And if @Dafyd has a problem with me either as shipmate or host, he's fully free to pick it up himself. We're all grown ups here, right?
All your posts so far have been in line with the intended purpose of Hell.
That said if you want to discuss something thoughtfully, without being interrupted by less thoughtful posts, Purgatory is the place.
But you have no business junior hosting me or telling me that I don't know about the ins and outs of American racial politics when...I live in them.
Please remember that the kind of relationship you described happened across the Americas and Caribbean, and still affects the world you and I live in (and especially some of the people we share it with), even if individual countries were and are affected in differing ways.
Please remember that the kind of relationship you described happened across the Americas and Caribbean, and still affects the world you and I live in (and especially some of the people we share it with), even if individual countries were and are affected in differing ways.
You would probably make your point better if you did not use a condescending tone like that; indeed, your tone rather gives the impression that the condescension is the point.
Firstly, drop the please remember, which sounds like an instruction from someone who knows the situation to someone who doesn't.
Secondly, don't presume that Bullfrog needs to remember things that he's said at least twice that he deals with regularly.
I'm afraid I don't find your second point very useful. It tells me you think that I should be doing something differently, but not what I need to change about the wording of the post.
Putting the point differently:
This isn't just a question of what white Americans can do now to remember and respect the people most affected by race-based chattel slavery, it's also about what white people living in societies dealing with the consequences of race-based chattel slavery can do to respect and remember the people most affected.
Different countries have dealt with these consequences in different ways, and so have ended up living in differing circumstances today, but I think there is still a lot of communality between the responses we can make.
I'm afraid I don't find your second point very useful. It tells me you think that I should be doing something differently, but not what I need to change about the wording of the post.
Firstly, wording things is hard, and I don't always know how to do it.
Secondly, frankly, if you keep on doing what you're doing with no change in apparent attitude, no amount of tweaks to the wording are going to help. If someone is trying to relate to you on the level of rational adult equals, and you relate to them as a moral superior teaching those on a lower level, then you are always going to get their back up no matter what wording you use. The relational position of a moral (or indeed rational) superior has to be earned and granted, not assumed. And if you haven't earned, no wording is going to fix it.
But you have no business junior hosting me or telling me that I don't know about the ins and outs of American racial politics when...I live in them.
Please remember that the kind of relationship you described happened across the Americas and Caribbean, and still affects the world you and I live in (and especially some of the people we share it with), even if individual countries were and are affected in differing ways.
So...what's it to you? Where you from? So far it looks like you're mostly speaking in rules and principles like a college professor.
I'm not mad anymore, but allow me to attempt an analogy to explain my frustration with your approach to communication:
You both seem to be assuming that I can hear my own tone. That's not something I've ever been very good at. I'm better at hearing other people's tone, but I try to look past this, as I find it gets in the way of hearing and understanding their arguments.
But you have no business junior hosting me or telling me that I don't know about the ins and outs of American racial politics when...I live in them.
Please remember that the kind of relationship you described happened across the Americas and Caribbean, and still affects the world you and I live in (and especially some of the people we share it with), even if individual countries were and are affected in differing ways.
So...what's it to you? Where you from? So far it looks like you're mostly speaking in rules and principles like a college professor.
My understanding is that the tone I've ended up with is the one that people find least objectionable while still being capable of communicating ideas. Based on copious feedback from interlocutors, I have more relaxed tones, but people find them utterly incomprehensible if I try to communicate what I'm thinking. I have more severe tones, which just leaves everyone wanting to be somewhere else.
I'm not mad anymore, but allow me to attempt an analogy to explain my frustration with your approach to communication:
Before I address your analogy, here's my take on what happened on the thread in question. The thread is about belief, capitalism and hell (with a large tangent about Hannah Arendt's book, which seems to be potentially more relevant than I first thought). The issue of race-based chattel slavery had not been raised on the thread, until you introduced it:
Speaking of terrible 20th century history…
Speaking of hell and capitalism, Thomas Jefferson is probably a darker example, writing a lot of great words about freedom while also producing an unacknowledged child with a slave,
This still looks like a non sequitur to me, and a tenuous connection at best. It involves a contentious topic which can invoke strong feelings. There is a long tradition on these boards of keeping the discussion of such topics in their own space, as they have a habit of derailing discussions. Back to the analogy:
You're giving me a lecture on how fire is hot.
