2023-AT-03: Staff and LordYam

[Squishy]

If you unintentionally upset someone else, I think apologising for it isn't a step to support their worldview, it's a more basic polite acknowledgement of 'I made a mistake'. A more deep expression of sympathy and support might be likened to bringing someone soup and orange juice, but a quick 'Sorry, my bad' is more like... well, I keep bringing the conversation back to stepping on someone's foot because that was an analogy I once saw used by someone much more eloquent than me to explain such things, but I also think it's a good analogy; sometimes you step on someone's foot, and then you go 'oh, sorry about that'. I don't think that falls under 'kindness' as you're defining it?

Click to shrink...

I realize this is now drifting slightly off topic, but I was brought up that you should apologize when you have done something that you did wrongly and do not intend to repeat. If I step on your foot, whether by accident or intention, I should not have done so, and I do not intend to do so in the future, so it would be appropriate for me to apologize. If I say or do something which is not wrong but which upsets you anyway - telling you I think Worm sucks, say - even if that makes you upset or unhappy, I would not apologize for doing so.

And indeed, to go back to kindness, apologizing for something which you do not think is wrong because it upsets someone is precisely kindness in this typology - it is supporting their worldview as to what is wrong, I would say?

 

[Lightwhispers]

I recognize that a lot of rule-breaking behavior isn't infracted. Stuff is always going to slip through the cracks, individuals are going to make judgment calls on edge cases, the guidelines will be vague, etc. But at some point I think people have to accept that the rules are what they are as enforced and not any particular user's personal interpretation of the text.

The problem with deliberate unpleasantness as a standard of behavior is that users have varying, and sometimes very much situational, standards about what is unpleasant and deliberate. Beyond that, a lot of things which are unpleasant are also completely necessary to having a discussion forum. Sometimes the act of disagreement itself makes people take umbrage. In this thread we've spent time talking about how some users feel insufficient seriousness is offensive. A person can stay well within the bounds of both the rules and civility, and still make someone mad as hell, or embarrass them, or make them feel stupid. If Person A proves to someone else that the Earth isn't flat and that act alone humiliates the other person; had Person A done anything wrong?




If someone hasn't made a mistake then they have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Whatever harm, real or imagined, the other person feels isn't something they can rightly demand, or even request, an apology for. Apologizes are for mistakes and wrongdoing. If a person has done neither, then they're completely justified in ignoring someone asking for an apology, "just to be nice."

Click to shrink...

First, yes - a lot of unpleasantness is not deliberate. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about deliberate unpleasantness. (So I will not be bothering to address the rest of your first section, because it is not relevant to the issues I am discussing.)

Regarding the bit about apologies, however, you are contradicting yourself. If you do harm, that qualifies as wrongdoing, and warrants an apology. If you disagree that someone else was harmed by your actions, well... that's usually a mistake, unless you have clear evidence they are not exhibiting good faith in saying so.

I realize this is now drifting slightly off topic, but I was brought up that you should apologize when you have done something that you did wrongly and do not intend to repeat. If I step on your foot, whether by accident or intention, I should not have done so, and I do not intend to do so in the future, so it would be appropriate for me to apologize. If I say or do something which is not wrong but which upsets you anyway - telling you I think Worm sucks, say - even if that makes you upset or unhappy, I would not apologize for doing so.

And indeed, to go back to kindness, apologizing for something which you do not think is wrong because it upsets someone is precisely kindness in this typology - it is supporting their worldview as to what is wrong, I would say?

Click to shrink...

And here again we disagree on the definition of kindness - if someone gets upset because a favorite thing of theirs is insulted, to apologize for the insult to the thing (as opposed to rudeness in the process) is, I feel, unnecessary. And reinforcing their worldview that they are entitled to apologies for having their preferences insulted is not a kindness.

 

[LoserThree]

If you do harm, that qualifies as wrongdoing, and warrants an apology.

Click to shrink...

Not so. There are harms to which I am entitled, especially in conflict.

They are rarely more than small petty things. But we're talking about Internet discourse so we're already talking about that scale.

I don't follow all of this but it sounds to me like some of y'all need to make more use of the concept of competing access needs.

I know a man with Tourette. He doesn't shout the N-word or similar, but he does have tics and some of those tics are audible. In the same friend group there are people with sensory perception disorders. It will be very unpleasant for some of them to spend time in the company of the man with Tourette. Because of the way Human Brand Thinkmeats work, over time the growing association between that unpleasantness and the man's presence means the people with sensory issues will probably dislike the man with Tourette.

