A Discussion of Veiled Insults and Paranoia

Open: A proposal for community standards of forum behavior

Moderator: Discussion & Debate Managers

Post Reply
User avatar
Whilyam
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:40 am
Contact:

A Discussion of Veiled Insults and Paranoia

Post by Whilyam » Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:48 pm

For example, I find this thread disingenuous because I see you, Nalates, as one of the primary users of the veiled insults you're railing against. I believe I agree with you on many of the issues (mostly in the realm of "acceptable" content in Uru) but when you go around responding to criticism with the excuse of "you lack social skills" it gets silly. Furthermore, the use of "disingenuous" is highly insulting to anyone (Calam made a post about this back in 2007) and unlikely to do anything more than further the anger.
Since this topic seems to be talking about my posts (I've been called insulting and I believe I am accurately describing the situation) I will explain my frankness. I know there are other people who you have disagreements with (and they seem to avoid this forum because they, rightly in my opinion, feel this forum gets nothing accomplished) and they will have to speak for themselves.
The term I most often use is "paranoid." This is obviously something people are likely to react to, but I use the term not to get a reaction but to make a point. Using a weaker term would imply there is another side in this debate when there is not. The argument is a shell put forth relentlessly and aggressively by people longing for what was and angry that it will never be. For me, paranoia is the exact definition that fits the behavior I see. People are frightened that their version of what Uru is will not survive a free and open competition of ideas and so they demand that their version be the only version or the primary version, etc. I could site obvious examples but since I apparently can't cite actual facts and instances of behavior here, I'll use unattributed examples and you can . . . PM me or something if you want to know what on earth I'm talking about. When people advocate moral cleansing because someone exploited the game and equate the exploiters with people advocating creativity and experimentation, that is paranoia. When people tell others not to use* tools until the producer gets Cyan's "okay," that is fear-mongering. When people reject the idea of an in-game economy and proceed to attack the person who suggested it, and demand they go to other games, that is bullying.

If you can find another term for this ugly, divisive, counter-productive behavior, let me know.

(EDIT: replaced "download" with "use" as this referred to uproar over OHBot, not Hoikas' WhoM. It's hard to keep track of the insane sometimes. They all seem to be attacking everything.)
Last edited by Whilyam on Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:41 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
JWPlatt
Member
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Everywhere, all at once

Re: Disingenuous - Veiled Insults

Post by JWPlatt » Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:00 pm

One can use 'disingenuous' where the definition objectively fits. I'm not one for preserving self-esteem above all where it isn't deserved. But I would say the insulting, habitual overuse of this and other words like "silly," "nonsense," "stupid," and and "whiners" are worse when they are simply used for demeaning effect.

You won't get much argument from me about paranoia. What you will get from me is discrediting the use of one person's extreme, reactionary and unreasonable call for cleansing to generalize a problem that doesn't exist beyond one person, and attempting to apply it towards people making more objective opposition. There's a bit of Godwin in that.
Perfect speed is being there.

User avatar
Whilyam
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:40 am
Contact:

Re: Disingenuous - Veiled Insults

Post by Whilyam » Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:49 pm

JWPlatt wrote:One can use 'disingenuous' where the definition objectively fits. I'm not one for preserving self-esteem above all where it isn't deserved. But I would say the insulting, habitual overuse of this and other words like "silly," "nonsense," "stupid," and and "whiners" are worse when they are simply used for demeaning effect.
There is no time when you can objectively evaluate that. It is a very subjective term. This was covered in Calam's discussion on it. It's essentially an assault on a person's credibility. Until and unless you have substantiation, it is descriptive of nothing but your own lack of argumentation skills.
You won't get much argument from me about paranoia. What you will get from me is discrediting the use of one person's extreme, reactionary and unreasonable call for cleansing to generalize a problem that doesn't exist beyond one person, and attempting to apply it towards people making more objective opposition. There's a bit of Godwin in that.
That is correct. However, I have seen little differentiation between the extreme and the "accepted*" (*: on the MOUL forum). Yes, when the unnamed fool made the call for extermination people distanced themselves, but the general feeling still persisted. The feeling being that discussion in which issues with Cyan and the fans were discussed frankly and openly was harming Uru and that, in general, fan Ages were not what Uru "is" and lesser so that fan Ages should not be allowed. Yes, the examples are extreme but the "mainstream" is not much less and certainly not objective opposition. The further example of "canon is god" is simply an extreme way of stating what those I call "paranoids" actually believe. In short, I see people who distance themselves in word but not in belief.
Of course, I should stipulate that this is MOULa forum only. That forum is a concentration of people with those sorts of backward views. GoW, UO, and others are far more mature.