My dear brother in Christ, I have been burned.
I'm afraid I don't find analogies very helpful (cf your Epiphanies thread on names). The following may help to illustrate why:
You previously got too close to a fire, and you got burned. In a place where there wasn't a fire, you start a fire. You get burned again, you resent being told it is inappropriate place to start a fire.
My understanding of the current situation is that the question is not whether the matters are contentious and provoke strong feelings; as whether they tend to involve people with less personal experience speaking over and drowning out people with more personal lived experience.
Slavery is an edge case, as although few people have lived experience, there are substantial communities that still feel the ongoing effects of their ancestors having been enslaved. Furthermore, there are people who want to use the credit for having abolished slavery as an excuse for pretending that those effects aren't still ongoing.
I add also that the Ship has long-standing rules against junior hosting. If you are concerned that a post is on the wrong board or not in line with the rules of the board it's on, you draw a host's attention to it and they decide what to do with it.
Pease contacted the Hell hosts about a post concerning slavery at about the same time, and after discussion we agreed among ourselves that it wasn't going in a direction appropriate for Hell. Why pease didn't pursue the same approach in Purgatory I don't know.
What @Dafyd said, regarding the rules. I think, @pease , if you take his advice, we can stick to polite bickers and disagreements.
If I may say so, it was the junior hosting that pushed me over the line. The way you argue is annoying, but that's something I could've handled appropriately if not for the junior hosting.
To be more transparent, if you understand this, I think I was razzing you about your rhetorical style because it was the easier target. Yelling at you for junior hosting is a host's job and I am not a host. But being petty and bitching about your attitude is something I'm allowed to do.
I do relate to the struggles with tone, for what it's worth. I can't necessarily help you with them but I relate. And if you can avoid telling me how to post I can probably keep things civil.
I add also that the Ship has long-standing rules against junior hosting. If you are concerned that a post is on the wrong board or not in line with the rules of the board it's on, you draw a host's attention to it and they decide what to do with it.
Pease contacted the Hell hosts about a post concerning slavery at about the same time, and after discussion we agreed among ourselves that it wasn't going in a direction appropriate for Hell. Why pease didn't pursue the same approach in Purgatory I don't know.
Lol. The long-standing rules against junior hosting weren't enforced in Purgatory, even when pease drew greater attention to his violation by starting a not at all well thought out thread in Epiphanies.
My understanding of the current situation is that the question is not whether the matters are contentious and provoke strong feelings; as whether they tend to involve people with less personal experience speaking over and drowning out people with more personal lived experience.
Slavery is an edge case, as although few people have lived experience,
Victims of "modern" slavery are currently estimated to number 40-50 million people, worldwide. How many more people does it take before it ceases to be an edge case?
I add also that the Ship has long-standing rules against junior hosting. If you are concerned that a post is on the wrong board or not in line with the rules of the board it's on, you draw a host's attention to it and they decide what to do with it.
I've had a look for it. Are you sure it's a rule and not just a custom?
Pease contacted the Hell hosts about a post concerning slavery at about the same time, and after discussion we agreed among ourselves that it wasn't going in a direction appropriate for Hell. Why pease didn't pursue the same approach in Purgatory I don't know.
Do you intend this to set a precedent for members of Crew unilaterally reporting on what goes on behind the scenes?
If hosting is going to operate with a 24 to 48 hr delay, in heated debates - then I think the ship needs to change how it thinks about “junior hosting”.
There needs to be away of responding to boundary crossing in real-time, without necessarily getting into a flame war in hell. Could we call people to Styx as well as Hell - Today I Call to Styx thread, TICS ?
Otherwise threads veer wildly off course in terms of commandments 3,4 & 5.
I am not taking about tone policing, but rather the situation where there is a clear commandment violation, and then dozens of posts before a hostly response. If you want the community to reflect, reinforce norms of debate, etc - then the community need some way to do that fast, that is accepted as legitimate.
If I may say so, it was the junior hosting that pushed me over the line. The way you argue is annoying, but that's something I could've handled appropriately if not for the junior hosting.
Yup - I get this.
To be more transparent, if you understand this, I think I was razzing you about your rhetorical style because it was the easier target. Yelling at you for junior hosting is a host's job and I am not a host. But being petty and bitching about your attitude is something I'm allowed to do.
Thanks - that makes sense.
I think it also illustrates one of the problems with the current framework, if you felt unable to say the thing you actually wanted to say because you wanted to stay within bounds.
I do relate to the struggles with tone, for what it's worth. I can't necessarily help you with them but I relate. And if you can avoid telling me how to post I can probably keep things civil.
As I don’t think that, no, but I am not going to discuss that in detail in Hell. A wider discussion of how we should or shouldn’t approach junior hosting - and what we recognise that to be.- would also belong in Styx.
I think the current framework works just fine for my needs. I am a big boy and very capable of starting at thread in the Styx if I have a beef with The System. As I have not, understand that I am actually quite happy to accept the authority of the hosts and cheerfully yell at you for being annoying.
I think the current framework works just fine for my needs. I am a big boy and very capable of starting at thread in the Styx if I have a beef with The System. As I have not, understand that I am actually quite happy to accept the authority of the hosts and cheerfully yell at you for being annoying.
My understanding of the current situation is that the question is not whether the matters are contentious and provoke strong feelings; as whether they tend to involve people with less personal experience speaking over and drowning out people with more personal lived experience.
Slavery is an edge case, as although few people have lived experience,
Victims of "modern" slavery are currently estimated to number 40-50 million people, worldwide. How many more people does it take before it ceases to be an edge case?
Firstly, quoting only part of a sentence often seems to me to be point scoring behaviour - especially if the part you quote is not the main clause. I find it rude. It reads like someone interrupting to quibble rather than waiting for one to finish the thought.
Secondly, you yourself said that citing statistics about slavery to make rhetorical points is problematic.
Thirdly and most importantly, this is beside the main point, which is that Epiphanies is there so that people from affected communities can make themselves heard.
I add also that the Ship has long-standing rules against junior hosting. If you are concerned that a post is on the wrong board or not in line with the rules of the board it's on, you draw a host's attention to it and they decide what to do with it.
I've had a look for it. Are you sure it's a rule and not just a custom?
Arguing that the rule against a particular kind of behaviour is not a formal rule but merely a custom reads more like rules lawyering than a concern with constructive conversation.
Pease contacted the Hell hosts about a post concerning slavery at about the same time, and after discussion we agreed among ourselves that it wasn't going in a direction appropriate for Hell. Why pease didn't pursue the same approach in Purgatory I don't know.
Do you intend this to set a precedent for members of Crew unilaterally reporting on what goes on behind the scenes?
I didn't think I went beyond what there is a precedent for. More imporantly, I didn't think I was revealing anything that you hadn't implicitly made public yourself. If I'm wrong - and/or if what I said was not constructive - then I apologise.
You previously got too close to a fire, and you got burned. In a place where there wasn't a fire, you start a fire. You get burned again, you resent being told it is inappropriate place to start a fire.
I think the assumption that @Bullfrog himself started a fire may be part of what's at issue here.
Firstly, quoting only part of a sentence often seems to me to be point scoring behaviour - especially if the part you quote is not the main clause. I find it rude. It reads like someone interrupting to quibble rather than waiting for one to finish the thought.
My understanding of the current situation is that the question is not whether the matters are contentious and provoke strong feelings; as whether they tend to involve people with less personal experience speaking over and drowning out people with more personal lived experience.
I wrote "There is a long tradition on these boards of keeping the discussion of such topics in their own space". Before Epiphanies, there was Dead Horses. Many of the issues are the same, and continue to provoke strong feelings. Epiphanies switches whose voices are prioritised.
Slavery is an edge case, as although few people have lived experience, there are substantial communities that still feel the ongoing effects of their ancestors having been enslaved. Furthermore, there are people who want to use the credit for having abolished slavery as an excuse for pretending that those effects aren't still ongoing.
Victims of "modern" slavery are currently estimated to number 40-50 million people, worldwide. How many more people does it take before it ceases to be an edge case?
Furthermore, given that there are significant numbers of people still suffering from the effects of historic slavery as well as a significant numbers of people suffering from slavery right now, how is slavery an edge case?
Secondly, you yourself said that citing statistics about slavery to make rhetorical points is problematic.
