poorly.

But... not because everyone is being infinitely patient and optimistic.

Wasted optimism will sour. Asking people to ignore both their eyes, their understanding, and their instincts when faced with posts such as bigmf's, for the sake of possibly appearing to a hypothetical outside observer who may or may not be at the tipping point of coming around to your viewpoint is borderline counterproductive, and again - pretty damned close to concern trolling.

I honestly don't even know what concern trolling is. But is what I am asking so... I don't know, unfair? What I essentially am saying is "I will think better of you, and so will others, if you don't stoop to x person's level, and if you don't bring significant amounts of negativity into the discussion".

It's definitely, whether you mean for it to be that way or not, diminishing to what positive gains in the conversation HAVE been made for the sake of appealing to a "middle ground" that is not only NOT being populated, but is constantly moving/shifting based on how "fair" we're being to contrarians whose sole purpose in the thread is to disrupt.

I don't know how it diminishes anything to try and continuously improve discourse - if you think there is an opportunity to improve discourse, I can only assume that there is no harm in pursuing it. "Appealing to the middle ground" in this case is simply just... not getting angry, not losing your temper, not saying things you'll probably regret later or could possibly even get you banned. Nothing that seems particularly objectionable.

Basically, if someone says "they way they treated the guy who came in and called everyone dickheads made me more inclined to side with that guy" then that hypothetical person was more than likely never looking to move off their gut reaction to the topic, and were simply looking for reasons to occupy the opposite position openly without as much fear of having to explain themselves.

Or, it could be that everyone could be more enlightened by a thoughtful response, even to someone who is not giving you a great starting point. That no one gains from giving into your frustration. And it might encourage people who are worried about sharing because they are afraid of being met with hostility, to come in - knowing that even someone who says pretty outlandish things is still met with calm and respect. And even racists can have their minds changed, and my ideal is to do just that, not to scare them away. There are no negatives I can see here.


edit:... fuck, giant ass double posts side by side...

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I'm not disagreeing. In fact, I'd argue that I've managed to do that, personally, for a couple posters in this thread alone. I understand exactly what you're suggesting.

The problem is that the advocacy you're pushing for is coming in response to a guy who doesn't have the best intentions, clearly, as denoted by his approach, his tone, and his language.



This thread has gone poorly. Wasted optimism will sour. Asking people to ignore both their eyes, their understanding, and their instincts when faced with posts such as bigmf's, for the sake of possibly appearing to a hypothetical outside observer who may or may not be at the tipping point of coming around to your viewpoint is borderline counterproductive, and again - pretty damned close to concern trolling. It's definitely, whether you mean for it to be that way or not, diminishing to what positive gains in the conversation HAVE been made for the sake of appealing to a "middle ground" that is not only NOT being populated, but is constantly moving/shifting based on how "fair" we're being to contrarians whose sole purpose in the thread is to disrupt.

Basically, if someone says "they way they treated the guy who came in and called everyone dickheads made me more inclined to side with that guy" then that hypothetical person was more than likely never looking to move off their gut reaction to the topic, and were simply looking for reasons to occupy the opposite position openly without as much fear of having to explain themselves.

I love your posts. Keep it up. You're a lot more patient than I could be. No matter how succinct or nice you are, in regards to race discussions, people continue to think you could be nicer --- as if being nicer really matters to them. It reminds me of the way CNN painted Aslan (as a crazy angry outraged muslim who reinforces the stereotypes hes combatting) when he became exasperated with explaining the same thing about 5 or 6 times different times to people who clearly have their ears closed.

And for gaf, most people are fine calling out religious fundamentalists to be ignorant and intellectually toxic, but let's concern troll for the guy who came in here with dishonest, ignorant and intellectually toxic viewpoints.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

I love your posts. Keep it up. You're a lot more patient than I could be. No matter how succinct or nice you are, in regards to race discussions, people continue to think you could be nicer --- as if being nicer really matters to them. It reminds me of the way CNN painted Aslan (as a crazy angry outraged muslim who reinforces the stereotypes hes combatting) when he became exasperated with explaining the same thing about 5 or 6 times different times to people who clearly have their ears closed.

