As a matter of fact, I do not have moderator powers. If someone says something I find offensive, I flag it as offensive and move on, just as the vast majority of the rest of the folks should on these boards.The person being offended is the one AND THE ONLY ONE who gets to decide if something is offensive.
If I say something that someone else finds offensive, and they tell me that I offended them, I don't get defensive. I apologize and adjust future speaking with the knowledge that the topic that someone just found offensive could be offensive to other people.
It works for me. I wish it worked for everyone.
It might work for you because you have moderator powers. If someone says something that offends you, their post is deleted and they get banned.
If someone says something that offends me, then they might get their post deleted, or they might get 29 favorites, including a favorite from a Paizo employee, and learn that that sort of behavior is not only acceptable, but encouraged.
Frankly, I avoid browsing the forums on my phone largely because I can't use the ignore script on my phone. When I'm away from my computer, I tend to stick to my pbps, and browsing my favorite posts (or occasionally the post history of someone whose posts I enjoy reading).
That's kind of like Clark Kent taking off his shirt and revealing himself to be.... Jimmy Olsen. :)
I was offended by that gug at PaizoCon. My poor cavalier's HP was brutally offended! :P
Flag it and move on.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally have the opportunity to respond! Again, thank you for your patience as we work through this feedback.
--- User Suspensions ---
User suspensions (whether temporary or permanent) are a rarity in our community and it's not an activity any of our staff particularly enjoy handing out. For each, we weigh the specifics of each account and it's history. We strive to ensure that permanent suspensions are sanity checked by the entire moderation team. Permanent suspensions are generally the result of irreconcilable differences over repeated violations of our Community Guidelines (though, these guidelines are not comprehensive of every case in which we have had to part ways with an individual).
There's likely some information we could be adding to our FAQ on this subject, based on the responses here as well.
--- Technical Suggestions ---
Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful effort put into the suggestions in this thread. Some are potentially feasible or things we've already been considering! Some we feel are not workable for Paizo's forums, or are unfortunately out of scope for our infrastructure at this time. We've got an on-going list of great ideas for things we might be able to look at or implement in the future.
--- The Community Guidelines ---
Some folk have brought up the old "Don't be a jerk" rule. Having moderated our forums for ~5 years, and being effectively our "lead" moderator for 3+ years, I can tell you definitively that that rule causes more issues than it solves. It is subjective, it causes users to actively skirt what constitutes "jerkitude", and it puts all community members (including moderators) in a less-than-great situation because it doesn't cover enough of the nuanced situations that crop up daily. It can create/has created situations which would be toxic and undermining to any online community.
--- Composing Yourself While Posting ---
Everyone has had a moment where they've posted something regrettable on the internet. Everyone has bad days. We are not unaware that this can spill into our forums, and we strive to empathize with the struggles faced by folks in our community (whether a removed post or suspension occurs because of an emotional struggle, difficult life event, sensitivity to given topics because of past experiences, and so on). We don't work under the premise that comments arise from a vacuum, and we don't want to resort to authoritative language and action on an account unless absolutely necessary. We've (meaning myself, Gary, Vic, Sara, and an array of moderators) indicated that our attitude is fairly idealistic when it comes to fostering interactions in our community, because our working assumption is that the folks that come here have a common bond—that they are gamers seeking a fun and friendly space.
However, we have a highly passionate group of people here, and with that comes debate, disagreement, and unfortunately, clashes to which there is no resolution. My own experience is to assume that the text in front of me is often likely not intended to offend. Text can be so imperfect when trying to derive the meaning a poster is trying to attribute to their words. It's vital to extend some grace not only to other posters, but also to yourself.