In my book, there's a significant difference between referring to a specific enslaved person in order to make a point about hypocrisy, and quoting a statistic about slavery in order to make a point about discussing slavery.
Thirdly and most importantly, this is beside the main point, which is that Epiphanies is there so that people from affected communities can make themselves heard.
Well, yes. So why do you say that slavery is an edge case?
I add also that the Ship has long-standing rules against junior hosting. If you are concerned that a post is on the wrong board or not in line with the rules of the board it's on, you draw a host's attention to it and they decide what to do with it.
I've had a look for it. Are you sure it's a rule and not just a custom?
Arguing that the rule against a particular kind of behaviour is not a formal rule but merely a custom reads more like rules lawyering than a concern with constructive conversation.
Interesting. You call junior hosting a rule, point out that I'm breaking it, and then say I'm the one who's rules lawyering…
A rules lawyer is a term used to describe a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment.
Pease contacted the Hell hosts about a post concerning slavery at about the same time, and after discussion we agreed among ourselves that it wasn't going in a direction appropriate for Hell. Why pease didn't pursue the same approach in Purgatory I don't know.
Do you intend this to set a precedent for members of Crew unilaterally reporting on what goes on behind the scenes?
I didn't think I went beyond what there is a precedent for. More imporantly, I didn't think I was revealing anything that you hadn't implicitly made public yourself. If I'm wrong - and/or if what I said was not constructive - then I apologise.
The word "implicitly" is doing some heavy lifting, but I'm happy to leave it there.
For those who were not here, no Hell was not something that seemed like a good idea at the time. It was a good idea, a contained fire, instead of a fire all over the boards. It gave a space for taking up grievances publicly, but in a policed way. In a perfect world, we would not need it, but we are not perfect denizens on the ship yet. I have too many bad habits for starters.
As is noted above, if you call someone to Hell, four things can happen:
A pile on them
A pile on you
They get in with an apology before either happens, in which case the peanut gallery takes over until the hosts close the thread.
You regret it, in which case you pm host asking for its closure, and you post on the thread to say so. You may still get piled on, so may the person you called, but there is a good chance it will be closed before that happens.
You take the odds when you post. Over the years, the odds of the thread starter being piled on have grown higher. So the number of Hell calls has dropped. If this increase in the risk of creating a pile on yourself continues, eventually Hell calls will exist technically, but no one will risk starting one. Whether we will at some point in this process see bad behaviour, including junior hosting and piling on threads where an offence is perceived, spreading across the other boards, only time will tell.
Ship of Fools is a smaller, more sedate ship than she was when this was instituted. I do not predict the future.
Could we take any further discussion of ship’s business to Styx please.
Doublethink, Admin
Repeating myself here. [/Admin]
Doublethink,
It may be very clear to you which particular aspects of this are Ship's business, and which aspects are the settling of "a complaint, a rant or a personal argument", but I've lost track. And from where I stand, the framing is indisputably a call to Hell naming me, and a sub-thread started by Dafyd.
How about *you* either spell out what the Ship's business is on a post here, or start one or more threads in Styx if you think there is salient Ship's business that can be productively discussed there?
It's a tradition - the public airing of grievances in a designated space. As with the origins of most traditions, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
For those who were not here, no Hell was not something that seemed like a good idea at the time. It was a good idea, a contained fire, instead of a fire all over the boards. It gave a space for taking up grievances publicly, but in a policed way. In a perfect world, we would not need it, but we are not perfect denizens on the ship yet. I have too many bad habits for starters.
Thanks Jengie Jon, I appreciated your post. Less flippantly, the ship's innovative reconceptualisation of Hell was one of the reasons I agreed to help out in the first place.
You take the odds when you post. Over the years, the odds of the thread starter being piled on have grown higher. So the number of Hell calls has dropped. If this increase in the risk of creating a pile on yourself continues, eventually Hell calls will exist technically, but no one will risk starting one.
As with many people here, you assume that everyone has a similar response to being named and shamed. As I've already pointed out, this is decreasingly the case.
Whether we will at some point in this process see bad behaviour, including junior hosting and piling on threads where an offence is perceived, spreading across the other boards, only time will tell.
Interesting thought.
Ship of Fools is a smaller, more sedate ship than she was when this was instituted. I do not predict the future.
I've been contemplating the future of the Ship for a number of years.