And for gaf, most people are fine calling out religious fundamentalists to be ignorant and intellectually toxic, but let's concern troll for the guy who came in here with dishonest, ignorant and intellectually toxic viewpoints.

The fact that is happens in other threads does not mean it should happen here. It shouldn't happen at all, and it's only happening here because I happened to bring it up. If it were brought up in a religious thread I imagine the response would be similar.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

The fact that is happens in other threads does not mean it should happen here. It shouldn't happen at all, and it's only happening here because I happened to bring it up. If it were brought up in a religious thread I imagine the response would be similar.

I see nothing wrong with dismissing these two posts:

Ok here's the story so far: Some football player was hollerin' on TV. Some morons said he was acting like a thug. Some other people who are so fucking dumb they need to wear nose plugs when it rains said ' that's racist' . So those shitheads have now set the precedent that 'thug' is now and forever will be a racist term. Otherwise the helmet wearing nose plug needing dickheads will need to find something else to be offended about on other people's behalf.

Aw, you hurt my feelings.

Now whether or not Labor did it in the best of ways is besides the point. This guy pretty much called anyone who argued that "thug" has become a coded word in America (coded is the key here) as [moronic] "helmet wearing nose plug needing dickheads".

So yeah I think your energies should have been "honestly and calmly" condemning this guys posts, instead of chastising someone who called his post worthless.

False equivalencies all up in here.

 

[ishibear]

I mentioned this with Chawlie, but (and it seems appropriate since this thread is very much about people taking context into account) worrying about whether negative response to antagonistic posts made with zero good faith could "drive people away" seems a strange concern to have since the people being "driven away" are people that never intended on engaging.

I mean, we're using bigmf's shitpost as the example that sparked this entire line of discussion, yes?

The point is that holding people that are already exhibiting evidence that they're willing (and trying) to maintain an open/honest discussion on the subject to the fire when they don't evenly and calmly respond to an obviously disruptive/demeaning force seems not just unfair, but disruptive in and of itself.

In fact, it can be read (not that you mean it that way, but it can be seen that way) as one of the gentler forms of concern trolling.

If you're cognizant enough to recognize the subtleties of communication to the point where you're offering advice on how best to get through the defenses people might not even realize they have up - then how are you missing that devil's advocating for a more even-handed discourse by attacking the people responding negatively to the blatantly disruptive and demeaning influence is not the helpful act you think it might be?

Well said. This is exactly why I brought it up because I wanted to stop it where it tried to start.

Post monitoring and tone policing seems more of an attempt to belittle otherwise very leveled and fruitful posters for the sake of it because there's nothing else to tear apart.

It's simpler to resort to that than to have discussion.

Like I said earlier, if you're coming in here seeking to win by any means necessary, you need to stop and reflect on that. These threads are not about breaking anyone down or "ether"ing others, they're for educating. If you have that much contempt for someone that you want to see them beaten during their moment of weakness or when their defenses are down, that's terrible.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Well said. This is exactly why I brought it up because I wanted to stop it where it tried to start.

Post monitoring and tone policing seems more of an attempt to belittle otherwise very leveled and fruitful posters for the sake of it because there's nothing else to tear apart.

It's simpler to resort to that than to have discussion.

Like I said earlier, if you're coming in here seeking to win by any means necessary, you need to stop and reflect on that. These threads are not about breaking anyone down or "ether"ing others, they're for educating. If you have that much contempt for someone that you want to see them beaten during their moment of weakness or when their defenses are down, that's terrible.

Oh yeah and this too. Very good posts.

 

[EscoBlades]

The few things from Thug Kitchen i saw on facebook always came across as trying too hard. I automatically assumed it was run by a bunch of white people for that very reason.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

I see nothing wrong with dismissing these two posts:





Now whether or not Labor did it in the best of ways is besides the point. This guy pretty much called anyone who argued that "thug" has become a coded word in America (coded is the key here) as "helmet wearing nose plug needing dickheads".

