[Discussion/Announcement] NSG's "Wing" Megathreads

[New haven america]

The problem came when the so-called "friendly banter" was directed at people who were not friends.

And that "friendly banter" is being conflated with needing to be able to troll/flame/bait/strawman other players in the first place. In my experience, actual friends tease each other based either on inside references that are completely innocuous without having "been there" at the time of the referent's origin, or drawing attention to little quirks that, again, don't have any inherent meaning to outsiders. If you can't banter without crossing the forum rules... you're not good at banter and whether it actually counts as banter is questionable (well, strawmanning and baiting possibly do).

But this is not a private discussion site. What is "intended" as "friendly banter" is read by everyone and sets the conversational norms... which thus become trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning is not only normal but it's how you, too, can develop a rapport with others on the site.

As several of the mods, myself and many other posters demonstrate, NSG is full of brusque individuals that come across as mean, hostile or merely just confrontational. We should work to make ourselves less like this instead of finding disingenuous reasons to further entrench it in the forum.

"What's going on there", is adequately explained by the moderator making a ruling. That the "not actionable" moderator ruling is never seen, doesn't seem like a big problem. Perhaps the moderator making such a ruling could disable the Report This Post button on that post.

Perhaps this system of anonymous reporting could be trialled without a code revision or reboot. Just make it permissible to lodge regular forum reports via Getting Help. Second opinions and Final Appeals I guess would have to go in Moderation.

You have to be able to find the moderation actions. And it will never be able to show you what people worry about is crossing the line. They're probably the most norm shaping posts because one looks at them and says "ah, that's where the line is" whereas a report that ends in redtext could be borderline or extreme (it's not possible to tell straight off).

tbh one of the weird things about NS is that they dislike rules lawyering but NS itself seems to have kind of weird common law style system where new laws and precedents are created on the fly and the only way to actually know what the rules are and find out what new rules mean is to live in moderation and be a huge rules lawyer

Well, it's an English speaking forum created to flesh out a game made to advertise a novel about a dystopia where companies have basically taken over society. It's probably inevitable that the moderation practice looks rather more like "guarantor of freedom" and "protector of English liberty" common law system than "here are the rules, they're very clear".

I mean, that's admittedly a fair criticism of the CDT. I think a workable solution would be a sub-subforum for these threads, kind of like how A&F has sub-subfora for NS cards and NS trivia. And threads about those subjects that pop up on NSG could get merged into the relevant thread in the sub-subforum.

Obviously the sub-forum idea has sort of been shot down, but that leaves the question of what to do with the user experience threads.

I think it would be fair to say "look, you're about the user experience of a designed consumer product, therefore you go to A&F with the computer thread" which takes care of the gun and car threads. It's a bit less clear about how to handle the religion, sport and language threads. I don't think the language threads fall in the category of "designed consumer product" and so I don't see a relationship with NSG. On the other hand, the sport and religion threads, especially the sport ones, kind of do. But the sport threads aren't really about "one's fandom" or even "one's experience of the sport" but rather "what's happening in the other world" (where, in this case, the other world is the appropriate sports league). So, what I'm saying is that they act more like the Hong Kong thread or any other news event thread than a user experience thread.

I've said it before... but the Abrahamic threads really should be merged and left in NSG. If they're just user experience threads, they can be "NSG religious experience thread" but probably with a less "report your miracle here" title... maybe even just "All Religions Welcome" with an OP that says something like "this is a thread to discuss your personal beliefs and practices with those of both your faith and others; feel welcome to compare your theologies but please no proselytising".

Uh, no.

For starters, the Christian demographic far exceeds the Jewish and Muslim demographic, and we've seen that threads with vocal supporters can turn out when opposing viewpoints devolve into after a certain period of time. Then there's the fact that the CDT itself should really just be called "The Catholic Discussion thread" because so help you if you show any support of any of the other sects even if you're from a country where the majority sect is Protestantism or Orthodoxy (Or any of the smaller sects and subdivisions), especially if you're non-denominational. There's a reason why Orthodoxy threads pop up from time to time.

Plus, a lot of the material varies greatly between the beliefs. Just look at how all 3 view the afterlife or their concepts of evil.

[Grenartia]

Congrats on fucking over a huge portion of the user base. Think I'm gonna head off the site for good, since LWDT and RWDT were the only halfway decent things to do on this site. Go ahead and deat me so I don't have a reason to come back.

Include me in. Besides, the forums are filled with hateful atheist left-wingers.

Literally who are you? Is this announcement supposed to make me feel sad? I've never seen you anywhere before. Bye, Felicia.

Uh, no.

For starters, the Christian demographic far exceeds the Jewish and Muslim demographic, and we've seen that threads with vocal supporters can turn out when opposing viewpoints devolve into after a certain period of time. Then there's the fact that the CDT itself should really just be called "The Catholic Discussion thread" because so help you if you show any support of any of the other sects even if you're from a country where the majority sect is Protestantism or Orthodoxy (Or any of the smaller sects and subdivisions), especially if you're non-denominational. There's a reason why Orthodoxy threads pop up from time to time.

Plus, a lot of the material varies greatly between the beliefs. Just look at how all 3 view the afterlife or their concepts of evil.

I find it hilarious that Forsh's idea is so bad it has united basically everyone in the thread against it.

[Santheres]

Include me in. Besides, the forums are filled with hateful atheist left-wingers.

Literally who are you? Is this announcement supposed to make me feel sad? I've never seen you anywhere before. Bye, Felicia.

This is unnecessary. It doesn't matter if no one would notice someone leaving, you don't have to snark at them about it at all much less in what should be a serious discussion thread.