Overall, we have definitely have some things to discuss amongst the moderation team. Out of this we've already got some good ideas for how to improve our outward messaging and internal policies. Because our community is super important to us, we do not intend to make any rushed decisions. Seriously and thoughtfully addressing the concerns raised in this thread is not something that can or should happen overnight.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something I've always struggled with is the urge to post quickly. Y'know how we have that Bystander Mentality approach to our PbPs where we subconsciously procrastinate on posting until everyone else is waiting for us? In arguments, it's the opposite—we have this completely irrational sense, that if we don't get our post up right f%~%ing now, it will be too late, the thread will move on, and our opponents will get those extra ten minutes of Being Wrong that they need to shore up their defenses.
Never make a post while angry. It never helps matters. No matter how powerful an angry post can be, there is always a more effective way to communicate the same points in coldness. Write up the post, then hold off on posting for a while. Ten minutes, say. Arguments do not need to be rushed on a forum. That's the whole advantage of a forum debate!
There are times when a post pisses me off to the point that waiting ten minutes won't help—I'll be angry no matter what. That's the point where I would probably just want to involve the mods, if possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I've always struggled with is the urge to post quickly. Y'know how we have that Bystander Mentality approach to our PbPs where we subconsciously procrastinate on posting until everyone else is waiting for us? In arguments, it's the opposite—we have this completely irrational sense, that if we don't get our post up right f&+@ing now, it will be too late, the thread will move on, and our opponents will get those extra ten minutes of Being Wrong that they need to shore up their defenses.
Never make a post while angry. It never helps matters. No matter how powerful an angry post can be, there is always a more effective way to communicate the same points in coldness. Write up the post, then hold off on posting for a while. Ten minutes, say. Arguments do not need to be rushed on a forum. That's the whole advantage of a forum debate!
There are times when a post pisses me off to the point that waiting ten minutes won't help—I'll be angry no matter what. That's the point where I would probably just want to involve the mods, if possible.
Wise words. To piggyback off this and what Steven mentioned in a prior post, it is totally alright to state your point and then just leave it at that. The other person can be "wrong" or "right" and there isn't need to get the last word in.
I tend to think that is where we start getting into the problems, trying to get in the last word or prove somehow that we are right rather than just saying what we have to say and stepping back.
I try not to see my name more than a few times on a page if at all possible. I often think that if I am posting more than that, I'm either getting heated or getting into a pointless argument and losing not only my point but any hope of getting what I was trying to say across in the rush to say something else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try not to see my name more than a few times on a page if at all possible.
Well, this is just madness.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to see my name on the page.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It improves thread property values, like, 500%.
Perhaps some lighter fare that is relevant to the discussion in a different way, when do we get to meet the new moderator? Presumably you're at least in the process of looking for someone to replace Liz?
Having a fresh set of eyes on the team might be a decent shake-up in itself.
You have the right of it. It's the fact that you can claim offense even on someone else behalf, and if the subject matter is right then a bandwagon can follow causing a cascade of offense until it is silenced even if no-one was actually offended to start with.I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that being offended by something should be used as a weapon.Yeah I don't really know what that even entails. Do you mean people pretending to be offended in order to silence discussion or something?
It seems to me that, if they're not involved in the discussion (because you're tried and failed to explain what you mean so you are now just not replying to them) it's going to be pretty transparent isn't it?
Cheers. I don't think I've ever seen that happen - I can see it's a theoretical possibility, but I've never seen anyone claim offense where I didn't really believe they were offended.
Having said that:
I think to minimize the "offense as a weapon", don't respond to a post. Flag it, and move on.
This would prevent threadcrapping in case of a misunderstanding, and then it would be left up to the moderators to decide, without the prejudice of a back and forth, to decide for themselves. While I agree the mods tend to play favorites (they are human beings after all), I would still give them benefit of the doubt in this case, were that rule to be actively followed by the community.
This would mean that folks who threadcrap and then flag should get warnings and such. Rules without enforcement are useless.
I think this is excellent advice. If there's nobody replying to the "fake offendee" then I think the tactic will be pretty transparent.
It kind of ties in, but as a separate point...