Discussing why we have Hell, and how we do or don’t shouldn’t/shouldn’t manage junior hosting are ship’s business topics. Because they are policy topics.
You previously got too close to a fire, and you got burned. In a place where there wasn't a fire, you start a fire. You get burned again, you resent being told it is inappropriate place to start a fire.
I think the assumption that @Bullfrog himself started a fire may be part of what's at issue here.
I'll take credit for being an accelerant, by that metaphor.
Slavery is an edge case, as although few people have lived experience, there are substantial communities that still feel the ongoing effects of their ancestors having been enslaved. Furthermore, there are people who want to use the credit for having abolished slavery as an excuse for pretending that those effects aren't still ongoing.
Victims of "modern" slavery are currently estimated to number 40-50 million people, worldwide. How many more people does it take before it ceases to be an edge case?
I was thinking primarily of legalised slavery. You are correct that a lot of people are affected by modern legal slavery.
The legal trans-Atlantic slave trade, to be more precise than I was previously, is not something of which anyone alive has personal experience. One might think that therefore it falls outside the scope of Epiphanies. However, one would be wrong; it falls within the scope of Epiphanies because its effects are still felt by a lot of people whose voice might be drowned out. That is what I mean by calling it an edge case - one that one might think falls outside Epiphanies but which nevertheless does fall within the scope of Epiphanies.
I don't believe the number of people affected by an issue has any bearing on whether the issue is an Epiphanies issue, but clearly if I'm wrong the place to tell me is the Styx.
You ask me twice in your post why I call it an edge case, like a lawyer conducting a cross-examination. That comes over as adversarial.
I've had a look for it. Are you sure it's a rule and not just a custom?
Arguing that the rule against a particular kind of behaviour is not a formal rule but merely a custom reads more like rules lawyering than a concern with constructive conversation.
Interesting. You call junior hosting a rule, point out that I'm breaking it, and then say I'm the one who's rules lawyering…
I am telling you how you come across.
If I stray into phrasing that asserts how your posts are, or worse, how you are, rather than how your posts seem, I apologise.
And, yes, it does seem to me that the distinction between an enforceable rule and merely an unenforceable custom is only relevant to the letter of the law and very little relevant to the spirit.
The legal trans-Atlantic slave trade, to be more precise than I was previously, is not something of which anyone alive has personal experience. One might think that therefore it falls outside the scope of Epiphanies. However, one would be wrong; it falls within the scope of Epiphanies because its effects are still felt by a lot of people whose voice might be drowned out. That is what I mean by calling it an edge case - one that one might think falls outside Epiphanies but which nevertheless does fall within the scope of Epiphanies.
I agree that it falls within within the scope of Epiphanies. Unfortunately, this is not what the term "edge case" means, even closely. An edge case is "a problem or situation that occurs only at an extreme (maximum or minimum) operating parameter". It's an engineering term. There's nothing to stop such terms being used in other fields, but it helps to use it in at least an approximation of the engineering sense if you want people to understand what you mean, instead of the meaning of the words you use.
I don't believe the number of people affected by an issue has any bearing on whether the issue is an Epiphanies issue,
I agree with this too.
You ask me twice in your post why I call it an edge case, like a lawyer conducting a cross-examination. That comes over as adversarial.
Actually, it was three times. And now that you've explained why you used the term, I understand what you mean.
I am telling you how you come across.
If I stray into phrasing that asserts how your posts are, or worse, how you are, rather than how your posts seem, I apologise.
The distinction between "how I come across" and "how I am" seems rather nuanced.
And I don't think the distinction is significant, because:
A tone argument (also called tone policing) is a type of ad hominem aimed at the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content in order to dismiss a person's argument. Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement, a tone argument instead focuses on the emotion with which it is expressed. This is a logical fallacy …
The proliferation of social media platforms has contributed to the prevalence of tone policing in online discussions, particularly in contexts characterized by brevity and anonymity. In these digital environments, there is an increased focus on tone over substantive arguments.
And, yes, it does seem to me that the distinction between an enforceable rule and merely an unenforceable custom is only relevant to the letter of the law and very little relevant to the spirit.
On one level, I can see how you get there. On another level, I note that this is not a harmless argument, when you take into account how it affects people who have customs that differ from the people who enforce rules.