Does the man with Tourette owe those people an apology for the suffering he causes them by existing in their space?

Do the people with sensory issues owe that man an apology for denying him their company even though they're in the same friend group?

Anyone who finds the answer to either of these is 'yes' may be placing undue burden on the disabled in other parts of their life, too.

Obviously this illustration is particular to the disability activist origin of the term 'competing access needs.' It's not limited to that context and there's utility in recognizing competing access needs elsewhere.

 

[Lightwhispers]

Not so. There are harms to which I am entitled, especially in conflict.

They are rarely more than small petty things. But we're talking about Internet discourse so we're already talking about that scale.

I don't follow all of this but it sounds to me like some of y'all need to make more use of the concept of competing access needs.

Click to shrink...

There's a difference between "hurting someone's feelings" and "causing harm". And no, internet discourse is not always about small petty things.
It sounds like some people need to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to arguments about "hey, don't be a dick", in terms of not assuming that we mean that every little thing that makes someone upset is unacceptable.

 

[LoserThree]

There's a difference between "hurting someone's feelings" and "causing harm". And no, internet discourse is not always about small petty things.
It sounds like some people need to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to arguments about "hey, don't be a dick", in terms of not assuming that we mean that every little thing that makes someone upset is unacceptable.

Click to shrink...

Are you saying that hurting someone's feelings isn't causing harm? I don't expect you are but I don't know what else you would want to be understood from that.

Are you saying that the consequences of Jemnite's behavior are more than small, petty harms?

 

[The Englanderish]

Not so. There are harms to which I am entitled, especially in conflict.

They are rarely more than small petty things. But we're talking about Internet discourse so we're already talking about that scale.

I don't follow all of this but it sounds to me like some of y'all need to make more use of the concept of competing access needs.

I know a man with Tourette. He doesn't shout the N-word or similar, but he does have tics and some of those tics are audible. In the same friend group there are people with sensory perception disorders. It will be very unpleasant for some of them to spend time in the company of the man with Tourette. Because of the way Human Brand Thinkmeats work, over time the growing association between that unpleasantness and the man's presence means the people with sensory issues will probably dislike the man with Tourette.

Does the man with Tourette owe those people an apology for the suffering he causes them by existing in their space?

Do the people with sensory issues owe that man an apology for denying him their company even though they're in the same friend group?

Anyone who finds the answer to either of these is 'yes' may be placing undue burden on the disabled in other parts of their life, too.

Obviously this illustration is particular to the disability activist origin of the term 'competing access needs.' It's not limited to that context and there's utility in recognizing competing access needs elsewhere.

Click to shrink...

I feel like equating debatable social toxicity to having tourettes is pretty gauche.

 

[Lightwhispers]

Are you saying that hurting someone's feelings isn't causing harm? I don't expect you are but I don't know what else you would want to be understood from that.

Are you saying that the consequences of Jemnite's behavior are more than small, petty harms?

Click to shrink...

I'm asking people to have the baseline of civility to not assume that I am treating any level of hurt feelings as equal to something like triggering PTSD.
If they cannot do that, I don't think it's worth my time to interact with them.

As for Jemnite, I will take them at their word, that they consider prodding others into inappropriate behavior a "win".

 

[LoserThree]

I feel like equating debatable social toxicity to having tourettes is pretty gauche.

Click to shrink...

If you think the situation I described is one where the man with Tourette looks mean or toxic you might not know many people with sensory perception disorders.

When a person is made miserable from early childhood by environmental effects everyone around them treats as normal, they may develop defensive behaviors to preserve what little comfort they can get in public. However bad you think that might get outside an institution, I believe I've met otherwise functional adults at least four fifths that bad.

Ultimately, life is difficult for both groups. And the right thing to do is make reasonable accommodations. But that doesn't make it wrong when the decision is made to do limited context harm to one to accommodate the other.

I'd like the people Jemnite hurts to have a place where they are free of hurt. I'd like them to have a place to grow more resilient in as comfortable a fashion as possible. But they don't have to. And that doesn't have to be here and that doesn't have to be Jemnite's problem as long as Jemnite's behavior is consistent with the rules.

I'm asking people to have the baseline of civility to not assume that I am treating any level of hurt feelings as equal to something like triggering PTSD.
If they cannot do that, I don't think it's worth my time to interact with them.

As for Jemnite, I will take them at their word, that they consider prodding others into inappropriate behavior a "win".

Click to shrink...

I didn't realize you were suggesting that Jemnite is seeking people's PTSD triggers in order to drive them into rule-breaking behavior.