This also gets into the "ignorant" section which is, I think, the primary source of the forum drama. People who latch onto the more extreme views and, while not holding them, still voice similar concerns without doing much thinking outside of that. For example, person A is a "malevolent" and they post calling for a cleansing. Persons B, C, and D are "ignorants." They see A's post or are directed to it and respond with some variant of "I agree with person A" or "While I don't agree with A's idea, his concerns are right." Obviously one or two times isn't anything. Everybody comes to a post at some point that sums up their feelings on a subject. The problem is when people begin supplanting others thinking for their own (for all practical purposes, obviously, since ignorants do still think, just not much when the person they've latched onto is saying something). It is best shown by people who say Cyan's canon should be preserved but have no knowledge of Cyan's own breaking of canon.

User avatar
semplerfi
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:53 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Veiled Insults and Paranoia

Post by semplerfi » Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:39 am

[bump'd]
For placement into "View active topics" list.

DarK
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:04 pm

Re: A Discussion of Veiled Insults and Paranoia

Post by DarK » Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:17 pm

Whilyam wrote:
JWPlatt wrote:One can use 'disingenuous' where the definition objectively fits. I'm not one for preserving self-esteem above all where it isn't deserved. But I would say the insulting, habitual overuse of this and other words like "silly," "nonsense," "stupid," and and "whiners" are worse when they are simply used for demeaning effect.
There is no time when you can objectively evaluate that. It is a very subjective term. This was covered in Calam's discussion on it. It's essentially an assault on a person's credibility. Until and unless you have substantiation, it is descriptive of nothing but your own lack of argumentation skills. .
It also can show a lack of respect and willingness on part of the responder, if you remove all levels of logic and knowledge and get down to the reason people write the words in the first place you get to the “self-esteem“ level aka emotional.

Ideally a post showing disingenuousness is meant to provoke negative response in both the person it’s aimed at, and the audience at large.

Substantiation never actually comes into the case, because once the stage has been set by the disingenuous post, the trend continues regardless if that person can clear the air or not.

Additionally not challenging the disingenuous remarks additionally enforces the point as well.

Either way it traps the person into an unwanted persona.

They continually have the negative mark within the eyes of the audience until repent is seen; in short the mark is continued regardless.

The only way to repent these claims I’ve found is to actually fight fire with fire...

Using the Incoherent drivel that was targeted against me in the past allowed me to maintain some credibility when you recently shot disingenuous remarks at me.

However I wear the negative mark within a set audience, just as you do.
Whilyam wrote:
JWPlatt wrote:You won't get much argument from me about paranoia. What you will get from me is discrediting the use of one person's extreme, reactionary and unreasonable call for cleansing to generalize a problem that doesn't exist beyond one person, and attempting to apply it towards people making more objective opposition. There's a bit of Godwin in that.
That is correct. However, I have seen little differentiation between the extreme and the "accepted*" (*: on the MOUL forum). Yes, when the unnamed fool made the call for extermination people distanced themselves, but the general feeling still persisted. The feeling being that discussion in which issues with Cyan and the fans were discussed frankly and openly was harming Uru and that, in general, fan Ages were not what Uru "is" and lesser so that fan Ages should not be allowed. Yes, the examples are extreme but the "mainstream" is not much less and certainly not objective opposition. The further example of "canon is god" is simply an extreme way of stating what those I call "paranoids" actually believe. In short, I see people who distance themselves in word but not in belief.
Wiki wrote:Paranoia is a thought process heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion
When I looked at that statement of paranoia and in conjunction with your paragraph, I thought is it a fear of what fan ages could do, or is it a more an underlying problem of trust of the persons/entities involved?

Is it irrational of them to consider trust as an issue?

Given how forceful your posts where recently, I certainly questioned it in your case.
Whilyam wrote:This also gets into the "ignorant" section which is, I think, the primary source of the forum drama. People who latch onto the more extreme views and, while not holding them, still voice similar concerns without doing much thinking outside of that. For example, person A is a "malevolent" and they post calling for a cleansing. Persons B, C, and D are "ignorants." They see A's post or are directed to it and respond with some variant of "I agree with person A" or "While I don't agree with A's idea, his concerns are right." Obviously one or two times isn't anything. Everybody comes to a post at some point that sums up their feelings on a subject. The problem is when people begin supplanting others thinking for their own (for all practical purposes, obviously, since ignorants do still think, just not much when the person they've latched onto is saying something). It is best shown by people who say Cyan's canon should be preserved but have no knowledge of Cyan's own breaking of canon.
It’s again the blanketing effect of the collective ... Once a side is seen as predominant the “sheep” flock to support that side of the argument.

In cases of disingenuous remarks, you need to control the opinion of the crowd, not the argument.

