Heero(dom male)
|
3 months ago •
Aug 21, 2024
3 months ago •
Aug 21, 2024
Oh boy, I suspect this will end up being one of my loooong posts. Ah, well. I haven't been responding much in the forums for a while; I can do this and go back into hibernation.
In an attempt to keep things as short as possible, there are thoughts that I will not voice because I see other posters having very similar positions to my own on this topic. In a similar vein, I may occasionally echo something that has already been said, and may not acknowledge this in the moment. Generally, my position will line up well with the postings, thus far, of: LL, MisterAshmodai, Steellover, and Bunnie. However, it is my intention here to offer something novel to the discussion and highlight some angles that may not have been considered.
It is my personal belief, that sometimes we need to take a step back and take a look at things from a higher level, lest we miss the forest for the trees, and get too caught up in emotions. Hence some of my thoughts will be of "a general nature". I have a pension for deductive reasoning (could be how my mind works, could be due at least in part to occupational hazard), and I find that it has served me well.
To get the super personal out of the way:
* I don't feel the need to go where I'm not wanted:
As Steellover mentioned, I think if there are extenuating circumstances that would compel me to respond to something (it being inherently unsafe, for e.g.) then I will respond. Otherwise, I do not feel the need to give my opinion if someone doesn't want it. For various reasons, I do not see it as healthy or prudent to force my inclusion into something, unless there is a very important reason to do so. Responding to a forum post on the cage is not an inalienable human right. People can live very fulfilling and happy lives even if they've never seen or responded to any forum post on the cage. If someone is not being actively and specifically barred from participating in a discussion, I tend to leave it be and believe this to be a healthier approach in many ways.
* Life is hard enough, no need to make it harder:
There are enough things in life to raise my blood pressure and cause me stress. Assuming that a poster had ill intent posting something, and getting riled up over it doesn't seem worth it to me. At best, this is wasted effort, because someone with ill intentions will eventually reveal themselves. I need not force the issue if there is no extenuating circumstance compelling me to do so. So I agree with Bunnie here. Many who are sensitive to a certain topic will jump to conclusions and assume the worst about a poster without really knowing about the intentions or faculties of the poster. I do not think this is healthy or good for anyone involved.
* No one is 100% bad:
There are very few people who really intend to be assholes. Most of us are doing what we think is "right". It's not always the case that we are right, that's why we live and learn. But something I have seen with increasing frequency here, and it concerns me, is that a user with an unpopular opinion in one sphere/topic, will be "blacklisted", and then if they make a post about any other topic, the worst is assumed about their intentions automatically. It may well be the case that someone is on the wrong side of a topic, but that does not mean they will be on the wrong side of *every* topic. We are all right and wrong about some things. And many forget this, and needlessly hate on other users and create a negative environment which they themselves claim to want to combat.
* Life is too short to take everything too seriously:
Some things in life should be taken seriously. Other things, not so much. Someone likes pineapple on their pizza? Likes the color green? Loves heavy metal music? Wants the opinion of specific people to a question that they have? Chill! Yes, even if you disagree with all those opinions. Chill. It is not that serious. And, contrary to seemingly popular belief, you are NOT creating a safe and inviting space by getting up in arms about everything you disagree with.
* There are so many better alternatives:
Let's say you really believe that a post should be more inclusive, or is missing a vital component where the discussion is greatly hurt by not having it. Could there possibly be a better way to deal with that than hating on the OP? Seriously. Take a moment to think about this. Is your goal inclusivity for everyone EXCEPT the OP? No? So, is there a better way to respond?
Heck, let's even appeal to the golden rule. If you made a short-sighted post, would you want the forum to throw flames on you? Get up in arms about your opinion or thoughts? Assume the worst about you or your intentions, and then stick that reputation on you whenever you post about anything at all? Would that feel inclusive to you?
Is there a better way to respond within a post when you see something amiss? Maybe to say something like "Hey, I know you asked for these people's opinion, but in my experience they tend to have this blindside that I think you should be concerned about, so I just want to put my two cents here:" Or perhaps, would it be better to just open up another forum post to deal with some blindsides that concern you? Much like lambsone did here (https://thecage.co/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5993) with this very forum discussion? Could that possibly be better than asserting someone is a bigot or shortsighted or being exclusionary? Think about what environment would be created if most people were one of these ways vs another.
If you're really concerned with making a more inclusive and inviting cage, and claim to put a lot of effort into championing this cause, could it possibly be worth the effort to come up with better alternatives than to respond with vitriol? I think there are many better alternatives, but I leave it to you to come up with your own. My advice would be to give the poster the benefit of the doubt, until and unless that poster directly removes said doubt.
Someone not being as inclusive as they can possibly be (by whatever metric you have in your mind) is not the same as them being deliberately exclusionary or bigoted or backwards or a creator of a negative environment. I think MisterAshmodai said something to this effect also. Many times, it is an ASSUMPTION that they are being exclusionary, and not the case or intent of the poster. Then a lot of negativity is thrown at the poster, who now has to defend themself and it becomes quite the off-topic shitshow.
And even if the poster is deliberately being exclusionary for the purpose of their question, there is no issue if it is done respectfully and without ill intent. And there is a better way to handle it than starting a war in the forum.
* Two wrongs don't make a right:
Olive branch time. Yes, there are posters who will make a post that is exclusionary in regards to who can respond, and they will then be very aggressive towards anyone else responding. To me, that falls under an "extenuating circumstance" and you can call out such posters when they reveal themselves to be such. But I think that assuming someone is exclusionary just because they ask for specific opinions about specific things, and to take up arms against this person as some sort of reaction, that is wrong in and of itself. It doesn't make you in the right anymore to do that preemptively, and you lose the high ground as you are doing the sort of thing you're claiming the other person is doing. What that does is make you into the very thing you're trying to fight. You are literally telling someone that they're not allowed to be curious about a particular thing, and you are restricting that person's right to freely express an idea or curiosity they have in a safe space. You have directly NOT created a safe space for that person.
* Yes, the forums are public...but they are also personal:
Many people post in the forums regarding personal issues they may have. Think about how absurd it would be to say something like, "having that personal issue is exclusionary, most people don't have that issue and so you're not being inclusive! Away with you!"
Yes, it is a public forum, but the contents of the forum are often quite personal. Not every post is (or should be) geared towards maximum engagement. We're not creating laws here. Our posts won't be used to govern the lives of people in real life or even site-wide. We're not always considering the plight of the group, sometimes it's about the plight of the individual. Sometimes a poster wants a more personal response. Have you never wanted the opinion of a particular person, or trusted advisor, or someone like you? Have you never wanted to understand how someone in a complementary position to you might think about a situation? Is this really such a strange thing to be curious about and to be met with such aggression? Is it really necessary/desirable/prudent for the opinions of EVERYONE to be considered for EVERY question?
Be careful that in the effort to do away with black-and-white thinking and negativity that you don't create these things yourself. There are natural variations in life and not everything has to be one size fits all. Sometimes things should have a wide appeal and application, and sometimes not. Sometimes everyone should be included in something, and sometimes not. Do not succumb to the irony of creating a hard and fast rule that shouldn't be in order to combat a hard and fast rule that shouldn't be.
|