Mutual ignore software feature, AKA Yet Another Policy Discussion

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

  1. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    I think there might be some disconnects here on this point. Not because of bad communication or anything, but because people are coming at this from some seriously different personal angles.

    If I'm reading this right, Khan, it sounds like you've got some of that loss of control thing going on when you get angry, so angry emotions lead pretty directly into angry actions. Because of how you tick, you have trouble putting the brakes on the anger once you're feeling it, but you're still ultimately responsible for any actions you take in that angry state, even though the slide from emotion into action is largely out of your control. So you take responsibility for cutting off the anger before it reaches that point, and in your case, that means cutting things off before you're feeling the anger period. And you're approaching this with the view that if you actually do hit that angry point, that means you've messed up, and it's your responsibility.

    And also if I'm reading right, Lissa is in a similar situation from a different starting point. She also has troubles with stopping the anger once it's started, but she has safeguards of her own, even if they rely a bit more on external intervention. I don't think I've ever seen Lissa claim to not be responsible for her anger. So when the situation is normal, standard social parameters, you're on a similar page, you both take precautions against getting into a situation where your anger gets out of control.

    But if we're talking in terms of deliberate provocation, I think the parameters of the situation change a little. And Lissa's talking specifically about someone who's trying to needle people into emotional reactions. This is a little hard to phrase right. I... think you're both responsible for taking what safeguards you can against that kind of provocation, especially since you're already aware of your failure modes. But if someone is coming at you directly, I don't think it's necessarily a failing on your part if those safeguards don't quite hold up.

    But you're about to say that even then you're still responsible for your actions! (hopefully, I am making some guesses here) Ideally, yes, you would have safeguards that are strong enough to hold up against any kind of attack. But that's asking a bit much from any one person. If I was coming after you and I was trying to get you angry, if you responded in anger, even if my poking was some weak-ass shit, I'd still be responsible for that. If I'm trying to inspire a negative reaction, it's definitely my fault/responsibility if the negative reaction happens. And perhaps it's still your responsibility if you punch me in the face! But if I set out to prod you into being angry in the first place, the blame is shared at the very least.

    I think I'm stumbling over here on slicing the definitions of fault and responsibility :P Before I talk myself in circles too much further, lemme try a different angle.

    I'm a pretty angry person. Just in general. I've also got massive amounts of inertia and apathy weighting me down, so I tend not to express that anger often, or if I do, it burns out fast (rare total meltdowns aside :P). Thinking of those emotions as being my responsibility is a totally new idea to me, and I'm guessing it's new to a lot of people who aren't dealing with the same things you are. My actions are my responsibility, but my emotions? It's a new thought. Now, in your case, I totally get where you're coming from. If the way to control my actions is by controlling my emotions, then hey. Guess I've got to learn to do that too.

    But since emotions are... god, what are words. They're so reflexive. It's something that you can learn to control, but like you're saying, there's all kinds of special techniques for controlling it. And hopefully that control will hold up against pushing from the outside. But if someone is deliberately poking at that, it's... gahhhh, when your anger has a direct line into your actions, it's is complicated and I don't know how it splits up. But I still think some of the responsibility is with the person who was trying to make you angry. It's like flicking your fingers into my eyes and demanding I fight past the reflex to blink. It's possible, but you're sure asking for me to exert a lot of tricky control over a reflexive action. If I was trying to provoke you on purpose and you lashed out at me, I'd be like oh my god, she hit me! But also, it wasn't entirely her fault, I'm responsible for my part in this.

    So many words, I don't know what is with me today ;u;

    I'd say that if a person can place a control between their emotions and their actions, they're not responsible for their emotions. And I think that's a distinction most people don't think of unless they have an especial reason to consider it, like you do. They can control them if they want/need to, but it's... a bonus feature. On the other hand, you and Lissa are responsible for taking extra, extra care with a pretty difficult thing, which sucks, and isn't fair. Which is life, I guess :P

    For a shitty parallel, I'm allergic to peanuts, it's my responsibility to check my food and take precautions and I have to be more careful about everything food than my non-allergic friends. It's not my responsibility if one of them forgets I'm allergic and tosses a peanut down my cleavage (true story). It's not a perfect match, because if I screw up, I'm not hurting other people. And there isn't a clear line to delineate where your responsibility to control stops. But there's absolutely a point of provocation where even if you lashed out bad, I'd still be saying that it wasn't entirely your fault.