User avatar
Whilyam
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:40 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Veiled Insults and Paranoia

Post by Whilyam » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 am

DarK wrote:
Whilyam wrote:
JWPlatt wrote:One can use 'disingenuous' where the definition objectively fits. I'm not one for preserving self-esteem above all where it isn't deserved. But I would say the insulting, habitual overuse of this and other words like "silly," "nonsense," "stupid," and and "whiners" are worse when they are simply used for demeaning effect.
There is no time when you can objectively evaluate that. It is a very subjective term. This was covered in Calam's discussion on it. It's essentially an assault on a person's credibility. Until and unless you have substantiation, it is descriptive of nothing but your own lack of argumentation skills. .
It also can show a lack of respect and willingness on part of the responder, if you remove all levels of logic and knowledge and get down to the reason people write the words in the first place you get to the “self-esteem“ level aka emotional.
Ideally a post showing disingenuousness is meant to provoke negative response in both the person it’s aimed at, and the audience at large.
Substantiation never actually comes into the case, because once the stage has been set by the disingenuous post, the trend continues regardless if that person can clear the air or not.
Additionally not challenging the disingenuous remarks additionally enforces the point as well.
Either way it traps the person into an unwanted persona.
They continually have the negative mark within the eyes of the audience until repent is seen; in short the mark is continued regardless.
The only way to repent these claims I’ve found is to actually fight fire with fire...me
Using the Incoherent drivel that was targeted against me in the past allowed me to maintain some credibility when you recently shot disingenuous remarks at me.
However I wear the negative mark within a set audience, just as you do.
I have no concern of wearing a negative mark in the minds of the incompetent. If you call someone disingenuous, you must provide substantiation or you are a liar. It is that simple.
When I looked at that statement of paranoia and in conjunction with your paragraph, I thought is it a fear of what fan ages could do, or is it a more an underlying problem of trust of the persons/entities involved?
Is it irrational of them to consider trust as an issue?
Given how forceful your posts where recently, I certainly questioned it in your case.
From what I have found there are few in the community which are genuinely afraid of fan Ages and modifications. When I listen to new people in cavern, they are eager to write and explore Ages. The couple who desired to write an Age for each other. These are the people I am interested in. These people are the future. Not the arrogant dinosaurs. Yes, there is likely an element of mistrust. It would only serve to make me seem to be coyly avoiding the issue if I did not address it properly. So, yes the mistrust and enmity against the Slackers appears to be the one primarily behind this, though individual fear of the unknown is also likely. The people against free creativity appear to equate freedom for all to write Ages freely with a Slacker "victory." This is short-sighted and since both sides participate in this conflict both are short-sighted.
Whilyam wrote:This also gets into the "ignorant" section which is, I think, the primary source of the forum drama. People who latch onto the more extreme views and, while not holding them, still voice similar concerns without doing much thinking outside of that. For example, person A is a "malevolent" and they post calling for a cleansing. Persons B, C, and D are "ignorants." They see A's post or are directed to it and respond with some variant of "I agree with person A" or "While I don't agree with A's idea, his concerns are right." Obviously one or two times isn't anything. Everybody comes to a post at some point that sums up their feelings on a subject. The problem is when people begin supplanting others thinking for their own (for all practical purposes, obviously, since ignorants do still think, just not much when the person they've latched onto is saying something). It is best shown by people who say Cyan's canon should be preserved but have no knowledge of Cyan's own breaking of canon.
It’s again the blanketing effect of the collective ... Once a side is seen as predominant the “sheep” flock to support that side of the argument.

In cases of disingenuous remarks, you need to control the opinion of the crowd, not the argument.
Correct. This is how those I term the dinosaurs think. That because people can create freely they will associate with the "class" the dinosaurs despise, those that expressed their freedom in Until Uru with wild-colored skin and hair.
In the end, as I said before, this idea is short-sighted as all shards in UU and all corners of the community engaged in similar practices. Uru would benefit from a new UU in which all groups could have their place to express their own views. I see no benefit in continuing the wars of UU which is why I oppose the tactics both sides sometimes use, using innuendo with each other to trigger emotional reactions. I could go on, but the topic of this old conflict is far too large for this topic.

User avatar
Nalates
Member
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: A Discussion of Veiled Insults and Paranoia

Post by Nalates » Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:57 am

I’m going to suspend the thread for two weeks.

I do not see the discussion evolving in a direction that will provide a positive contribution. When the thread is reopened, if I don’t see a positive direction, I will lock the thread.
Nalates
GoW, GoMa and GoA apprentice - Guildmaster GoC - SL = Nalates Urriah

Post Reply

Return to “Standards For Discussion & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest