Dear Niall

[Dave.]

So?

 

So someone who tries to fill in the blanks on complex social situations normally gets it wrong and can end up stirring shit that none need stir.

[Seaking]

So someone who tries to fill in the blanks on complex social situations normally gets it wrong and can end up stirring shit that none need stir.

 

I get your point but it all comes back to this being a public forum (the pub example) where members can post in any thread they want. So every thread has to conform to the same set of rules and people can't do things that can offend others just because they are in their section of the board.

[Max]

So someone who tries to fill in the blanks on complex social situations normally gets it wrong and can end up stirring shit that none need stir.

 

Two things. First of all, anyone who is reporting something that they think is offensive doesn't do it with the attitude of a shit stirrer. Second of all, the term 'complex social situations' is perhaps being a tad too dramatic.

[Dave.]

I get your point but it all comes back to this being a public forum (the pub example) where members can post in any thread they want. So every thread has to conform to the same set of rules and people can't do things that can offend others just because they are in their section of the board.

 

Thats the thing. Certain things (words, phrases, actions etc.) can interpreted differently in different social situations. Alex's use of ironic ignorance is something that doesn't bother the people whom Alex intends on seeing said post.

[Dave.]

Two things. First of all, anyone who is reporting something that they think is offensive doesn't do it with the attitude of a shit stirrer. Second of all, the term 'complex social situations' is perhaps being a tad too dramatic.

 

Most of the people who make up the main bulk of KnT are people who have been there for a minimum of 2 years. Do you really think that in two years social situations remain basic? And since the person who reported the post is apparently outside of this main bulk they're perception of the content can vary from that of the intend viewers and the poster.

[Dave.]

Seriously. Some people...

[Banksy.]

I'd argue some of the comments that have made in the aftermath of the ban have been far more offensive or threatening than the original comment. If we're taking posts at face value than maybe the threat of glassing people should have been taken more seriously. I don't really find that funny in any way, and maybe people should consider what effect actions like that have had on other people's personal lives before they make posts like that, regardless of how they actually feel - it could offend people that weren't the target of the threat/joke w/e.

[Max]

Most of the people who make up the main bulk of KnT are people who have been there for a minimum of 2 years. Do you really think that in two years social situations remain basic?

 

When I think of the term 'complex social situation', I think of instances where someone with a speaking or language difficulty is finding it difficult to express what it is they want to say with a more 'normal' human being. I'm not sure matey banter (not using that term in a derogatorily way, it's just the best way to describe it) that goes beyond simple 'hello' greetings qualifies as complex. But that's just my perspective on the term.

 

And since the person who reported the post is apparently outside of this main bulk they're perception of the content can vary from that of the intend viewers and the poster.

 

Sadly, that's how the internet works, kind of. People often forget that they are on a public forum and lose sight of the fact that some of the stuff they're saying might upset/offend someone somewhere. There's an argument to be made that people still say these things because they know that no one is going to turn up to their house and confront them about it, therefore it is easier to get away with it...but either way, it's up to the people saying these things to think about the shit they are saying. I'm not saying that everyone should be walking on a tightrope but there should be a fair amount of common sense applied.

[Dave.]

When I think of the term 'complex social situation', I think of instances where someone with a speaking or language difficulty is finding it difficult to express what it is they want to say with a more 'normal' human being. I'm not sure matey banter (not using that term in a derogatorily way, it's just the best way to describe it) that goes beyond simple 'hello' greetings qualifies as complex. But that's just my perspective on the term.

When I talk about complex social situation I mean situations where there is a back story of interaction between each person involved in the situation. In KnT we are beyond 'Hello' greetings (unless someone is new). I look through the list of top posters in the GG&T thread and I can remember particular things about them and experiences I've had with said person, like you would a group of friends. In the same way Banter is complex KnT is complex.

 

Sadly, that's how the internet works, kind of. People often forget that they are on a public forum and lose sight of the fact that some of the stuff they're saying might upset/offend someone somewhere. There's an argument to be made that people still say these things because they know that no one is going to turn up to their house and confront them about it, therefore it is easier to get away with it...but either way, it's up to the people saying these things to think about the shit they are saying. I'm not saying that everyone should be walking on a tightrope but there should be a fair amount of common sense applied.