I think it's also worth avoiding publicly telling people you've flagged their posts. In my mind there's two likely outcomes of that, neither of them positive:
1. You're right that the post is outside community guidelines and the moderators are going to remove it thanks to your flag. Now they also have to remove your post, so you're just increasing their workload and whatever you wanted to say is hardly going to be up there for long.
2. You're wrong in your opinion - but you're now inviting public dispute with the poster you flagged which could well lead to the thread deteriorating and an eventual need for the moderator to step in and do a whole bunch more work cleaning up the mess you were pretty much responsible for.
I can't see any circumstance where publicly telling people "I've flagged your post" is actually beneficial. Best case scenario it doesn't do any harm, but given the risk of causing dispute and resentment, what's the upside?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will mention flagging a post only when it's a "wrong forum" flag, since the OP deserves to know that they've misdirected their thread and that it might suddenly move in the future. I try to be neutral about it (discussing the thread topic and then mentioning flagging as an aside), because being told your post is being flagged can be horribly demoralising, particularly if you're new.
Any other flag, I try to do it and move on (I'm not perfect, I've mentioned it in threads in the past, as a weapon against users I'm arguing with, and when that gets pointed out to me, I feel bad). It's the best way.
The "wrong forum" flag is an excellent exception. I should've mentioned that, cheers. I was only thinking of the fighty kind of tag.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll throw in a "guys flag it and move on" on occasion, usually when I see a post that gets a bazillion replies that I know are going to result in thread-locking if they continue
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's also worth avoiding publicly telling people you've flagged their posts. In my mind there's two likely outcomes of that, neither of them positive:1. You're right that the post is outside community guidelines and the moderators are going to remove it thanks to your flag. Now they also have to remove your post, so you're just increasing their workload and whatever you wanted to say is hardly going to be up there for long.
2. You're wrong in your opinion - but you're now inviting public dispute with the poster you flagged which could well lead to the thread deteriorating and an eventual need for the moderator to step in and do a whole bunch more work cleaning up the mess you were pretty much responsible for.
I can't see any circumstance where publicly telling people "I've flagged your post" is actually beneficial. Best case scenario it doesn't do any harm, but given the risk of causing dispute and resentment, what's the upside?
I just flagged every post you've ever made as "just wanted to try the flagging system."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your commitment to making a point is impressive.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheers. I don't think I've ever seen that happen - I can see it's a theoretical possibility, but I've never seen anyone claim offense where I didn't really believe they were offended.
Oh, I've had pointed out to me more than once that sometimes my posts are felt as being offensive when the only thing I try to do is to be as concise and exact as possible. And when I asked what exactly I had done wrong, the only answer was that the offended people got the vibe from my post that I was too convinced that I was right.
Which is why I normally try to be extra careful not to speak in absolutes but that (and other things happening here in Germany) is also why I don't share JJ's sentiment that only the people feeling offended have the right to define what's an offense and what's not. Because I see some of them use this on a daily basis to try and shut you down.
I think this is excellent advice. If there's nobody replying to the "fake offendee" then I think the tactic will be pretty transparent.
Problem being that now the "fake offendee" might feel offended by getting ignored by you. :) Still, probably the best thing one can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I request a new forum feature which automatically flags all posts containing the word "flag."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheers. I don't think I've ever seen that happen - I can see it's a theoretical possibility, but I've never seen anyone claim offense where I didn't really believe they were offended.Oh, I've had pointed out to me more than once that sometimes my posts are felt as being offensive when the only thing I try to do is to be as concise and exact as possible. And when I asked what exactly I had done wrong, the only answer was that the offended people got the vibe from my post that I was too convinced that I was right.
Which is why I normally try to be extra careful not to speak in absolutes but that (and other things happening here in Germany) is also why I don't share JJ's sentiment that only the people feeling offended have the right to define what's an offense and what's not. Because I see some of them use this on a daily basis to try and shut you down.
Someone can be offended by something we've said even though we didn't intend any harm.
