Mutual ignore software feature, AKA Yet Another Policy Discussion

Discussion in 'The Undercity' started by seebs, Mar 16, 2017.

  1. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    BTW, I really liked Michi's large post there, and I thought she made some good points. And I want to stress that I'm not saying people aren't allowed to be angry or hurt, or to react because of it. I'm saying that, in general, when you're acting out of anger, there's gonna be a good chance that things will end up worse as a result, no matter how justified or appropriate that anger is, so when you can refrain from doing the thing, it's probably gonna help. Because we've got a lot of people here who are on edge a lot of the time, and easily hurt, and basically anything we can do to chill that out a bit is probably good.
  2. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    I'm pretty okay with the default of "all else being equal, discomfort is bad". Like, it may be worth putting up with to get to a thing, but... What benefit are we getting from angering people that makes it worth it to hurt them to get it?
    • Like x 6
  3. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    I've got this one, I think.

    Anon doesn't think "being angry" is the same or similar to "being hurt." I can't decide whether this is because they are of the How The Fuck Is Cyberbullying Real school of thought and think getting mad at strangers on the Internet is your problem, and not the stranger's... Or whether making someone angry is worth it for the amusement factor, and they will probably reflect back upon the way they clearly rose to obvious bait and laugh at themselves too.

    The first one is a kind of u-mad-u-lose school of thinking. The second is ultimately selfish, but aims to infuriate someone in order to catalyze some process of understanding. Like, "Look how dumb you look when you get mad at total nonsense. Don't do that in the future."

    Anon also doesn't seem to think people have a right to Not Be Angered, and I'm inclined to agree; if someone makes you angry, it's still on you that you got angry. (I can feel you about to pull out the "but emotional regulation problems!" I'm not talking about that.) If someone comes in wearing a sandwich board that says FUCK U, like, probably they're coming in to stir up some tasty drama. If you fall for obvious bait like that, Anon doesn't believe that's harm to you, because you need some serious myopia not to realize that was the stated goal of stirring shit.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, Anon.

    Edit: @anonymous No, dumpass, Seebs only plays with textwalls. :-P
    • Like x 1
  4. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Empirically, people do not like being angered, and it is a kind of discomfort, which I would consider "hurting". In what way is "making people angry for entertainment" different from any other kind of hurting people for entertainment?
  5. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    So far as I know, anger does not exist except as a response to being hurt.
    • Like x 1
  6. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Ah, a tweak. Sticking to just A='making people angry' and B='hurting them'. A=B isn't strictly true, I've been plenty angry in this thread without being hurt. But A=/=B doesn't quite describe the situation right either. Okay, so your original statement breaks down like this
    I think that order isn't quite right. Your goal is to get people reacting for entertainment value. But Ima split from that one thing Seebs said, because I don't think it's quite right that B follows from A (that is its own complicated philosophical mess) (eta: and a moderated post has come through that I agree with where they say A often follows B ahhhh time traveling posts what do @_@). There's a hidden step zero in here where you initiate that rundown, and it changes things. Plus I'm still not going to touch on C, because I'm not looking to pass moral judgment right here. Gah, I'm going to break this down visually instead of in paragraphs. If we cut C and add step zero:
    But again, this set of steps leaves out a thing. Going straight from provocation to anger isn't an automatic reaction on the person's side. I have the memory of a goldfish, but I think the times I've seen the strongest negative response to you, it's been at times when you responded in upsetting ways to fairly sensitive posts, where people had a lot of emotions/vulnerabilities/etc. tied up in their words. Anger isn't an immediate reaction. For an extreme example, if someone talked about their deepest, most genuine, raw emotions, idk, maybe they watched a person they loved die. And you pointed and laughed. What happens is that they're hurt more by someone making fun of their existing pain. Which makes them angry.

    With the caveat that this isn't 100% of the time the way the responses go. When I've gotten irritated by your responses, it's not usually from a hurt place, because I haven't made the kind of posts that open that hole in my defenses. But this is a chain of events that is fairly likely to happen.

    And there are a lot of flavors of hurt that can be dealt, whether or not you mean to do it. Maybe someone feels like you're making fun of their grief, laughing at their trauma, even in quieter situations where people are talking about their emotions, it can be easy to hit someone in a spot with weak defenses. But the defenses aren't there to protect them from being angry, they're to protect them from being hurt. And people will also get angry because they think their friends are being hurt. Not all anger comes from a place of hurt, and not all hurt leads to anger, but there is some correlation. Plus there's going to be some irritation over trolling in general, just to muddy the waters. But the type of poking you do is at least somewhat likely to hurt people. Even before they respond outwardly at all, given the nature of the posts on this forum, there is a more-than-average risk that it's a kind of input that will hurt them.

    The outward angry response follows the inner emotional reaction, and that inner emotional reaction may be that they're hurt. If you hurt somebody, there's a reasonably high probability they'll be angry at you, or at least some flavor of upset, that's just common sense. If someone came up out of nowhere and kicked you in the shins, they hurt you -> what the fuck, dude. To further muddy the waters, I believe Seebs is also saying that causing anger tends to be an harmful thing on its own. Which is its own debate, and a complicated one that I don't want to wade into :P But I'm pretty sure a lot of the pushback you've been getting is because people feel the hurt leads directly from your action, not that they're hurt because of the angry response that action inspires.

    Also, given your tchgb thread, I'm pretty sure that making people Humorously Angry is not the absolute only thing on your mind. But the more people watch your responses hurt them and people they care about, the more they're going to interpret your actions as being intended to hurt, and the harder it's going to get to interact on here in other ways. Not impossible, because this kind of trolling can't hurt everyone, and there are people on here who never seem to run out of second chances to give. But it will make things harder.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
    • Like x 4
  7. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    tfw the admin ninjas your giant essay with a magical time-traveling moderated post ;u;
    • Like x 2
  8. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    So for a long time, I thought it was basically impossible to hurt my feelings, until someone pointed out that not all "hurt feelings" meant "feeling bad about yourself" or anything much like it. Angry is a kind of hurt-feelings. And now that I know that... If you do a thing I dislike, and I don't get hurt, I'm not going to be angry. I might be disappointed, I might dislike the thing, I might think I should stop you from doing the thing. But I'm not going to be angry. Anger is a response to some kind of pain or distress. It's a thing that happens when the way the world is is Not Acceptable and you need it changed, and that's a kind of distress/pain/something.
    • Like x 1
  9. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    Anger is a kind of discomfort, but spite is a great driving force. I mean, if you want Attorney Khan to defend her client Anon, I could go into all the things that are unpleasant but nonetheless beneficial, like the strep swab test and nasty-tasting medicine and having to stand in the corner on time-out because you were misbehaving. Or I could talk about the service Anon is providing, being an acceptable target for rassling but not as central to the community as Rigs.

    Also, degrees of magnitude. Discomfort, annoyance, etc. are mild. Anger is an umbrella term. Rage is at the high end. Again, as always, you are responsible for your own emotions. If you decide you're gonna get mad about some fuck shit today, by all means, go for it. It's cathartic. But know when to let something go.

    But I'm not about to waste my time stanning for Anon because I'm not their mother and it's not my problem. Sorry, kiddo. U get it. If you want to talk to Seebs, you can do it without my translating. :-)

    @anonymous, I get where you're coming from. It's fun to stir shit! But it's a lot more fun when it's not you-against-the-whole-entire-site, and you can entertain others while also being entertained. Don't be that uncle at Thanksgiving that offends everybody, throws the gravy boat, and starts a fight on the front lawn. Be the cool third cousin that makes Uncle Fucko lose his shit and doesn't get their face punched.

    (Like coming onto a site full of nervous nellies and making them pee their pants about the latest cabinet picks. That's low-hanging fruit. Be better. Do better.)
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
    • Like x 4
  10. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    On a forum full of people with brainweirds you say this? Cognitive dissonance is alive and well.
    Your client should dismiss you for gross incompetence.
  11. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

  12. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Spite is a perfectly good driving force for cruelty, but it won't give you anger. And sure, lots of things are unpleasant but beneficial. But being made-angry is not in and of itself usually beneficial.
  13. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    Wait, no, I want to know what you're talking about.

    Are you suggesting the mentally ill have no agency of their own? Am I just a series of buttons that will spit out an [ANGRY] or [APATHETIC] or [CRIMINAL] response if pressed in the right order? Is the onus on anyone interacting with me to walk on eggshells lest they somehow force me to become angry, and the big bad spath bites their head off?

    Nah, fuck that.

    If I get angry, I'm responsible for what I do when I'm angry, and I'm responsible for getting angry in the first place. There are good and bad reasons to lose your mind at someone. "Blatant troll" isn't a very good one.
    • Like x 5
  14. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    I am being pulled away from Kintsugi for a bit because of anger issues NOT RELATED to Kintsugi but being aggravated by the stuff here. I should not have responded so meanly.