That is bad.

But I don't think everyone understands Jemnite's actions in that way. I sure don't.

 

[Lightwhispers]

I didn't realize you were suggesting that Jemnite is seeking people's PTSD triggers on order to drive them into rule-breaking behavior.

That is bad.

But I don't think everyone understands Jemnite's actions in that way. I sure don't.

Click to shrink...

That's not precisely what I said, but given what Jemnite said both in the tribunal thread and this one, I do not think that a claim they aren't being deliberate in their actions can be supported. I do understand that others believe differently, and am willing to let things rest at that.

 

[The Englanderish]

If you think the situation I described is one where the man with Tourette looks mean or toxic you might not know many people with sensory perception disorders.

Click to shrink...

That is not equivalent to an online discussion board interaction. Like, I shouldn't need to explain why likening someone having tourettes - which is by nature out of their control - is not even slightly the same thing as whether or not someone's forum posting is toxic. One is an actual medical condition, the other is behaviour one chooses to engage in. That's just an inherently obscene comparison regardless of one's opinion on Jemnite.

And I'm not even going to dignify you fabricating a hypothetical tragic backstory for someone else with a response.

 

[LoserThree]

That is not equivalent to an online discussion board interaction. Like, I shouldn't need to explain why likening someone having tourettes - which is by nature out of their control - is not even slightly the same thing as whether or not someone's forum posting is toxic. One is an actual medical condition, the other is behaviour one chooses to engage in. That's just an inherently obscene comparison regardless of one's opinion on Jemnite.

And I'm not even going to dignify you fabricating a hypothetical tragic backstory for someone else with a response.

Click to shrink...

I express surprise at the gap in comprehension I find in your response.

I was explaining what competing access needs are and used the context the term was made to apply to: disability activism.

The term can apply outside that context. That's how curb-cut benefits work. This new vocabulary was invented to describe problems experienced by people with disabilities. And people without disabilities can also benefit from its use.

Also, again, the man with Tourette is not the one who looks like they have toxic behavior. He's just some guy. The people with sensory perception disorders are the ones whose behavior might appear mean as they may defend their right to comfort against threats that are imperceptible to the rest of us through hostile and maladaptive reactions acquired by growing up with unacknowledged suffering.

 

[Derpmind]

If someone hasn't made a mistake then they have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Whatever harm, real or imagined, the other person feels isn't something they can rightly demand, or even request, an apology for. Apologizes are for mistakes and wrongdoing. If a person has done neither, then they're completely justified in ignoring someone asking for an apology, "just to be nice."

Click to shrink...

I realize this is now drifting slightly off topic, but I was brought up that you should apologize when you have done something that you did wrongly and do not intend to repeat. If I step on your foot, whether by accident or intention, I should not have done so, and I do not intend to do so in the future, so it would be appropriate for me to apologize. If I say or do something which is not wrong but which upsets you anyway - telling you I think Worm sucks, say - even if that makes you upset or unhappy, I would not apologize for doing so.

Click to shrink...

I can't say I have a personal code about making apologies. But I don't just make an apology because I personally felt like I messed up. I also make apologies because it's what I thought the other person needed to hear, or because I thought it was the best way to de-escalate a tense situation. Not to say that I wasn't sorry or regretful, but rather that it was more important at the time to say something to make up for the other person's hurt feelings than it was to try to rectify a personal mistake. To me, apologies can be about yourself, about the people you're apologizing to, or both. I personally don't feel like it would be right to only consider my own perspective when deciding whether to apologize for something or not. I have even, on rare occasion, given a completely insincere apology, when (at the time at least) I thought I was completely blameless and not at fault at all, simply as a way to defuse and disengage from a conflict. And I don't think it was wrong of me to do that, either.

All of the above goes against what the two of you say, but I can't recall an occasion where I truly regretted giving an apology, nor when doing so was some major mistake.

 

[The Englanderish]

Dude.

I was explaining what competing access needs are and used the context the term was made to apply to: disability activism.

The term can apply outside that context. That's how curb-cut benefits work. This new vocabulary was invented for people with disabilities. And people without disabilities can also benefit from its use.

Click to shrink...

And doing so was quite grotesque. We do not need to make special accomodations to toxic behaviour in the same way we might for medical conditions, disabilities, and so on. Also please do not refer to me with gendered references.

 

[LoserThree]

And doing so was quite grotesque. We do not need to make special accomodations to toxic behaviour in the same way we might for medical conditions, disabilities, and so on. Also please do not refer to me with gendered references.