I think James's point was that the fact you didn't mean to upset them doesn't mean they're not really offended. Nor does it mean we get to argue with them about whether they "should" be offended. "Offense" is something subjective.
FWIW,the bolded sounds like you're essentially following the same strategy anyhow.
Cheers. I don't think I've ever seen that happen - I can see it's a theoretical possibility, but I've never seen anyone claim offense where I didn't really believe they were offended.Oh, I've had pointed out to me more than once that sometimes my posts are felt as being offensive when the only thing I try to do is to be as concise and exact as possible. And when I asked what exactly I had done wrong, the only answer was that the offended people got the vibe from my post that I was too convinced that I was right.
Which is why I normally try to be extra careful not to speak in absolutes but that (and other things happening here in Germany) is also why I don't share JJ's sentiment that only the people feeling offended have the right to define what's an offense and what's not. Because I see some of them use this on a daily basis to try and shut you down.
I think this is excellent advice. If there's nobody replying to the "fake offendee" then I think the tactic will be pretty transparent.Problem being that now the "fake offendee" might feel offended by getting ignored by you. :) Still, probably the best thing one can do.
You have to remind yourself that we are more used to tell others our opinion in a straightforward manner in Germany, while that is not so much the case in Anglo-Saxon societies, for example. We might have better mechanisms to deal with direct confrontation.
You may be careful about how you frame your opinion, but that is still coloured by how you are generally used to argue a point.
Cheers. I don't think I've ever seen that happen - I can see it's a theoretical possibility, but I've never seen anyone claim offense where I didn't really believe they were offended.Oh, I've had pointed out to me more than once that sometimes my posts are felt as being offensive when the only thing I try to do is to be as concise and exact as possible. And when I asked what exactly I had done wrong, the only answer was that the offended people got the vibe from my post that I was too convinced that I was right.
Which is why I normally try to be extra careful not to speak in absolutes but that (and other things happening here in Germany) is also why I don't share JJ's sentiment that only the people feeling offended have the right to define what's an offense and what's not. Because I see some of them use this on a daily basis to try and shut you down.
I think this is excellent advice. If there's nobody replying to the "fake offendee" then I think the tactic will be pretty transparent.Problem being that now the "fake offendee" might feel offended by getting ignored by you. :) Still, probably the best thing one can do.
Next time I accidently offend someone I will explain what I meant. If they get my point, but dont like how I said it, that is enough for me. Some people read too much into things, and it doesn't help that text does not carry emotion well.
Next time I accidently offend someone I will explain what I meant. If they get my point, but dont like how I said it, that is enough for me. Some people read too much into things, and it doesn't help that text does not carry emotion well.Cheers. I don't think I've ever seen that happen - I can see it's a theoretical possibility, but I've never seen anyone claim offense where I didn't really believe they were offended.Oh, I've had pointed out to me more than once that sometimes my posts are felt as being offensive when the only thing I try to do is to be as concise and exact as possible. And when I asked what exactly I had done wrong, the only answer was that the offended people got the vibe from my post that I was too convinced that I was right.
Which is why I normally try to be extra careful not to speak in absolutes but that (and other things happening here in Germany) is also why I don't share JJ's sentiment that only the people feeling offended have the right to define what's an offense and what's not. Because I see some of them use this on a daily basis to try and shut you down.
I think this is excellent advice. If there's nobody replying to the "fake offendee" then I think the tactic will be pretty transparent.Problem being that now the "fake offendee" might feel offended by getting ignored by you. :) Still, probably the best thing one can do.
I think that is the biggest thing to text just doesn't give the subtlety of face to face communication. you end up attributing your own emotional stats to what you read which could vary by mood and it allows a lot more interpretation. Plus some people might be good conversationalists but terrible typers. <some people>
I really do wish we had emoticons here.<---serious comment.
I know we can do the :) and :( among others, but many people dont know what all of them mean.