    I think that's the point Lissa's talking about. I think (still hoping I'm reading this right) that she has a pretty good grasp of where the absolute limits of her controls are, where she doesn't have the ability to improve things measurably further. On the other hand, you're holding to the view that it's your responsibility to push your control to the absolute maximum, and if it fails, you need to figure out a way to push it further. I'm not sure anyone could do that, and I wouldn't ask it of you, though I do absolutely understand what you're saying and why you're sticking to that point.

    (I'M SORRY, I know I'm wordy, but it's not usually as bad as I've been today, sorry if I got too splain-y in there)
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
    • Like x 9
  2. Codeless

    Codeless Cheshire Cat

    Some of this i think is really unfortunate juxtapostion of topic then. Because discussion of Anonymous being a dick to people, entwined with talking about actively attacking people when angry (I think is what you´re talking about Separate from anonymous?) Read rather like you were saying people who were angry about Anonymous being a dick to them were to blame unless they turned the other cheek and chose not the be angry at anonymous.

    Ok so for one, you, personally, absolutely can. Sincere congratulation on what from my perspective is a legitimate superpower.
    Secondly, people are absolutely responsible for attacking and hurting other even when angry.

    BUT: I was bullied as a child. extensively. The teachers were useless. In fact, they told me that when people constantly mocked me and belittled me, and poked and prodded me until I lost my temper, it was My fault for losing my temper, and not theirs for the constant mockery. It was never acknowledged that I might have a right to be angry, even if what I was doing with that anger was wrong. (I was 7 years old. I had the amount of self control you can expect from a kid that age)

    To me this read, in the connection with anonymous mentioned above, like "You are not only not allowed to say anything if someone hurts you, you are not even allowed to Feel that way."
    Because mockery hurts.

    I do my absolute damnest to make sure my anger doesn´t hurt people. I screamed insults in a private place while we were arguing. They are in a private place, away from you. I may not be very polite here but I am trying not to actively emotionally harm you.
    However, in the privacy of my own mind, I am angry and even if i turned the computer off right this second and never logged on here again so I would never see you, much less this argument, I would continue to be angry. It´ll go away eventually. I will step away if I feel out of control. (Which might be happening soonish)

    But, I am allowed to be angry. I am not required to Fix my anger. Only to make sure it doesn´t hurt people.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
    • Like x 4
  3. Codeless

    Codeless Cheshire Cat


    For me at least, anger always comes from being hurt in some way. Sometimes this is no ones fault. But being told not to be angry sounds to me a lot like being told to just magically not to be hurt by things.

    Probably not what you meant but.
    • Like x 4
  4. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    FUCK, I forgot to make half of my point. I'm a mess.

    When people have the brakes between angry emotions and angry actions, I... don't think that communicating that you have angry emotions quite counts as an angry action. If an angry action involves lashing out at people or hurting them in some way, I'm responsible for that part of my anger. Since I tend not to lash out, I don't generally need to worry about controlling the angry feelings. If I do lash out, I work on improving the brakes between feelings and actions, because that's where I'm used to exerting control. Which includes saying hurtful things while expressing I'm angry, but I can also be angry without trying to hurt people.

    The line between action and communication gets complicated on a forum, especially since we've shown plenty of times that it can be very easy to hurt people through words. But expressing that you ARE angry or you ARE upset, if you're not trying to hurt someone, I don't think that's intrinsically wrong. In your case, if you're at the point of feeling those things and needing to express them, that means you're starting to get past the place where you have brakes at all, and that's dangerous. But the things I was saying before, about being responsible for actions versus emotions. Everybody's responsible for controlling their harmful actions. Some people do that by controlling the emotions that lead to those actions. But feeling the emotions that would pose a problem for you isn't going to have the same consequences for, say, me.

    So if that's the case, it doesn't necessarily represent a failure for everyone if they let themselves be upset or angry. Even from outside your perspective, I can see how feeling the emotions is the first step towards acting on them, and that can be dangerous for anyone. But if your controls are robust further down the line, feeling and expressing the things isn't necessarily a problem, as long as you're taking care not to act in a way that will do harm.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
    • Like x 7
  5. Codeless

    Codeless Cheshire Cat

    ^thank you spock you make words go better than me.
    • Like x 2
  6. Existrum

    Existrum Member

    I feel like there may be some miscommunication happening because the phrases "responsible for your own emotions" and "decide you're gonna get mad" were so close together. Perhaps it might help to keep in mind that being responsible is not the same as being at fault. For instance, if I am responsible for making sure a plant gets watered, that does not mean I am at fault for making sure it gets watered. That doesn't even make sense! I don't think I have ever decided to be angry, but the anger was still mine and therefore my responsibility, not the responsibility of anyone else - including the person who caused me to be angry.

    What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe ASPD Anon is meaning to either say or imply that if you are angry it is immediately your duty to cease and desist with that Evil Anger, just that it is YOUR anger. Actually, this may be a better analogy for responsibility here: if you have a cat, the cat is your responsibility. Which means if your cat scratches someone, you are the one who's going to be looked to for reparations. So if you're angry, the anger is your responsibility, and if you hurt someone because of your anger, then you are the one who is going to be looked to for reparations.

    ...if that makes sense.
    • Like x 6
  7. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    I is here for a bit with supervision (Ancient Guardian is watching my screen with Teamviewer and can take control away if he sees me rage-typing).
    @spockandawe made a pretty good summary, and others has contributed useful insights.

    The one quibble I have with the responses is the "can choose not to act" - I can't. If I am mad I act, usually with rage-typing, since the moment I act out physically someone is there to stop me. I don't "think about that and decide to rage-type", I just do whichever and rage-typing gets missed sometimes by my caretakers where the physical actions don't. It's why I has 24/7 supervision. I has mentioned before that I never had a lot of control of emotions - they always spiral into the most extreme version. Not just anger - any emotion. It's just not so bad when it results in me dancing and giggling in the rain in euphoria compared to banging my head on the floor in rage or frustration. The banging my head on the floor part is a contributor to my inability to control my reactions - I broke the part of my brain that was doing a crappy job of emotional regulation so it doesn't do the job at all any more. I literally do not have the ability to control my reactions without outside help.

    So I get offended when people say that it's okay for other people to try to trigger those reactions in me since 'it is my responsibility to control my reactions' to the trolling. I physically cannot do that. My brain does not have the capability.

    Also - I has gained a lot of understanding for Alix's need to see what is being said. Trying not to look at Kintsugi was causing major stress when I was feeling people might be talking about me and what I said. Even with peeking in for a minute and then closing Kintsugi again real fast helped a little even though I couldn't respond to what I saw. Not enough, though, and is why Ancient Guardian allowed this post. Stress is bad.

    Edit: fixed a bad word usage that bothered me lots - capacity is not the same as capability and it bugs me when I see it used wrong and I had to fix it when I used it wrong.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
    • Like x 11
  8. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    I have seen you be upset because of things other people have done.

    Why? Shouldn't having control over your own emotions imply that you would never be upset?

    To be clear, I am not implying that you cannot have control over your emotions. I'm stating it directly: Emotions are not a thing humans have full control over.

    You don't like the conclusion that it's person X's fault for making person Y angry when person Y attacks them... But you like the conclusion that it's person X's fault for being hurt when person Y attacks them?
    • Like x 2
  9. Codeless

    Codeless Cheshire Cat

    That is a very fair point Lissa. And I think a lot of people here might have problems controlling their emotion driven actions to a greater or lesser degree. Putting the burden all on those people to not react to deliberate taunting really isn´t fair.
  10. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    Okay, I'm awake.

    @Codeless Responsibility is not blame. I may not agree with the general idea that other people can impose a state of being onto you (general), but that's not to say it's not understandable to become upset when something upsetting happens. It is. Disagreement is absolutely healthy. I encourage it.

    I think it's a waste of energy to get angry at anonymous, whose stated purpose is to make people angry for their amusement. You put out a fire by starving it for oxygen.

    This isn't what I meant, and I didn't ever talk about allowed vs. not allowed. I feel like you're engaging with something I didn't say. You're allowed to say whatever you want and you're allowed to feel however you want. The only thing I have taken issue with this entire time is the idea that people can control other people.

    I don't believe I ever said it is "okay" to be intentionally infuriating. What I did was explain Anonymous's reasoning. Which helped, because it allowed people to engage more meaningfully with Anon's arguments.

    Of course it's a dick move to throw things at people. We teach two-year-olds that. Of course that's inappropriate. But I still think it's a waste of energy to get angry at someone who comes in and says "I'm going to make you angry!"
    • Like x 3
  11. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    Is excusing bullies and making the victims responsible for reacting to being bullied. Adult bullies are still bullies and adult victims are still victims.
  12. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    I has pointed out that it is NOT A CHOICE. I do not choose to be angry. I has told you that, and explained that it is a physical property of my brain, and yet you keep using that terminology. Either you has me on ignore or is ignoring my posts by choice.
    • Like x 3
  13. Maya

    Maya smug_anime_girl.jpg

    Lissa, you deliberately ignored the rest of that sentence. Khan specifically said she believes (aka it's her opinion, not a declaration of fact) it's a waste of energy to get angry at someone who's deliberate purpose is to make you angry, and was pointing out that that's the exact reaction anonymous wants to get out of you.
    • Like x 1
  14. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    Please engage with the entire content of my post.
  15. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    No, I didn't ignore the rest of the sentence - it just isn't relevant when the first part is invalid. It doesn't matter what the motivation of the other person is, my brain still gets annoyed and that annoyance turns to anger. There is no thought process involved where I can say "oh, this is a troll, calm down". That was my whole point that flew way over y'all's heads.
    • Like x 3
  16. Maya

    Maya smug_anime_girl.jpg

    An opinion isn't invalid, dude. Getting angry at anonymous is a pointless endeavor, because no matter how angry you get, you can tell anonymous to fuck off and die and they probably won't get their undies in a twist because of it. All it's doing is hurting you, and at some point you have to step away and try to calm down that anger towards them and take care of ya damn self. This isn't a playground where the bullies walk up to and poke at you until you snap. You're on a forum where the ignore button is a thing that exists, and you never have to engage with anonymous again if you don't want to. This situation can in no way be tied back to school bullies because, unless you hit the show ignored content button, you can, in fact, completely block someone out who upsets you.
    • Like x 3
  17. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    I did. Re-read my long babble to see why it is never okay to blame the victim or excuse the bully.
    I do not have control of my reaction to being bullied. It is not a problem I have that I can get over - it is a fact of life for me that cannot be changed by any amount of victim blaming. I cannot "think past it" or "understand from their perspective" or any other psychological 'fix'. My brain is incapable of mediating the reaction to feeling offended. I has guardians to prevent me from acting on the feelings, but they cannot fix the bad feelings. And I am not responsible for feeling bad - I am allowed to feel bad. I am allowed to think ill of someone that intends to make me feel bad.
    • Like x 3
  18. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    and make it seem that being a bully is okay.
    Coming from you, who complained so much about Alix's attempts at bullying when they was having a meltdown, I smell a bit of hypocrisy.
  19. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

  20. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    And I has pointed out that they can. It is how victims are made. Pretending that it is the victim's fault for allowing it to happen has a term - it is called victim-blaming.
  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