Spoiler: CONTENT WARNING HERE Hey I figured out how to reply normally I did not see your post before now and would like the chance to respond >this isn't a social policy take, this is a meltdown in response to a personal trauma and you're making it other people's problem when it very decidedly is not. You personally have problems because of things involving drug abusers, okay, that sucks, and that's a valid thing to be upset about, to be hurt about, to ask people to hear you on. Way to fail to psychoanalyze lol >abused drugs, whether for a few weeks or for a few years, and then got their shit together and started making things better. And for those who don't? Who NEVER do? Who have ZERO INTENTION OF EVER DOING? Who make it EVERYONE ELSE'S problem and inflict it on their kids, spouses, communities, workplaces, neighbors, and healthcare workers? The ones I have to fucking scrape onto my stretcher daily? Tell me whose lives are bettered by these failures? Who are they not a danger to? Who do they not cost emotionally, physically, financially? >what you're proposing here is that every single one of them should have been killed instead of getting better. And that is a fucking rancid take Rancid problems call for rancid solutions, don't like it too bad >you're making some brave and principled stand on a social principle I am, thank you >He had a drinking problem for a while. He's been sober for years. Yeah me too and guess who would be better off dead instead of hospitalized for it lol >the nearly-a-decade he's spent being sober and clean and good for people and living his best life and making his wife happy, is all a horrible mistake, because he should have been killed. For one alcohol abuse is not the same thing as recreational drug abuse and for two yes, I agree, because substance abuse in any form is a sign you have given up your life to hedonism and nothing else is worth it to you but your next hit. You wouldn't understand. You;ve never lived it and you don't have to look at it every single fucking day >You complain about people not facing their demons, well, face your own. Ooh, how pithy. Get fucked. You don't know what you're talking about. You can spout all this feel good bulshit and at the end of the day who have you even touched. You don;t do shit. You don;t go in the fucking streets where police won't even go and have to help these people no matter what you think about them. It's all a fucking fantasy to you. Fuck off.
Hm! I'll just step in here with mod hat on and say that I just restored the wiggled posts with fresh spoiler tags added (a gesture I do appreciate!) and that includes the one in this thread wishing death upon people. I say this openly because it's an open question whether other mods will contradict me in the morning or not. Nobody has so far, but also it's an ungodly hour for a number of us. I think it's easy enough to tell what was wiggled from context in other posts, so while I don't love that in this specific subforum, not a typical landing pad for bad brain times, the spoiler warning is completely uninformative, that information exists in other posts nearby. That being said, the meta subforum is one where we do attempt, with debatable success, to keep to relevant topics. This is not a hard and fast rule. But if this becomes an extended debate as to whether drug users deserve to live or not, rather than it being context for why certain forum moderation decisions are made, this really isn't the place for it. And, i debated saying this because i truly don't want to risk splash damage to you if I'm seeing tigers in the shapes of the shadows, but my personal autisms lean in the direction of overexplaining everything, so: if the [content warning here] tags are a deliberate attempt to explore the boundaries of the guidance you accepted, providing warnings as vague as possible for everything you say regardless of setting, that's kind of a dick move. If it's an attempt to play it safe with guidance you dont feel like you fully understand, i get it, that's extremely understandable, but you're more likely to run into a situation where mods wiggle something and ask you to add more context, and i feel like that's going to upset you regardless of what your intentions were. Believe it or not, i don't want to do that! It's more work on our end and it sucks to spark a reaction like that. For example, in a subforum like meta, which wouldn't typically host a debate about who deserves to die, mods are more likely to decide that yeah, whoever clicks on a contextless spoiler tag has no idea what they're getting into, and you'll get wiggled. I'm personally making the call to leave things in this thread, and to restore your prior posts, including the one here, because I think this thread is a place where that ship has sailed. But there's a degree of nuance here I hope you can recognize. I'm not saying there's a rule you have to comprehend and obey the subtle nuances of interaction in every subforum here, I know that's an impossibly vague ask. I'm saying that if you are able to recognize some of those and if you make a good-faith effort not to push the boundaries, things will probably go more easily for you. If you can't recognize them and you're afraid your best-faith efforts will be punished, you may already be thinking bitter thoughts about how 'yeah, I'm sure a lot of things would be easier if i could do that.' I sympathize! Tools like the wiggler are meant to bridge those gaps and iron out wrinkles so you can still participate as smoothly as possible. (Edit: if you saw a half-written version of this uhhhh no you didn't. It's two in the morning and I'm sleeby ;u;)
Spoiler: CW: Discussion of trauma related to drug abusers, social policy, death penalty, etc. Let me start by saying that I deeply sympathize with you. My life has, at multiple points, been uprooted, tangled up, spit out, and nearly ruined by the actions of selfish drug abusers. I have an attachment disorder because the second my mom and I left the hospital after my birth, she and my dad had to serve prison sentences, and I was in foster care. I had to leave home before I was ready (financially or mentally) because my dad is still a chronic meth abuser and bringing around people that tried to harm me in the name of their next fix - or when they weren't high enough to manage their anger. My best friend just lost four of his closest friends to an alcoholism fueled murder-suicide. My dad is dying because he won't stop using. My mom is as conspiratorial and insane as ever because drugs have genuinely rotted her brain. Every day I am discriminated against by healthcare workers just because of my mom's history, even though I have no history of recreational drug use or abuse of my own. I am not unaware of just how awful things can get when you're surrounded by it, and I too sometimes feel very angry when I see people try and claim that drug abusers have never and will never cause harm to people around them. (To Seebs' credit, he didn't say that, but I understand why you may have interpreted his words that way.) However, drug abuse is a complex issue that doesn't begin or end at the drug abusers themselves. There's doctors that over prescribe opioids, pharmaceutical companies that push them to do so, insurance companies that only cover them and not alternatives, poor access to alternatives (such as medical marijuana), rampant homelessness and lack of resources to combat it (and the ones that do are often worse than being homeless), domestic abuse, cartels that cut otherwise safe substances with more dangerous ones, etc etc etc. All things that can push someone to turn to drug abuse or make it hard to stop once an addiction to a prescription sets in. And sanctioning the government to kill the abusers themselves doesn't actually solve the issue, does it? Doctors and pharmaceutical companies still have the power to make more addicts, inflation is still on the rise and people are losing their homes, there's still very little support for survivors of abuse, and alternatives are still illegal in most US states, to say nothing about zero tolerance policies in other countries. There will always be another drug abuser, and even if there wasn't, how does their death help, say, me? If my mother and father died tomorrow, I'd be alone. My grandparents would lose their ex son in law, friend, and daughter, my aunt and uncle would lose another brother, I'd lose my financial fallback and my only means of transportation (my car is still in my dad's name), etc. etc. And on top of the trauma of losing my family, I still have the trauma of what they did to me. I still have an attachment disorder, I still distrust drug users, I still know way more about meth than I want to. It might be a temporary relief or even a nice thing to think about sometimes, but it falls apart real fast under any kind of scrutiny. And you. Even if all of them died tomorrow, you still will get another call. You still will have to load a body onto a stretcher. You still have to administer narcan for those accidental overdoses by the dementia patients and the suicidal. You still have to go into dangerous, disadvantaged neighborhoods even the police won't touch. You still lose babies, and teenagers, and young adults, and kind elderly grandmas. You're still surrounded by death every day. You will continue to see the effects of drug abuse until the day you retire and beyond because those of us living with the trauma of it are still alive and sometimes we fail to deal with it healthily. Your lived experience doesn't actually change in any meaningful way, does it? I'm not really sure how to close out this post. Just remember that you're not alone in how you feel, but how you feel is not material, objective reality. How you feel is not a good basis for social, governmental policy, nor would it actually change your life for the better in the long run.
>Hm! I'll just step in here with mod hat on and say that I just restored the wiggled posts Thank you. >That being said, the meta subforum is one where we do attempt, with debatable success, to keep to relevant topics. This is not a hard and fast rule. But if this becomes an extended debate as to whether drug users deserve to live or not, rather than it being context for why certain forum moderation decisions are made, this really isn't the place for it. I believe this is entirely relevant to the topic of "forum moderation" as it sets a precedent for "unspeakable subjects" and "forceful censorship" which I have not seen here before in this manner. If I recall correctly "not a safe space" was a founding principle at one point. Goes to show how little water those priciples hold when it comes right down to it. >And, i debated saying this because i truly don't want to risk splash damage to you if I'm seeing tigers in the shapes of the shadows, but my personal autisms lean in the direction of overexplaining everything, so: if the [content warning here] tags are a deliberate attempt to explore the boundaries of the guidance you accepted, providing warnings as vague as possible for everything you say regardless of setting, that's kind of a dick move. No, I am doing exactly as I was told to do and not a keyboard press more. You can't make me do shit. >If it's an attempt to play it safe with guidance you dont feel like you fully understand, i get it, that's extremely understandable, but you're more likely to run into a situation where mods wiggle something and ask you to add more context, and i feel like that's going to upset you regardless of what your intentions were. I don't fully understand it, I still have not been provided a list of taboo topics which must be spoiled other than a vague "mentions of death." What am I going to be punished for saying? What must I hold my tongue about? I can't say anything regarding politics, for example, without getting moderated to death due to my personal beliefs. But that's not stated anywhere in writing, it must be found out practically. Would you like me to demonstrate? >For example, in a subforum like meta, which wouldn't typically host a debate about who deserves to die, mods are more likely to decide that yeah, whoever clicks on a contextless spoiler tag has no idea what they're getting into I'd argue if you click on a spoiler tag it's entirely on you what your reaction may be. I for one cannot see labels on them as I don't use javascript. I only see black bars over the post which go away on hovering. This is the default view on literally every website besides this one. Do you see me complain about it? >and you'll get wiggled. Sounds like a moderator problem then. >I'm personally making the call to leave things in this thread, and to restore your prior posts, including the one here, because I think this thread is a place where that ship has sailed. But there's a degree of nuance here I hope you can recognize. I don't pick up on "nuance" over text. Elaborate please. >I'm not saying there's a rule you have to comprehend and obey the subtle nuances of interaction in every subforum here, I know that's an impossibly vague ask. I'm saying that if you are able to recognize some of those and if you make a good-faith effort not to push the boundaries, things will probably go more easily for you. What boundaries? >If you can't recognize them and you're afraid your best-faith efforts will be punished, you may already be thinking bitter thoughts about how 'yeah, I'm sure a lot of things would be easier if i could do that.' I sympathize! They're already punished. >Tools like the wiggler are meant to bridge those gaps and iron out wrinkles so you can still participate as smoothly as possible. That's a lie. It's used as a form of punishment and threatened as such. Why won't mods be honest in this regard?