It would make it easier to for people to note when they are being angry, just joking, and so on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to remind yourself that we are more used to tell others our opinion in a straightforward manner in Germany, while that is not so much the case in Anglo-Saxon societies, for example. We might have better mechanisms to deal with direct confrontation.You may be careful about how you frame your opinion, but that is still coloured by how you are generally used to argue a point.
There are whole expat blogs dedicated to 'Dutch Directness'. Apparently our directness is considered rude by a lot of other societies. We just consider ourselves to the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really do wish we had emoticons here.<---serious comment.
I know we can do the :) and :( among others, but many people dont know what all of them mean.
It would make it easier to for people to note when they are being angry, just joking, and so on.
True, but I see that abused as well on other forums (example: posting something really offensive but then including a smily at the end, as if that excuses the previously written comment).
True, but I see that abused as well on other forums (example: posting something really offensive but then including a smily at the end, as if that excuses the previously written comment).I really do wish we had emoticons here.<---serious comment.
I know we can do the :) and :( among others, but many people dont know what all of them mean.
It would make it easier to for people to note when they are being angry, just joking, and so on.
That is fine. When someone says something like "You are a moron", and put a smiley face at the end the the mods just ban you for a few days.
After enough bans, they just get perma-banned.
That is a self correcting problem.
I´m wondering quite often what some people from the U.S. seem to find offensive and what they are perfectly fine with.
Ignoring new questions, repeating already said statements to silence kinde silence people without adressing their concerns, "alpha" attitude, being "blunt" as a good thing (and i consider that very different from european being straight forward, since that usualy leaves a way out for everyone involved, not just "submission"), cowboy attitudes and bacon talk, very dismissive of other people.
Underlying this whole thing are 2 key problems in my opinion:
-Fear and hostility towards the "alien".
My family, my farm, my group, my whatever. Who´s outside of this must be a threat, is a stranger whose opinion doesn´t really count and you can´t be right, but i have the right to potentially shoot him. That´s something peeking through a layer of civilization here quite often.
Even through christian believes, who should all be welcomning of strangers. Yet people even view different opinions as a thread that must be rooted out.
-"My opinion is stronger that any fact and facts are also only opinions"
The U.S. election is a prime example for that unfortunately. We have a lot of scientific insights and facts, yet unfounded and unchecked opinions rule the world. There´s lots of groups fighting for potentially right and important things, but many of them walk the wrong ways and act like they come straight out of the middle ages, way too often repeating mistakes of the past and especially of those they critisize. That´s very true for rl life stuff affecting this forum and community as well.
Even if you think you are scientifically backed up by facts, go triple check that and look at different theories and approaches, because many things aren´t as they seem or ahve their reasons somewhere else as thought. Except climate change.
And producing new victims and loosers doesn´t help anyone, but can only have a fatal backlash.
Adressing those 2 points (among others) is certainly the mission for our century, but we can begin with it right here^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, but I see that abused as well on other forums (example: posting something really offensive but then including a smily at the end, as if that excuses the previously written comment).I really do wish we had emoticons here.<---serious comment.
I know we can do the :) and :( among others, but many people dont know what all of them mean.
It would make it easier to for people to note when they are being angry, just joking, and so on.
That is fine. When someone says something like "You are a moron", and put a smiley face at the end the the mods just ban you for a few days.
After enough bans, they just get perma-banned.
That is a self correcting problem.
If I ever decide to host a public forum like this my terms of service will include that all moderation action and communication with customer service will be made public.
I honestly think this is some of the problem (especially when the moderation action hits someone who is both liked and disliked by a number of people). It's easy when the company won't talk about things - for a poster to claim anything they want. Just as it's easy for the company to say 'oh yeah we got this we do all this' - which requires a truckload of trust.
The existence of this thread and amount of attention shown to the topic I think should be a red flag that the trust factor was harmed. The 'behind the scenes' way of doing things does put Paizo between a rock and a hard place here - even more reason to be very careful to not let personal feelings influence things IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I´m wondering quite often what some people from the U.S. seem to find offensive and what they are perfectly fine with.