Click to shrink...

The gender bit is fair and I've edited to replace the word with what I meant it to convey. I don't think of that word as gendered but I am aware and accept that others do. I also don't think the word involves cowboys anymore because language changes but, as described, making accommodations is appropriate.

Your claim that my statement is grotesque assumes that Jemnite's behavior is toxic. That's obviously still under dispute. And, in fact, the people who run this board appear to disagree.

So it's only grotesque because you make it so.

 

[The Englanderish]

Your claim that my statement is grotesque assumes that Jemnite's behavior is toxic. That's obviously still under dispute. And, in fact, the people who run this board appear to disagree.

So it's only grotesque because you make it so.

Click to shrink...

No, whether or not I think of the behaviour as toxic, the subject at hand being talked about is toxic behaviour.

Competing access needs are for things that are entirely outside peoples' ability to help them. Voluntary behaviour, regardless of if it's toxic or not, is simply not that, and it's off-colour to refer to those needs. Personal forum behaviour isn't a need in the way medical allowances are needs - you choose to behave in a particular way in typing posts.

Someone with tourettes cannot help having tics. People can help how they voluntarily behave. So if you choose to behave in a particular way, you aren't going to get the same leeway someone with tics would in a verbal interaction. You can consider it toxic or benign or anything in between, but the person either way has chosen to behave in a particular way and as such competing access needs simply don't factor in.

Making the comparison at all when it is under discussion, is the ugly part.

You are allowed to be a bit of a plonker, or be inoccuous and be thought of by some people as a plonker, but that's not the same thing is choosing between accomodating shell shock and tourettes.

 

[LoserThree]

No, whether or not I think of the behaviour as toxic, the subject at hand being talked about is toxic behaviour.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for sharing your understanding of the situation. It makes sense that you'd be upset.

I find the understanding of the situation that you describe to incompletely reflect the actual situation in ways that I hope are now obvious. And I don't think further interaction is going to be worthwhile.

Please have a nice day.

 

[Squishy]

I can't say I have a personal code about making apologies. But I don't just make an apology because I personally felt like I messed up. I also make apologies because it's what I thought the other person needed to hear, or because I thought it was the best way to de-escalate a tense situation. Not to say that I wasn't sorry or regretful, but rather that it was more important at the time to say something to make up for the other person's hurt feelings than it was to try to rectify a personal mistake. To me, apologies can be about yourself, about the people you're apologizing to, or both. I personally don't feel like it would be right to only consider my own perspective when deciding whether to apologize for something or not. I have even, on rare occasion, given a completely insincere apology, when (at the time at least) I thought I was completely blameless and not at fault at all, simply as a way to defuse and disengage from a conflict. And I don't think it was wrong of me to do that, either.

All of the above goes against what the two of you say, but I can't recall an occasion where I truly regretted giving an apology, nor when doing so was some major mistake.

Click to shrink...

I don't know that this goes against what I was saying at all: I see this as you being kind.

 

[Fey'lya]

No, whether or not I think of the behaviour as toxic, the subject at hand being talked about is toxic behaviour.

Click to shrink...

My read of the ongoing discussion is more that it's about what qualifies as toxic behavior, and how people's definitions of such may or may not fall afoul of the rules.

(also we're apparently not even pretending this is about LordYam anymore maybe we should have a new thread?)

 

[shinaobi]

My read of the ongoing discussion is more that it's about what qualifies as toxic behavior, and how people's definitions of such may or may not fall afoul of the rules.

(also we're apparently not even pretending this is about LordYam anymore maybe we should have a new thread?)

Click to shrink...

i agree
You really should.

 

[Rafin]

[INFORMATION="I agree"]
You really should.
[/INFORMATION]

Click to shrink...

Should this thread maybe be locked? I mistakenly replied to it pertaining to the only topic that has been discussed in it since multiple pages. The topic that a Director participated in. I deleted the comment after reading the banner at the very end, but at this point it seems sensible to lock it instead so that something like this doesn't happen to someone else. It's not as if this thread serves any other purpose anymore.

 

[Jemnite]

Should this thread maybe be locked? I mistakenly replied to it pertaining to the only topic that has been discussed in it since multiple pages. The topic that a Director participated in. I deleted the comment after reading the banner at the very end, but at this point it seems sensible to lock it instead so that something like this doesn't happen to someone else. It's not as if this thread serves any other purpose anymore.

Click to shrink...

Presumably it's open in case anyone actually wants to have an on-topic discussion