So yeah I think your energies should have been "honestly and calmly" condemning this guys posts, instead of chastising someone who called his post worthless.

False equivalencies all up in here.

I think that's exactly the point. All it resulted in was a bicker between the two and another poster essentially calling Big retarded. Didn't want to take sides, so I felt I diplomatically called them both twatty. We already discussed on the previous page how I should have taken my own advice and pointed out why I think Big's post was wrong. Others in the end did do that quite elegantly.

I think of it as this, Big offered up his opinion on the topic at hand, and while he was rude, he contributed. Instead of his arguments rebutted he was met with insults. To me that gets us no where besides more conflict over trivial things like insults rather than the topic at hand. It's not about being nice, it's about showing respect and being willing to swallow your anger and frustration for the sake of perhaps changing some one for the better (in one's opinion). If all we do is curse people out and call them stupid, they leave the thread unchanged, too scared to post or learn because they know they will be ridiculed again.

Well said. This is exactly why I brought it up because I wanted to stop it where it tried to start.

Post monitoring and tone policing seems more of an attempt to belittle otherwise very leveled and fruitful posters for the sake of it because there's nothing else to tear apart.

It's simpler to resort to that than to have discussion.

Like I said earlier, if you're coming in here seeking to win by any means necessary, you need to stop and reflect on that. These threads are not about breaking anyone down or "ether"ing others, they're for educating. If you have that much contempt for someone that you want to see them beaten during their moment of weakness or when their defenses are down, that's terrible.

Isn't post monitoring and tone policing your exact problem with Big's OP? He worded his opinion rudely, so instead of tearing apart his opinion which you could have easily done, ya'll belittled him.

I don't know who is supposed to be "winning" in these threads and I'm not sure where you are getting that idea are from? Are you referring to me or Kini or someone else?

Insulting a poster gives no more discussion than belittling one for his/her tone.

 

[Surface of Me]

I see nothing wrong with dismissing these two posts:





Now whether or not Labor did it in the best of ways is besides the point. This guy pretty much called anyone who argued that "thug" has become a coded word in America (coded is the key here) as [moronic] "helmet wearing nose plug needing dickheads".

So yeah I think your energies should have been "honestly and calmly" condemning this guys posts, instead of chastising someone who called his post worthless.

False equivalencies all up in here.

If you want to dismiss them, don't reply. Replying with the same tone bigmf came in with doesnt help discussion and might hurt your cause as others have pointed out. Execution is just as important inception.

Well said. This is exactly why I brought it up because I wanted to stop it where it tried to start.

Post monitoring and tone policing seems more of an attempt to belittle otherwise very leveled and fruitful posters for the sake of it because there's nothing else to tear apart.

It's simpler to resort to that than to have discussion.

Like I said earlier, if you're coming in here seeking to win by any means necessary, you need to stop and reflect on that. These threads are not about breaking anyone down or "ether"ing others, they're for educating. If you have that much contempt for someone that you want to see them beaten during their moment of weakness or when their defenses are down, that's terrible.

I dont know how telling someone there message will be better received if they keep a calm and polite tone is belittling at all, it's a fact. I'm with the group saying thug can be a code word, that it was likely used in that way with this site(thanks to the webarchive discovered in this thread), and that people should be aware. If you're at the point of frustration and exasperation because of the other side, it's probably best for the cause to just not reply to posts you find trollish/overtly ignorant, rather than stoop to their level.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

If you want to dismiss them, don't reply. Replying with the same tone bigmf came in with doesnt help discussion and might hurt your cause as others have pointed out. Execution is just as important inception.



I dont know how telling someone there message will be better received if they keep a calm and polite tone is belittling at all, it's a fact. I'm with the group saying thug can be a code word, that it was likely used in that way with this site(thanks to the webarchive discovered in this thread), and that people should be aware. If you're at the point of frustration and exasperation because of the other side, it's probably best for the cause to just not reply to posts you find trollish/overtly ignorant, rather than stoop to their level.