Fun fact #2: When I used to taunt @Marvin the Martian with surprise images of spiders (we're both arachnophobes), my then-wife could tell because of all the horrified screaming coming from my computer loft as I searched for candidates. And she would yell at me "Stop being mean to Marv! He already has to put up with you enough."
It’s a little weird to know that someone I’ve never met or interacted with in any way whatsoever (i.e. your then-wife) nevertheless knew enough about me to react like that.
Pardon the projection, but - I think we² meant well.
Reference the series Letterkenny to get a sense of the deeply Canadian art of competitive insulting, also known as "chirping". It is what I though I found when stumbled into Hell, and what I enjoyed practicing.
For what it’s worth, that’s pretty much how i approached Hellhosting as well. Partly a game of “come up with the best insults”, partly providing the denizens with entertainment, and partly maintaining the right atmosphere on the board.
What I've come to realize, entirely too late, is that there are some unspoken assumptions involved. One, is that while creatively insulting someone can be a sign of respect for their acumen and an invitation to vent and play, to anyone not versed in such purile hijinks it just looks like dropping your pants like an idiot and flashing everyone your bits. Two, is the assumption that everyone on this then-new medium had equal access and ability to participate. How wrong I was about this is my own fault, and so wildly untrue that there is no atonement possible.
When it comes to assumption 2 you were still ahead of me, mate. It took me fartoofuckinglong to properly grok that I was interacting with real people here rather than conversational NPCs. Even after going to several Shipmeets.
Meanwhile, it hurts what I call my soul that there are so few people worthy of chirping with here now³, AND a surplus of folks blind to their own privilege who provide only complaints.
I both agree and suspect I’m one of the ones in the latter category.
@Marvin the Martian : I think we might be on some kind of weird collision course, though I feel like I'm in a younger cadre than y'all. Like I came late to the party with a different set of habits. And I think I learned a lot of my own social habits from the mistakes of the earlier ship. So I'd be too hypersensitive to conflict to get properly hellish at first and am now learning how to play that game. "Chirping" is a wonderful expression that I recently learned.
It's kind of intriguing. Trouble is I'm rather old, tired, and I've learned a little too much by watching you old masters beat the tar out of each other. It is rather stupid. And - the paradoxically erudite "hick" that I am - I've written enough ridiculous essays about my absolutely bizarre relationship with privilege. Merely achieving some kind of self awareness about my own sociopolitical situation requires some kind of master's level education in social science, which gives me a lot of empathy with people who struggle with it. Once you crack the shell of "white guy" a whole lot of crap starts flooding out. It's fun.
Comments
Dropped you a PM. Yes, that was an intentional reference. Good to see you again!
That said if you want to discuss something thoughtfully, without being interrupted by less thoughtful posts, Purgatory is the place.
Secondly, don't presume that Bullfrog needs to remember things that he's said at least twice that he deals with regularly.
I'm afraid I don't find your second point very useful. It tells me you think that I should be doing something differently, but not what I need to change about the wording of the post.
Putting the point differently:
This isn't just a question of what white Americans can do now to remember and respect the people most affected by race-based chattel slavery, it's also about what white people living in societies dealing with the consequences of race-based chattel slavery can do to respect and remember the people most affected.
Different countries have dealt with these consequences in different ways, and so have ended up living in differing circumstances today, but I think there is still a lot of communality between the responses we can make.
Secondly, frankly, if you keep on doing what you're doing with no change in apparent attitude, no amount of tweaks to the wording are going to help. If someone is trying to relate to you on the level of rational adult equals, and you relate to them as a moral superior teaching those on a lower level, then you are always going to get their back up no matter what wording you use. The relational position of a moral (or indeed rational) superior has to be earned and granted, not assumed. And if you haven't earned, no wording is going to fix it.
So...what's it to you? Where you from? So far it looks like you're mostly speaking in rules and principles like a college professor.
I'm not mad anymore, but allow me to attempt an analogy to explain my frustration with your approach to communication:
You're giving me a lecture on how fire is hot.
My dear brother in Christ, I have been burned.
Thank you, @Dafyd , for restoring my faith in my ability to communicate. I was starting to wonder there if it was me.
You both seem to be assuming that I can hear my own tone. That's not something I've ever been very good at. I'm better at hearing other people's tone, but I try to look past this, as I find it gets in the way of hearing and understanding their arguments.