It depends on the person. Some people get mad just because you disagree with them, and them find another reason/excuse to use for them being upset.
Basically no matter what you do or say here someone will almost always be offended by it.
Even once they understand your intent they still complain.
Sometimes you just have to realize no amount of talking to them will make things better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I´m wondering quite often what some people from the U.S. seem to find offensive and what they are perfectly fine with.
Ignoring new questions, repeating already said statements to silence kinde silence people without adressing their concerns, "alpha" attitude, being "blunt" as a good thing (and i consider that very different from european being straight forward, since that usualy leaves a way out for everyone involved, not just "submission"), cowboy attitudes and bacon talk, very dismissive of other people.
Stereotypes much? And that's a very masculine stereotype. American women exist.
Most of those things are considered rude here.
I´m unsure how that´s stereotyping.
At least from my european view people includes men and women as well as all who don´t want to be that or who are not?
Maybe i´m not understanding something there right now?
What i list there are my experiences in this place of course only.
I´m glad to read that these things are indeed considered rude, because sometimes it doesn´t really seem so.
Probably there´s different point of views on what is what and why though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I´m unsure how that´s stereotyping.
"Cowboy attitudes"? Beans and bacon?
You don't get why those are stereotypes? It's reducing an entire diverse, massive country to a single movie character archetype.
At least from my european view people includes men and women as well as all who don´t want to be that or who are not?
Women who try to be "alpha" anything get severely punished here. As do women who are blunt--or even firm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If flagging doesn't do anything, Sissyl, you should probably try sending emails and explaining why you feel the posts are inappropriate. It might be that you're seeing a pattern the busy mods do not.
Mainly favorited Jess's post for the second half. I'm not a hundred percent convinced that stereotyping against Americans is really that significant a problem, to be honest. And America is fairly known for having a low-context style of language—more than many countries, we say what we mean, which comes across to high-context language speakers as being brusque or blunt. America also has very prominent aggressive "masculine" values, and it's worth remembering that while those values are not universal, they are currently (unfairly) regarded as the "stronger" values in this culture. Aggressiveness and stoicness are regarded as strength, though we treat those traits differently in different people. It's foolish to completely disregard the way our cultural values differ. No, they aren't universal among Americans, but these are the values that tend to hold the most power.
Erasure is another matter, of course. Acting like all Americans are the "annoying white tourist", for instance, neglects the fact that the majority of Americans are people of color. And it perpetuates an idea that those annoying white tourists are the "iconic Americans". Sort of like how acting like all gamers are basement-dwelling guys is superficially just making fun of gamers, but actually ends up erasing women in gaming.
So, I don't totally disagree with Jess, but I do think Hayato Ken might have a subject worth some discussion.
Okay.
Really? I thought we cleared that recently. It might've just been Texas, though. Oh, well. Technicalities.
I´m unsure how that´s stereotyping."Cowboy attitudes"? Beans and bacon?
You don't get why those are stereotypes? It's reducing an entire diverse, massive country to a single movie character archetype.
At least from my european view people includes men and women as well as all who don´t want to be that or who are not?Women who try to be "alpha" anything get severely punished here. As do women who are blunt--or even firm.
The cowboy bit is a very 80's view of America, as shown by Hans Gruber in Die Hard for example. Of course, I've seen Americans act like people from the Southwest or Texas are all cowboys as well, or all Californias are surfers, etc.
I don't get the bacon thing, however? Bacon has been a big thing in cooking circles for a few years now, with different crazes and trends, but I haven't seen that it is strictly an American thing .. unless the Food Network is lying to me again!
But yes, to Americans those sorts of things come across as insulting and stereotypical, much like applying a British stereotype to someone from France, or Germany, or Spain. I mean, all Europeans are the same, right?
A good example? I've had a number of Europeans use the term Yank or Yankee to describe Americans. I can tell you from vast experience that Americans from the South consider that an insult, one that can provoke a rather loud response.