Again. Both you and Chawlie are suffering from the idea of false equivalencies. What they did is not the same. Labor did not call him

Spoiler

(or an entire community because let's be honest, there are a LOT of black americans who feel this way

) a [moronic] helmet wearing nose plug needing dickhead.

He said such an inflammatory post was worthless --- which, surprise, it is.

 

[ishibear]

Isn't post monitoring and tone policing ya'lls exact problem with Big's OP? He worded his opinion rudely, so instead of tearing apart his opinion which you could have easily done, you belittled him.

I don't know who is supposed to be "winning" in these threads and I'm not sure where you are getting that idea are from? Are you referring to me or Kini or someone else?

Insulting a poster gives no more discussion than belittling one for his/her tone.

No. Big's post was rude, insulting and downright disrespectful. It was not in any way inviting discussions. He sought to be a jerk about everything and in response, people got pissed off.

And I asked you before not to tell me how to do things. I know what's appropriate and what isn't. Hence why I brought up his clinging to a crappy word when it was pointless. Actually, I did tear apart his opinion now that I think on it. So... what about that now?

I do feel like you have more interest in winning than discussing, yes. Kintari is often very mellow with his posts so I know for fact although we butt heads often, he's a genuinely level headed guy. He's not trying to win anything, he usually just wants everyone to have some sort of say. I respect him for that.

Also worth noting I didn't insult anyone. Not even Big. I said he was being rude and disrespectful. I don't see how an observation about someone's post is me belittling at all.

I truly feel like your frustration is aimed at the wrong people. Why? Maybe because you're more concerned about winning.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

What I'm seeing are paragraph long versions of what basically boils down to "don't feed the trolls" as a means to be percieved as maintaining a sort of "high ground."

And that would be fine, if "don't feed the trolls" has ever been proven to work. And it hasn't. What works is shining a spotlight on cockroaches and forcing them to scatter.

There is worth to making it publicly known that shitposts on that level aren't going to be tolerated and the reaction to posting something so blatantly inflammatory in an attempt to derail legitimate conversation is important.

Where you might say "you could possibly be turning off bystanders who are waffling on what position to take," I might say "you're being very permissive and accomodating of outside influences looking to kneecap any forward progression towards understanding that might be happening."

A hypothetical waffling bystander isn't worth accomodating that kind of bullshit. It's overall detrimental to allow that sort of nastiness to go uncommented on, much less unchecked.

 

[Surface of Me]

What I'm seeing are paragraph long versions of what basically boils down to "don't feed the trolls" as a means to be percieved as maintaining a sort of "high ground."

And that would be fine, if "don't feed the trolls" has ever been proven to work. And it hasn't. What works is shining a spotlight on cockroaches and forcing them to scatter.

There is worth to making it publicly known that shitposts on that level aren't going to be tolerated and the reaction to posting something so blatantly inflammatory in an attempt to derail legitimate conversation is important.

Where you might say "you could possibly be turning off bystanders who are waffling on what position to take," I might say "you're being very permissive and accomodating of outside influences looking to kneecap any forward progression towards understanding that might be happening."

A hypothetical waffling bystander isn't worth accomodating that kind of bullshit. It's overall detrimental to allow that sort of nastiness to go uncommented on, much less unchecked.

I guess the current argument boils down on how to deal with trolls/shitposters. I maintain that ignoring them is the best tactic. Agree to disagree.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

Again. Both you and Chawlie are suffering from the idea of false equivalencies. What they did is not the same. Labor did not call him a [moronic] helmet wearing nose plug needing dickhead.

He said such an inflammatory post was worthless --- which, surprise, it is.

He said everything he posts is worthless, not just that one. Also called him mindless. Too much about attacking the poster rather than their opinion, regardless of Big's rudeness, which while disrespectful, was not an attack on anybody in the thread.

No. Big's post was rude, insulting and downright disrespectful. It was not in any way inviting discussions. He sought to be a jerk about everything and in response, people got pissed off.