My understanding is that the tone I've ended up with is the one that people find least objectionable while still being capable of communicating ideas. Based on copious feedback from interlocutors, I have more relaxed tones, but people find them utterly incomprehensible if I try to communicate what I'm thinking. I have more severe tones, which just leaves everyone wanting to be somewhere else.
Before I address your analogy, here's my take on what happened on the thread in question. The thread is about belief, capitalism and hell (with a large tangent about Hannah Arendt's book, which seems to be potentially more relevant than I first thought). The issue of race-based chattel slavery had not been raised on the thread, until you introduced it: This still looks like a non sequitur to me, and a tenuous connection at best. It involves a contentious topic which can invoke strong feelings. There is a long tradition on these boards of keeping the discussion of such topics in their own space, as they have a habit of derailing discussions. Back to the analogy:
I'm afraid I don't find analogies very helpful (cf your Epiphanies thread on names). The following may help to illustrate why:
You previously got too close to a fire, and you got burned. In a place where there wasn't a fire, you start a fire. You get burned again, you resent being told it is inappropriate place to start a fire.
Slavery is an edge case, as although few people have lived experience, there are substantial communities that still feel the ongoing effects of their ancestors having been enslaved. Furthermore, there are people who want to use the credit for having abolished slavery as an excuse for pretending that those effects aren't still ongoing.
I add also that the Ship has long-standing rules against junior hosting. If you are concerned that a post is on the wrong board or not in line with the rules of the board it's on, you draw a host's attention to it and they decide what to do with it.
Pease contacted the Hell hosts about a post concerning slavery at about the same time, and after discussion we agreed among ourselves that it wasn't going in a direction appropriate for Hell. Why pease didn't pursue the same approach in Purgatory I don't know.
If I may say so, it was the junior hosting that pushed me over the line. The way you argue is annoying, but that's something I could've handled appropriately if not for the junior hosting.
To be more transparent, if you understand this, I think I was razzing you about your rhetorical style because it was the easier target. Yelling at you for junior hosting is a host's job and I am not a host. But being petty and bitching about your attitude is something I'm allowed to do.
I do relate to the struggles with tone, for what it's worth. I can't necessarily help you with them but I relate. And if you can avoid telling me how to post I can probably keep things civil.
I think we're ok. Can we move on now?
Lol. The long-standing rules against junior hosting weren't enforced in Purgatory, even when pease drew greater attention to his violation by starting a not at all well thought out thread in Epiphanies.
I've had a look for it. Are you sure it's a rule and not just a custom?
Do you intend this to set a precedent for members of Crew unilaterally reporting on what goes on behind the scenes?
On Junior Hosting, I note that back in 2020:
Doublethink, Admin
Thanks - that makes sense.
I think it also illustrates one of the problems with the current framework, if you felt unable to say the thing you actually wanted to say because you wanted to stay within bounds.
Yup.
So you can tell us the reason hosts didn't act is that they're busy people and by the time they were ready to act the thread had moved on? No.
Any further discussion of this issue needs to happen on the Hosts forum in the first instance.
Doublethink, Admin
I think the current framework works just fine for my needs. I am a big boy and very capable of starting at thread in the Styx if I have a beef with The System. As I have not, understand that I am actually quite happy to accept the authority of the hosts and cheerfully yell at you for being annoying.
Secondly, you yourself said that citing statistics about slavery to make rhetorical points is problematic.
Thirdly and most importantly, this is beside the main point, which is that Epiphanies is there so that people from affected communities can make themselves heard.
Arguing that the rule against a particular kind of behaviour is not a formal rule but merely a custom reads more like rules lawyering than a concern with constructive conversation.
I didn't think I went beyond what there is a precedent for. More imporantly, I didn't think I was revealing anything that you hadn't implicitly made public yourself. If I'm wrong - and/or if what I said was not constructive - then I apologise.
I think the assumption that @Bullfrog himself started a fire may be part of what's at issue here.
Victims of "modern" slavery are currently estimated to number 40-50 million people, worldwide. How many more people does it take before it ceases to be an edge case?
Furthermore, given that there are significant numbers of people still suffering from the effects of historic slavery as well as a significant numbers of people suffering from slavery right now, how is slavery an edge case?