I´m unsure how that´s stereotyping."Cowboy attitudes"? Beans and bacon?
You don't get why those are stereotypes? It's reducing an entire diverse, massive country to a single movie character archetype.
No i didn´t see this, but i can now understand how it´s misunderstandable in that way.
When i say cowbo attitude, it wouldn´t occur to me in any moment to link that to a whole country. From my view at least, that´s strictly about individuals and also not restricted to U.S. american individuals.Bacon wasn´t related to this, nor beans, but literally to how some people come suddenly into discussions or topics and totally derail them by talking about something like bacon.
So if anybody wants to see this as antiamerican, that´s certainly their freedom, but definately not what was meant there. Perhaps an unlucky expression.
At least from my european view people includes men and women as well as all who don´t want to be that or who are not?Women who try to be "alpha" anything get severely punished here. As do women who are blunt--or even firm.
That´s certainly right. It is definately true that women who try to be that way meet a lot of resistance and get punished for it.
I do have the impression though that this is often part of that specific game and can happen to anyone, as the goal of such undertakings often is to show how much "stronger, better, more dominant, more alpha, more whatever" someone compared to someone else is. Aggression and punishment are often deflected upon the supposedly weakest or not fitting links there, which unfortunately often enough seem to be persons perceived as female in specific contexts.Don´t get me wrong, i´m definately not defending this. I try to not participate in anything like that as often as possible, since i think it´s despicable and very unproductive behaviour.
In my opinion, most persons behaving that way are offensive. In that regard, gender doesn´t matter at all there for me, because an offense is an offense regardless of gender. I don´t see any reason to encourage anybody in what i think of as bad behaviour.
We're all bacon-crunching Yanks at heart. :)
|
|
You have to remind yourself that we are more used to tell others our opinion in a straightforward manner in Germany, while that is not so much the case in Anglo-Saxon societies, for example. We might have better mechanisms to deal with direct confrontation.
I'm not so sure about having the better mechanisms because most of the time I run into this, it's with fellow Germans.
You may be careful about how you frame your opinion, but that is still coloured by how you are generally used to argue a point.
I totally get that which is why I'm not adversed to explain myself once again if I get the feeling that I transferred my opinion the wrong way. I'm also not generally averse to apologize if I unintentionally hurt someone's feelings about something.
So I'm not generally against James' suggestions how to handle forum stuff.Still, living in a country where only recently feminists claimed that if a woman claims to have been sexually harassed, this claim alone is sufficient as proof (in a case where the court eventually rightfully decided said claim to be untrue) and where, on the other hand, the society tends to think that gender equality has already been reached when it has clearly not and people get offended just by women (or men) pointing that fact out, I'm not too fond of the thought that only the receiver of an alleged offense may decide if it really is an offense.
That would most surely eventually lead to a severe impediment of free speech, because as soon as I don't like what you say, I can play the offense card, and you can do nothing about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er, people calling you a jerk isn't infringing on your freedom of speech. It's them exerting theirs.
Wow, this is going majorly off-topic, I guess, but being English, it's absolutely common to refer to Americans as a group as "the Yanks", in the same way we might refer to the French as "the Frogs", Germans as "the Krauts", the Welsh as "the Taffs", or the Scots as "the Scots" (seriously, they're scary, we try not to annoy them too much).
But... in general most Americans wouldn't differentiate between someone from Scotland or Wales as opposed to England, and the general anecdote over here is that if you say you're from the UK, the most common response is something along the lines of "so you're from England, right?", which is about as accurate as saying to someone who is from North America "so you're from Ohio, right?", and damn close to saying "so you're from Toronto, right?". Heck, we have parts of England that get wound up by the fact that they're not an independent nation. Seriously. Cornwall. Look it up.