He posted in the thread with more than likely the full knowledge he would get responses as one would expect posting in a thread. By default that incites discussion, whether or not he was polite about it or not (again, he wasn't).

And I asked you before not to tell me how to do things. I know what's appropriate and what isn't. Hence why I brought up his clinging to a crappy word when it was pointless. Actually, I did tear apart his opinion now that I think on it. So... what about that now?

Also worth noting I didn't insult anyone. Not even Big. I said he was being rude and disrespectful. I don't see how an observation about someone's post is me belittling at all.

My apologies that's poorly worded in my post, I was generalizing with "ya'll". I remember that you didn't.

I do feel like you have more interest in winning than discussing, yes. Kintaro is often very mellow with his posts so I know for fact although we butt heads often, he's a genuinely level headed guy. He's not trying to win anything, he usually just wants everyone to have some sort of say. I respect him for that.

I'm sorry that you feel that way but I'm not. I was genuinely annoyed at how Big was responded to.

I truly feel like your frustration is aimed at the wrong people. Why? Maybe because you're more concerned about winning.

My frustration is aimed at many things at once, I voiced my disapproval of Big's post already, the only reason I'm still voicing my disapproval of some of the other posters is that it's continuing to get argued against, so I will also argue.


Edit: I'm going to bed for now, I'll respond to anything tommorrow

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Agree to disagree.

Done and done!

to reset:

In America, it is an observable phenomenon that people use "thug" as a racially-charged codeword.

VICE magazine noted that Thug Kitchen was borne directly from that practice.

Some people in other regions and even here in America are surprised such a phenomenon exists.

There is varying level of disagreement over whether or not such an observable phenomenon is actually observable.

There is also varying level of disagreement over whether "don't feed the trolls" is good conversational practice.

 

[SocksForWoks]

That was a funny read

 

[-PXG-]

It just never stops holding true. Non-black people's fascination with "acting black" is...well, as a black man, fascinating...

I've had to say this so many times to people.

<3 Paul Mooney

 

[thepotatoman]

I don't know where you heard this as this isn't a thing anyone's actually saying in the thread.

Granted, there are some alarmist posts, made defensively upon finding out the term CAN BE racially coded, with reactions tending towards "WHAT NOW NOBODY CAN USE THE WORD OR THEY'RE RACIST WHAT BULLSHIT."

But of the people actually pointing out that the word can and has been used as code, NONE OF THEM are saying it's "exclusively" anything. In fact all they're arguing is that maybe the many people coming in here saying "But I don't use it that way" acknowledge that just because they don't use it that way doesn't mean that usage is somehow fictional or out of the ordinary, and keep that in mind next time they're going to use the word, to see if maybe they might be accidentally using it in such a fashion as opposed to the other possible uses.

You can only take that position and warp it into "It's exclusively code for black people" if you're not actually paying attention to what's being talked about.

and yeah, bigmf's post was some almond roca in a sea of cat pickles stinking up the overfull catbox of shitposts littering this thread.

Before someone pulled out the internet archive link, the only thing anyone had to call the thing racist is the use of the word thug in the title. That would seem to imply that their argument assumes thug does exclusively have a racial connotation.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Before someone pulled out the internet archive link,

yeah, but you can't remove that from the context. It wasn't a gotcha. The site's been popular for a long time, and those examples are part of the site's popularity growth. If there's a gotcha, it's on the part of the creators, who consciously pulled back from that aspect the more popular they got as a means to hide the questionable nature of their gimmick.

And even if we did remove the context from the conversation (which is a bad idea) your logic doesn't follow, because the argument that "Thug Kitchen" could be percieved as being racially coded doesn't then mean ALL uses of "Thug" are racially coded.

That argument suggests "This one thing = coded racism, so ALL things like this thing = coded racism too" and not only is that bad logic, it's (as I said) not a thing anyone in this thread is actually saying.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

A friend of mine clued me in to The Hood Health Handbook - a legit great book that is done by people who understand the struggle.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1935721321/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Worth checking out, honestly.