In my book, there's a significant difference between referring to a specific enslaved person in order to make a point about hypocrisy, and quoting a statistic about slavery in order to make a point about discussing slavery.
Well, yes. So why do you say that slavery is an edge case?
Interesting. You call junior hosting a rule, point out that I'm breaking it, and then say I'm the one who's rules lawyering… The word "implicitly" is doing some heavy lifting, but I'm happy to leave it there.
That's OK. Bit late to the party, but glad you could make it.
As is noted above, if you call someone to Hell, four things can happen:
You take the odds when you post. Over the years, the odds of the thread starter being piled on have grown higher. So the number of Hell calls has dropped. If this increase in the risk of creating a pile on yourself continues, eventually Hell calls will exist technically, but no one will risk starting one. Whether we will at some point in this process see bad behaviour, including junior hosting and piling on threads where an offence is perceived, spreading across the other boards, only time will tell.
Ship of Fools is a smaller, more sedate ship than she was when this was instituted. I do not predict the future.
Repeating myself here.
Doublethink,Admin
[/Admin]
It may be very clear to you which particular aspects of this are Ship's business, and which aspects are the settling of "a complaint, a rant or a personal argument", but I've lost track. And from where I stand, the framing is indisputably a call to Hell naming me, and a sub-thread started by Dafyd.
How about *you* either spell out what the Ship's business is on a post here, or start one or more threads in Styx if you think there is salient Ship's business that can be productively discussed there?
As with many people here, you assume that everyone has a similar response to being named and shamed. As I've already pointed out, this is decreasingly the case.
Interesting thought.
I've been contemplating the future of the Ship for a number of years.
Doublethink, Admin
I'll take credit for being an accelerant, by that metaphor.
The legal trans-Atlantic slave trade, to be more precise than I was previously, is not something of which anyone alive has personal experience. One might think that therefore it falls outside the scope of Epiphanies. However, one would be wrong; it falls within the scope of Epiphanies because its effects are still felt by a lot of people whose voice might be drowned out. That is what I mean by calling it an edge case - one that one might think falls outside Epiphanies but which nevertheless does fall within the scope of Epiphanies.
I don't believe the number of people affected by an issue has any bearing on whether the issue is an Epiphanies issue, but clearly if I'm wrong the place to tell me is the Styx.
You ask me twice in your post why I call it an edge case, like a lawyer conducting a cross-examination. That comes over as adversarial.
I am telling you how you come across.
If I stray into phrasing that asserts how your posts are, or worse, how you are, rather than how your posts seem, I apologise.
And, yes, it does seem to me that the distinction between an enforceable rule and merely an unenforceable custom is only relevant to the letter of the law and very little relevant to the spirit.
I agree with this too.
Actually, it was three times. And now that you've explained why you used the term, I understand what you mean.
The distinction between "how I come across" and "how I am" seems rather nuanced.
And I don't think the distinction is significant, because: . On one level, I can see how you get there. On another level, I note that this is not a harmless argument, when you take into account how it affects people who have customs that differ from the people who enforce rules.
It’s a little weird to know that someone I’ve never met or interacted with in any way whatsoever (i.e. your then-wife) nevertheless knew enough about me to react like that.
Is this what fame feels like?
For what it’s worth, that’s pretty much how i approached Hellhosting as well. Partly a game of “come up with the best insults”, partly providing the denizens with entertainment, and partly maintaining the right atmosphere on the board.
When it comes to assumption 2 you were still ahead of me, mate. It took me fartoofuckinglong to properly grok that I was interacting with real people here rather than conversational NPCs. Even after going to several Shipmeets.
I both agree and suspect I’m one of the ones in the latter category.
It's kind of intriguing. Trouble is I'm rather old, tired, and I've learned a little too much by watching you old masters beat the tar out of each other. It is rather stupid. And - the paradoxically erudite "hick" that I am - I've written enough ridiculous essays about my absolutely bizarre relationship with privilege. Merely achieving some kind of self awareness about my own sociopolitical situation requires some kind of master's level education in social science, which gives me a lot of empathy with people who struggle with it. Once you crack the shell of "white guy" a whole lot of crap starts flooding out. It's fun.
Ouch.
Oof, my bad. I wasn't intending that.