I'm not a mod so obviously I can't tell you what to do, but I don't think you're engaging in particularly good faith, so like, I don't see the point in anyone actually engaging seriously with your words. But any serious, earnest attempt at rebutting or arguing with you is probably something you'd take as proving your point so like... *shrug* Also you refusing to use javascript is not in fact anyone else on the server's problem, lmao.
You are one of the only people currently on the forum that views it as such. If you were being punished, you would be banned.
and even that is not so much a punishment as a quality of life maintenance feature for the people not getting banned.
Nice, can't argue my points so it's straight to "bad faith" claims. How about if you've nothing to say you butt out of it? As you said yourself, you aren't a mod, so I've nothing to say to you as this does not concern you or your actions. Have YOU been the one deleting my posts? Have YOU been the one inconsistently and ambiguously applying rules which supposedly do not exist? Then fuck off. >any serious, earnest attempt at rebutting or arguing with you is probably something you'd take as proving your point This part doesn't even make any sense. If you could translate to English, please.
If I argue with you or try to rebut your points, you win because you received a reaction. If I don't, you win because you received a reaction. The mods have explained why they wiggled those posts. You disagreed that what you did deserved "punishment" but they did explain. Not liking an explanation isn't the same as not receiving. You win, because you got a reaction out of me. Personally I think you should just generally be ignored until you get bored with upsetting people and wander off, but thankfully I'm not a mod!
butting back in to reiterate that people are speaking english to you. very plain english, actually, very little, if any of this is academic jargon, or even jargon specific to this forum. this is about what you would encounter in almost any other english speaking community online. i'm unsure where the misunderstanding here lies--- the mods and even other members of the forum have stepped forward to clarify the issue. you refuse to take our words at face value and keep reading malicious intent behind them. you are free to trust or distrust as as you please, but people are trying to help you. the rules are loose because that's how we run things. it isn't perfect, but it allows for more freedom to post. loose rules allow us to bend them and apply context to the words said. the context is important. wether or not someone is either hurting, will be hurt, or could be hurt, guides nearly every one of our decisions here. no, this is not a safe space, but it's meant to be a place where anyone can come and not worry about if someone is going to hammer in post after post about wanting them dead in the town square. i'll be very frank: most of what you've posted in this thread and in your vent thread would have your posts deleted and account banned without warning or appeal in many internet spaces. we have not done that. any posts that were possibly hurtful were placed into a private zone for safekeeping, and then restored to their original places when you followed advice. you keep saying they were deleted. they very clearly were not, and were even put back where they belong once you agreed to a compromise. genuinely what is the problem? can you define it? or are you trying to order pizza hut from an arbys? you keep asking for strict rules. we can't give them to you, we don't do that here.
Interesting point about the javascript! I can't help there or anything, but it's an interesting data point. Wrt the rest, i mean..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you want a wall of text infodump asking about the nuances of a social interaction or site norms, I'm pretty much the mod for that. If you don't comprehend nuance over text, even with a layer of remove to explain what the nuance is, idk if i can do much more for you! If you'd like to be able to post freely without any risk of any hint of mod oversight, nope, sorry, not even the site owner gets to do that If you'd like a list of dangerous topics more likely to provoke mod reaction, people tried to give you that above If you'd like to post like you were in your vent thread with the addition of these technical-compliance-and-not-one-step-further spoiler tags, i already said i would argue for your right to do that, and i genuinely can't tell what else you want
at risk of sounding like a huge asshole, you're a couple of years late to that party. most of us have been through the song and dance of acting out for attention or feeding the one doing so, and as a result have grown out of it and gotten it out of our systems. And as far as I recall, it is exactly that song and dance that led to the creation of the wiggler to begin with. All you'll get here is at most some sarcastic responses if you choose to post dumb shit but most likely people trying their best to take you in good faith and help you with whatever you're struggling with.
This is giving me Wiwaxia flashbacks and how he mysteriously couldn't understand anything certain mods said until I re-worded it for him... when what was actually happening is that he 'wasn't understanding' things he didn't want to hear until someone babied him sufficiently about it. Wish, you're doing the same thing, and throwing an even stupider tantrum about it.
I assure you I am legitimately this retarded. I am having trouble processing information. Likely meds related. But seriously blocks of text are not being digested no matter how I try to read them. Hard times friend
I mean, I have free time enough to play mod translator for you, but I need you to point at what point exactly you stop understanding. Assuming you genuinely want to understand and aren't just trying to waste our time until you're put on post moderation, I'm more than happy to try and help everyone reach an understanding with each other.
