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.
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.