    My point is that I do not "choose" anger - I try to avoid even "slightly annoyed" because it WILL spiral to rage unless someone intervenes. Someone deliberately pushing my buttons IS at fault, even if their motivation was "getting giggles at the little faerie in a rage".

    I will be back when I is better under control - probly tomorrow or another day.
    • Like x 6
  15. Codeless

    Codeless Cheshire Cat

    ASPDAnon, no. That is not how most people emotions work. Yes people are responsible for what they do when angry, this has been talked about approximately forever on here. No, for the vast majority of people anger is not a choice and not controllable, and mental illness has nothing to do with it.

    For example if anger was something i could control, I would be going to be rather than typing this because I am pissed off at you. Trust me if I had control over this I´d be choosing sleep.

    and yes I appreciate the irony here.
    • Like x 5
  16. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't think anyone is responsible for your (general 'you') emotions except yourself. There needs to be some kind of accountability in order, especially in the cases of people that describe a loss of control during angry episodes. So, you (general 'you') can't control what you do when you're angry... Then don't allow yourself to become angry. There are countless CBT, DBT, mindfulness and meditative techniques to assist with this.

    As someone who has spent years struggling to control violent outbursts, I find this idea insulting to everyone I have punched in the face. My behavior is not normal. "Mental illness has [something] to do with it." It is inappropriate. It is not defensible.

    If I were to go around saying it was their fault I hit them for making me angry, I would be a terrible person. I am responsible for getting angry. People are not convenient machines into which you put tokens and receive specific emotional reactions. (Believe me, I know the irony of saying this as a diagnosed antisocial.) No one else can control you.
  17. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Doesn't responsibility imply at least the theoretical possibility of control?

    Most people do not have significant ability to control their emotions. Choosing to calm down after becoming angry, maybe. Choosing not to become angry in the first place is really hard for almost everyone. In fact, the only people I know of who can usually suppress it are people who are somewhere in the ASPD part of the mentally-abnormal thing. And only some of them. Turns out that that particular kind of rage strongly rewards developing the ability to disconnect from anger quickly, but also there's a lot of general "ability to shut off emotional responses" that seems to show up; for instance, a lot of people with ASPD do experience empathy, it's just that they can turn it off if it gets annoying.
    • Like x 2
  18. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Why is there more than one way which everyone uses because it just works?

    Because none of them are actually completely reliable.

    I agree that other people may not be in general responsible for your emotions, or have direct control of them... But if someone repeatedly kills your friends and pets, at some point, you may well find that you do not have the ability to just decide not to be sad or angry.

    Why, yes, that's true, your behavior isn't normal, because struggling to control violent outbursts is sort of a hallmark of ASPD.

    But... If you've spent years struggling to control that, wouldn't that imply that maybe it's hard, and not everyone can do it 100% of the time?

    Control, no. Influence, absolutely. Influence more strongly than you can reliably control? Oh, hell yeah.
    • Like x 3
  19. Codeless

    Codeless Cheshire Cat

    I am responsible for what I DO when angry, to clarify. I could have chosen not to type that, that is true. I would still be angry at you. I chose to type that because to my knowledge, disagreeing with someone is a thing I am allowed to do.
    Unlike punching people.

    However, if someone is an asshole to me, as in the example Anonymous is being an asshole to people, I am allowed to be angry with them for that. And I am allowed to say so. There is a difference between hurting someone and being angry at someone.
    I also should be noted i have a hell of a trigger about being told I should just not be angry when people ere assholes to me and bullied me, because the minute i tried to defend myself in any effective way, I was told I was at fault.
    That is where I´m coming from and that´s why I´m calling bullshit on your claiming people can choose not to be angry as a defense of Anonymous. Because they were being a dick to people.
    • Like x 2
  20. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    Disagreeing with people is productive and healthy. Of course you're allowed to disagree with people. Are you implying that I ever said you weren't?

    Of course you're allowed to do whatever you want. I've stated the benefits of anger on this very page.
    However. Comma.

    What I don't appreciate is the implication that I cannot have control over my own emotions, or that it's person X's fault for making person Y angry when person Y attacks them.

    Also, I specifically stated that I would not be defending Anonymous, as I had better things to do with my time. Referring to myself as "Attorney Khan" was a joke. Seebs seemed to be engaging more with my explanation than with Anonymous, and Anonymous seemed to be allowing it, so I wanted to clarify that I would not be wasting my time defending them.

    I can't help but feel like you're engaging with something I didn't actually say. Would you mind quoting the thing that upset you?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice