Mutual ignore software feature, AKA Yet Another Policy Discussion

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

  1. Aondeug

    Aondeug Cringe Annoying Ass Female Lobster

    That having been said I just kind of wanted to provide myself as an example of the thing so back to sitting on the sidelines. Well that and make a comment about how very Buddhist a particular argument sounded.

  2. Maya

    Maya smug_anime_girl.jpg

    It's not, and I didn't say it was.

    I have borderline, I know.

    The point Khan is trying to make is that trying to place all responsibility, thus taking it off of yourself, on the person doing the thing is just as wrong as them doing the same to you, and just as wrong as them trying to get that action out of you. That's literally it. That's all she wrote. There's nothing else to it.
    • Like x 5
  3. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    um - by all laws of logic and legality - that is where it belongs. The person doing the thing is responsible for doing the thing. Trying to push part of the blame onto others is wrong.
    • Like x 1
  4. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Ahhh, hold on! I'm sitting in my car now, will be home shortly. The cases with really major, serious consequences, that's a thing. If a person has a spot where say, a doctor or court will to be able to tell it was LITERALLY out of your power, that's a thing (like with that one twit who grabbed you). But for a lot of people, when emotions don't necessarily spiral to extremes, they might be playing for much lower stakes, where things are easier to control.

    Like, being affectionately irritating is a bad habit of mine. If I'm bugging my best friend and she turns around and punches me in the face for bothering her, then oh my god, holy shit, what? But for a lot of people, they can either feel the irritation. Or what I'm usually EXPECTING is that they'll understand my actions come from a place of affection and silliness, and instead of being irritated, they'll be amused. Which doesn't always work. But this is complicated, hold on while I drive, and feel free to ask me about any specific points you're not following.
    • Like x 3
  5. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    Yes! That's what I've been saying.

    For example, if a man beats his wife, no one would allow him to say she made him mad, so he's the real victim here. That's what I've been saying.
    • Like x 5
  6. evilas

    evilas Sure, I'll put a custom title here

    Ok hang on.
    You deliberately chose an example where control, blame, and responsibility all line up.

    Suppose there's a war veteran with PTSD who carries a gun around. Someone throws a firecracker within hearing range, without knowing that the veteran is there.
    The veteran, by uncontrollable instinct, literally acting 100% out of his own control of himself, shoots the person who threw the firecracker.

    the action of shooting the """aggressor""" was literally uncontrollable.
    HOWEVER, what was controllable was the fact that he was walking around outside with a gun in his belt when he knew there was a risk of the thing happening.

    That's where the responsibility lies.
    • Like x 4
  7. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    Those ex
    You are jumping way ahead of the situation.
    I has never said I should be allowed to do/say mean things in retaliation to something. I have been saying that the 'something' should be stopped.
    A man that beats his wife in retaliation for some slight is not what we are talking about - we are talking about the slight that happened before the man got to that point. No one is trying to say retaliation is acceptable, we are saying that instigation in the first place is not tolerable. Retaliation after the fact is not excused by the instigation in the first place. It is a separate incident.
    • Like x 1
  8. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    (Psst. I chose the example of intimate partner violence because I've been using myself as an example this whole time, because I lose control when I get angry, so instead I need to not get angry. Fortunately, I have spent a lot of time working on mindfulness and self-control. It is possible.

    It is also a whole lot easier not to get angry when the idiot in question is wearing an "I'm going to make you angry" sign, as in the case of Anonymous.)

    Okay, yes. But the veteran is still culpable for shooting someone. We've arrived at the same conclusion. Even if it was some dipshit kid that chucked a firecracker at him. Even if fireworks are illegal in that state.

    It's the veteran's choice and responsibility to seek help for his condition. It's the veteran's responsibility to know himself well enough not to carry loaded fucking firearms. The veteran can only control himself. You don't know if someone's going to chuck a firework at you today -- so why would you enable yourself to potentially do harm by carrying a loaded gun, when you're clearly aware you have the capacity to lose control and use it?

    I don't know if I'm going to get angry today -- so why would I enable myself to potentially do harm by not taking every possible step to exert self-control and prevent myself from doing that?
    • Like x 5
  9. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    You has been saying that the instigation is acceptable as long as it doesn't lead to retaliation, and if it does lead to retaliation then the person that retaliates is a bad person. (is how I has been reading what you are saying - is not your words)
  10. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    Okay, now I get why you're mad at me.

    I've been saying that you (not 'you' you, 'person A' you) cannot control whether someone instigates. Yes, it's annoying and frustrating and upsetting when someone wants a reaction out of you! We're on the same page there.


    Person A can only control (to some degree) whether they retaliate. Sometimes it's incredibly difficult not to. Sometimes it's okay for you to punch a mugger that instigated the situation by mugging you. Some people have more or less ability to do this. But no matter what, Person A's influence ends at Person A's fingertips.

    You can't prevent people from behaving badly. The only thing you have any degree of control over, however small, is your reaction. You have caretakers to help with this. I have medication and anger management to help with this.

    (And, yes, I think a violent retaliation would in most cases be pretty bad, regardless of whether Person A can control it or not. They have still attacked someone. Dr. Jekyll has to clean up Mr. Hyde's messes.)
    • Like x 6
  11. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    My argument is that instigation is itself a bad thing.
    • Like x 1
  12. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    I agree.

    But we cannot force people to stop being bad. So, instead, we focus on ourselves, and prevent ourselves from adding any further 'bad' to the situation.

    We cannot, through the power of mind control or voodoo dolls, magically make it so Anonymous stops stirring shit and laying bait. But, likewise, Anonymous cannot, through the power of mind control or voodoo dolls, magically make it so you react.
    • Like x 3
  13. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    and blaming the victim of a bully for eventually saying "enough is enough" and punching him out is wrong. So your example of a man beating his wife comes down to - did she REALLY instigate the situation or is he using it as an excuse? Most cases we have seen in the courts, he's using it as an excuse. Woman shoots her husband for beating her? Did he Really instigate it or is she using it as an excuse?
    • Like x 2
  14. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    Telling people "ignore the bully" has been shown to be ineffective and can cause the bullying to escalate.
    • Like x 4
  15. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    Telling people that "your reaction just provokes them to be worse" is victim-blaming - by definition.
    • Like x 1
  16. ASPD Anon

    ASPD Anon Vagitarian

    If seeing Anonymous's posts is consistently upsetting to you, I don't see why you wouldn't put them on ignore. It's not as if they're in physical proximity to you, and I'm pretty sure their post moderation means they have subaccount creation restricted. It would be pretty difficult to circumvent that -- though not impossible, as we've seen.
    • Like x 2
  17. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Okay okay, hold on! Let me break down the rough chain of discussion
    • People are talking about the results of anonymous poking people to induce Humorous Anger, with combined discussion of people acting out that anger in harmful ways and anger being a harmful emotion to feel. Just for maximum confusion.
    • Khan brings up that 'if you know they're trying to make you angry, why not... just not get angry?'
    • Other people say that pure emotional responses aren't something you control, they don't have the power to just not get upset
    • Khan brings in her ASPD cake and fun times as a specific example. She's responsible for her own actions, and in this case, that means she needs to be able to derail an angry emotional response because that tends to lead her into harmful actions
    • Other people disagree that they can completely control their emotions, because that isn't a thing. Lissa specifically brings up her own brain fun times, where the once the emotion is poked, it's largely out of her control, she can't just stop an emotion
    • Khan says she wasn't saying that complete control is a thing, just that partial control is, and if that's how you need to stop yourself from doing harmful actions, then you're responsible for learning that control
    • Lissa is still upset because that's out of her ability to do, and she has her other safeguards in place (like ancient guardian) specifically because this is a thing she is not capable of. So when someone acts in a way that bypasses those controls, calling it her responsibility to handle that places her in a no-win situation
    • Then discussion of domestic violence oh my god this is moving so fast, I'm not going to catch up with the messages being added while I type
    So okay.

    Khan's perspective: Everyone is responsible for the actions they take, even if your brain is wired in a way to predispose you to taking harmful actions. If the way to stop yourself from hurting people is to learn to control your emotional responses, then that's your responsibility to do. Blaming people for your actions because they upset you is not something you should do. Perfect control isn't a thing that exists, but partial control is, and that is something you can strengthen and improve with effort. Then, comma, if someone is doing something that causes you to have an unpleasant emotional reaction, feeling that emotion will effectively do you harm. Being upset generally sucks. So why not control your emotional response so that you don't feel that way? (with the especial example that knowing someone is trying to make her angry means that she doesn't need to feel the genuine anger, that's how she puts the brakes on her anger response)

    Average(?) perspective: People are responsible for their actions, yes, but your knee-jerk emotional reaction isn't something that you can completely control. If someone pokes you in a way that upsets you, and you get upset, feeling that emotion doesn't equal a failure of control on your part. As long as you aren't hurting people, you're allowed to feel whatever you want. Saying someone shouldn't be feeling angry over an input deliberately meant to anger them places the blame on a person for their emotions, which aren't something they can completely control. And if you follow the chain of events, it means you're saying that the person who poked you in the first place doesn't have any responsibility for the ultimate result of their actions, which is... making you feel angry.

    Lissa's particular point: If someone is deliberately, purposefully provoking you in a way that is more than you can defend against, in a way strong enough that all your best safeguards fail, and you take angry actions, some of the responsibility lies with the person who started that chain of events in the first place. You shouldn't have full blame for your response when the input is beyond something you are capable of handling.

    There's other stuff in the mix, but this discussion is really going fast. I need to catch up with what's been posted while I was writing.
    • Like x 10
  18. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    It is the principle - there will always be more Anons. I was asking that a troll post be removed. Not the poster, only the post itself.
    The decision from the mods was that trolling was allowed. That is what stirred me up when I was already upset.
  19. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    I am not sure the post in question was trolling rather than a genuine question from someone in a very different place than the rest of us.
  20. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    That is the sum of it, actually. A person who knowingly provokes another person beyond their ability to cope IS responsible for doing it. Note the word in italics.
    If you poke your brother on a four hour car ride, over and over, until he slaps you, you deserved that slap 100%.
    • Like x 1
  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