Theres also the argument that things aren't always what they seem. If someone is offended by something said or posted among friends or a group of people who know each other then they can be offended but in this situation digging a bit deeper into the history behind the people involved would perhaps change the persons perspective.

 

I am not arguing that people can't be offended. But I am arguing that this particular situation has been taken way out of context and is being de-railed into far more important social issues for no reason. The people arguing against Alex's ban or at least the length of his ban aren't homophobic. We aren't racists. We are people who see someone we know being poorly and unfairly treated and want to defend him against such injustice.

[Max]

Theres also the argument that things aren't always what they seem. If someone is offended by something said or posted among friends or a group of people who know each other then they can be offended but in this situation digging a bit deeper into the history behind the people involved would perhaps change the persons perspective.

 

I am not arguing that people can't be offended. But I am arguing that this particular situation has been taken way out of context and is being de-railed into far more important social issues for no reason. The people arguing against Alex's ban or at least the length of his ban aren't homophobic. We aren't racists. We people who see someone we know being poorly and unfairly treated and want to defend him against such injustice.

 

The problem is though that, and this might be a generalisation, when people are offended by something said by someone they largely don't know, they honestly won't give a shit about the history behind the people involved. They just see it as 'someone said something I find reprehensible, something should be done'. Hence why I say that people need to be careful about they say on public forums like this. Not everyone has the time or care in the world to research the meaning behind what's being said.

[Clom]

People need to lighten up for Christ's sake. I agree that gay shouldn't be used as an insult, but the original post was essentially mocking people who use it in that context, can't comprehend how THAT could warrant a year long ban (inb4 "points system", "hipster irony", fuck off.) Perhaps I'm just de-sensitised from offense, but i really do think people should joke about these things, they're serious matters yes, but they're normal human things and therefore should be joked about imo.

 

Concerning words like gay and mental, i think it's just ettomology isn't it, that's how the words have evolved. "Mental" is no longer solely associated with mental illness, it now is also synonymous with "crazy", the word has evolved.

 

Sorry if this makes no sense, I'm prettttyyy drunk right now.

[Seaking]

We aren't homophobic. We aren't racists. We are people who see someone we know being poorly and unfairly treated and want to defend him against such injustice.

 

This sounds so epic.

 

TV show pls.

[FabriPav]

Calum is drunk but wise.

[Clom]

I was just typing an argument and realised I'd used the phrase "i have gay friends." Ugh, i really have no idea where I stand on this issue.

[Max]

People need to lighten up for Christ's sake. I agree that gay shouldn't be used as an insult, but the original post was essentially mocking people who use it in that context, can't comprehend how THAT could warrant a year long ban (inb4 "points system", "hipster irony", fuck off.) Perhaps I'm just de-sensitised from offense, but i really do think people should joke about these things, they're serious matters yes, but they're normal human things and therefore should be joked about imo.

 

Jokes about serious matters can be done, it's just that they're often incredibly difficult to pull off properly. For every one good, well-constructed and thought out joke about a serious subject, there are ten shit/lazy ones that will, because it's on a serious subject, look awful.

[Dave.]

The problem is though that, and this might be a generalisation, when people are offended by something said by someone they largely don't know, they honestly won't give a shit about the history behind the people involved. They just see it as 'someone said something I find reprehensible, something should be done'. Hence why I say that people need to be careful about they say on public forums like this. Not everyone has the time or care in the world to research the meaning behind what's being said.

 

I completely understand what you are saying. Yes, this is a public forum and yes anyone can see the post that was made. And of course not everyone has the time to research the history behind people but what I am saying is that ignoring the context of the situation is a dangerous line to toe.

For example. Someone is walking down the street and they hear someone say "Thats retarded" they run up to them and explain to the person that they have an handicapped relative and they find derogatory use of the term retarded offensive. But when context is given to the situation the person finds out that the person who said "Thats retarded" meant it in its original meaning underdeveloped or under performing as in "My car is retarded, its meant to do 65 miles to the gallon but only for 20" then the person may not be offended or at least may be able to accept the persons use of the word.