Now, I'm aware that I can be as guilty of stereotyping as anyone else, but while the plural of anecdote is not data, the things I've mentioned above happen so often, that it's ridiculously easy to assume stereotypes are a first-iteration accurate assumption for predicting behaviour. Which means that anyone who doesn't fit the stereotype has to fight not only the stereotype, but also confirmation bias, just to be taken as (what should be the) baseline "individual, not stereotype".
Which sucks, but it's the way it is.
And whilst I know it's wrong, Hayato Ken's assessment of generally expected American behaviour is pretty much bang on the nose, coming from the perspective of someone from England.
|
|
Er, people calling you a jerk isn't infringing on your freedom of speech. It's them exerting theirs.
Yeah but people telling me that I'm not allowed to say something because they would feel offended by it most certainly is. And that's what I'm talking about here, because that's exactly how I've seen the offense card being played. You put an argument at the table, the person you try to communicate with don't know how to counter your point but also doesn't want you to be right and suddenly it's about they feel offended by something you probably didn't even say.
Happens all the time. I've been probably even guilty myself of this particular "crime".
And whilst I know it's wrong, Hayato Ken's assessment of generally expected American behaviour is pretty much bang on the nose, coming from the perspective of someone from England.
Please note, i said some american people.
This is no assessment of general american behaviour from my side at all.I know many very friendly americans who i call my friends by now who behave in totally different ways.
I have no intention on being anti-american or any kind of america bashing and have to ask anyone else to refrain from doing so, because it would not only be unfounded, but also unnecessary and contraproductive.
Instead, how about focussing on how things could be done in more welcomning, friendly and encouraging ways for everyone?
Like insted of assuming and interpreting the worst, asking someone how something was actually meant?
Or assuming that there´s no offense meant, but a perhaps not as good expressed try to help and be productive?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Er, people calling you a jerk isn't infringing on your freedom of speech. It's them exerting theirs.Yeah but people telling me that I'm not allowed to say something because they would feel offended by it most certainly is. And that's what I'm talking about here, because that's exactly how I've seen the offense card being played. You put an argument at the table, the person you try to communicate with don't know how to counter your point but also doesn't want you to be right and suddenly it's about they feel offended by something you probably didn't even say.
Happens all the time. I've been probably even guilty myself of this particular "crime".
You're certainly "allowed" to say stuff you know will offend people. Are you "allowed" to say it without being called a jerk? Probably not. But that's not censorship. That's you not enjoying being called a jerk. It's you being offended by a perception of you other people form based on your attitudes.
Instead of leaning on specious platitudes, could you cite a specific example?
Wow, this is going majorly off-topic, I guess, but being English, it's absolutely common to refer to Americans as a group as "the Yanks", in the same way we might refer to the French as "the Frogs", Germans as "the Krauts", the Welsh as "the Taffs", or the Scots as "the Scots" (seriously, they're scary, we try not to annoy them too much).
But... in general most Americans wouldn't differentiate between someone from Scotland or Wales as opposed to England, and the general anecdote over here is that if you say you're from the UK, the most common response is something along the lines of "so you're from England, right?", which is about as accurate as saying to someone who is from North America "so you're from Ohio, right?", and damn close to saying "so you're from Toronto, right?". Heck, we have parts of England that get wound up by the fact that they're not an independent nation. Seriously. Cornwall. Look it up.
Now, I'm aware that I can be as guilty of stereotyping as anyone else, but while the plural of anecdote is not data, the things I've mentioned above happen so often, that it's ridiculously easy to assume stereotypes are a first-iteration accurate assumption for predicting behaviour. Which means that anyone who doesn't fit the stereotype has to fight not only the stereotype, but also confirmation bias, just to be taken as (what should be the) baseline "individual, not stereotype".
Which sucks, but it's the way it is.
And whilst I know it's wrong, Hayato Ken's assessment of generally expected American behaviour is pretty much bang on the nose, coming from the perspective of someone from England.
To some in the South, calling them Yanks is akin to calling the Irish British. To most, it's more like calling the Scottish British, and we try to avoid lengthy conversations with the former group of Southerners. :P