 

What has happened in this situation is that Alex used gay in a negative fashion is response to a statement that Alex was "childish". He used it ironically and in may was comparing the use of the word gay in a negative light to childish or immature behavior. Alex was not trying to claim that homosexuals are wrong or anything or the sort.

[Clom]

Jokes about serious matters can be done, it's just that they're often incredibly difficult to pull off properly. For every one good, well-constructed and thought out joke about a serious subject, there are ten shit/lazy ones that will, because it's on a serious subject, look awful.

 

And i don't think this specific joke did look awful. It wasn't hilarious no, but it was a quick response to a comment that worked fine in context. In reality the joke wasn't really even on a serious matter, it wasn't mocking homosexuality, it was mocking immaturity in regards to homosexuality.

[Max]

I completely understand what you are saying. Yes, this is a public forum and yes anyone can see the post that was made. And of course not everyone has the time to research the history behind people but what I am saying is that ignoring the context of the situation is a dangerous line to toe.

For example. Someone is walking down the street and they hear someone say "Thats retarded" they run up to them and explain to the person that they have an handicapped relative and they find derogatory use of the term retarded offensive. But when context is given to the situation the person finds out that the person who said "Thats retarded" meant it in its original meaning underdeveloped or under performing as in "My car is retarded, its meant to do 65 miles to the gallon but only for 20" then the person may not be offended or at least may be able to accept the persons use of the word.

 

What has happened in this situation is that Alex used gay in a negative fashion is response to a statement that Alex was "childish". He used it ironically and in may was comparing the use of the word gay in a negative light to childish or immature behavior. Alex was not trying to claim that homosexuals are wrong or anything or the sort.

 

In that situation though, there's also the possibility that the offended party might not give a crap over what context the word was said in if they think that the word shouldn't be used at all.

 

I'd also argue on the internet things like irony, sarcasm, etc. are much harder to detect, hence why people may have reacted strongly to Alex's post.

 

And i don't think this specific joke did look awful. It wasn't hilarious no, but it was a quick response to a comment that worked fine in context. In reality the joke wasn't really even on a serious matter, it wasn't mocking homosexuality, it was mocking immaturity in regards to homosexuality.

 

See above.

[Banksy.]

at least Max's sig is appropriate with regards to this situation

[Dave.]

In that situation though, there's also the possibility that the offended party might not give a crap over what context the word was said in if they think that the word shouldn't be used at all.

 

I'd also argue on the internet things like irony, sarcasm, etc. are much harder to detect, hence why people may have reacted strongly to Alex's post.

 

In that case then the offended party is being very ignorant.

 

Then theres the argument that people shouldn't be trigger happy with the report button. Don't assume something before you bring it to an authoritative body. Get your facts straight and be sure of your evidence. It can save you a lot of embarrassment and if you're correct then it gives your argument strong foundations on which to stand.

[Clom]

You'd have to be a fucking idiot to miss the jokey intention in Alex's post. (coming from someone that has never interacted with him or posted in K&T)

[Max]

at least Max's sig is appropriate with regards to this situation

 

Hey, don't bring the Greenwoods into this!

 

Anyway, I'm bloody tired so have to call time on this conversation. It's been illuminating.

[Dave.]

You'd have to be a fucking idiot to miss the jokey intention in Alex's post. (coming from someone that has never interacted with him or posted in K&T)

I agree, even just looking at his previous post to the 'offending' post. He had perfect spelling and grammar and then went to "U r a willy head and r gay".

Hey, don't bring the Greenwoods into this!

 

Anyway, I'm bloody tired so have to call time on this conversation. It's been illuminating.

This has been going on for about 3 hours now. I'm freaking knackered

[FabriPav]

In that situation though, there's also the possibility that the offended party might not give a crap over what context the word was said in if they think that the word shouldn't be used at all.

 

I'd also argue on the internet things like irony, sarcasm, etc. are much harder to detect, hence why people may have reacted strongly to Alex's post.

 

Their fault.

 

And yes, sometimes it's hard to detect but this time it wasn't.

[kueller]

This sounds so epic.

 

TV show pls.

 

Here, I made a wallpaper. Complete with Helvetica and horrible placement.

 

http://i.imgur.com/SkotaIH.jpg