Thank you!

[Grenartia]

Literally who are you? Is this announcement supposed to make me feel sad? I've never seen you anywhere before. Bye, Felicia.

This is unnecessary. It doesn't matter if no one would notice someone leaving, you don't have to snark at them about it at all much less in what should be a serious discussion thread.

Thank you!

Yeah, you're right, that was a bit harsh.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

Are there any religious mods?

Yes. The Archregimancy answered that, in part, above. Perhaps that it's not obvious who is who is actually a good thing, as it means they haven't ruled in a way that makes their affiliation noticeable.

The trouble is that all those who seem to make their affiliation noticeable seem lean towards the left. Perhaps that contributes to your "PR problem"?

[WayNeacTia]

Yes. The Archregimancy answered that, in part, above. Perhaps that it's not obvious who is who is actually a good thing, as it means they haven't ruled in a way that makes their affiliation noticeable.

The trouble is that all those who seem to make their affiliation noticeable seem lean towards the left. Perhaps that contributes to your "PR problem"?

So you are saying the mods, moderate based on political leanings?

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

The trouble is that all those who seem to make their affiliation noticeable seem lean towards the left. Perhaps that contributes to your "PR problem"?

So you are saying the mods, moderate based on political leanings?

I'm saying that so long as they appear to, they will have "image problems" in the eyes of tradcons.

[WayNeacTia]

So you are saying the mods, moderate based on political leanings?

I'm saying that so long as they appear to, they will have "image problems" in the eyes of tradcons.

So be it then. The One Stop Rules shop clearly states that moderators, moderate with any bias. I myself haven’t witnessed any bias on the part of any moderators. In fact many of them show incredible amounts of restraint.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

I'm saying that so long as they appear to, they will have "image problems" in the eyes of tradcons.

So be it then. The One Stop Rules shop clearly states that moderators, moderate with any bias. I myself haven’t witnessed any bias on the part of any moderators. In fact many of them show incredible amounts of restraint.

Your solution appears to be "The other guy has to suck it up, his concerns about the fair application of the rules are invalid. See? It says so in the rules."

[Giovenith]

So you are saying the mods, moderate based on political leanings?

I'm saying that so long as they appear to, they will have "image problems" in the eyes of tradcons.

Just because someone is convinced of something does not mean that they've really been given a reason to think that way. People twist situations to suit their own interests all the time, especially if that situation involves them being slighted or placed in the role of wrongdoer. "I didn't do anything wrong, they just hate me because I'm X/Y/Z!" Believe it or not, right-wingers are not the only people on this site who have griped that Moderation has some kind of ideologically-motivated grudge against them — to the point where it is now a common joke to describe the staff using a breathless list of contradictory labels ("Those evil gay liberal Nazi Jew commie Satanists!") — but funny enough, most users outside of those ideologies don't tend to share that opinion. It's easier to tell themselves all this than to consider that maybe they actually have a problem with the way they conduct themselves. Self-adjustment is hard, finger-pointing is easy. All human beings are guilty of this at one point or another.

That's not to say there's no possibility of bias in Moderation, we're human too, but if you think that you have witnessed this, you need to provide specific examples and report it. We do reverse each other's decisions on a regular basis and admit to misjudging certain situations. But if all you do is grumble about how, "I bet I wouldn't have been punished if I were from the opposing side!" then not only will those misjudgments go uncorrected, but you undermine the validity of those sorts of complaints by creating the impression that this is just something that people who are sore about being warned say to lick their wounds. Legitimate concerns, with receipts and evidence, should be heard and encouraged. Vague, "it's not fair!" grumbling helps no one.

[Grenartia]

Yes. The Archregimancy answered that, in part, above. Perhaps that it's not obvious who is who is actually a good thing, as it means they haven't ruled in a way that makes their affiliation noticeable.

The trouble is that all those who seem to make their affiliation noticeable seem lean towards the left. Perhaps that contributes to your "PR problem"?

Imagine actually thinking Arch's decisions have a left-wing bias.

[Vistulange]

The trouble is that all those who seem to make their affiliation noticeable seem lean towards the left. Perhaps that contributes to your "PR problem"?

Imagine actually thinking Arch's decisions have a left-wing bias.

It comes back to what you (I think it was you, I could be mistaken) said earlier: the brand of politics adhered to and the tactics utilised by the right-wing lends itself more to flaming and trolling, hence them possibly getting punished more often, thus having an understanding of moderation left-wing bias. I do have a far more cynical outlook on this - generally regarding all things in NS, truthfully - but I don't think this is the place to share it.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

I'm saying that so long as they appear to, they will have "image problems" in the eyes of tradcons.

Just because someone is convinced of something does not mean that they've really been given a reason to think that way. People twist situations to suit their own interests all the time, especially if that situation involves them being slighted or placed in the role of wrongdoer. "I didn't do anything wrong, they just hate me because I'm X/Y/Z!" Believe it or not, right-wingers are not the only people on this site who have griped that Moderation has some kind of ideologically-motivated grudge against them — to the point where it is now a common joke to describe the staff using a breathless list of contradictory labels ("Those evil gay liberal Nazi Jew commie Satanists!") — but funny enough, most users outside of those ideologies don't tend to share that opinion. It's easier to tell themselves all this than to consider that maybe they actually have a problem with the way they conduct themselves. Self-adjustment is hard, finger-pointing is easy. All human beings are guilty of this at one point or another.

I'm going to suggest that right wing distrust of moderation comes from an entirely different source.

I would submit that watching a substantial chunk of your views on what the eudaimonia consists in be suddenly and violently punted out the Overton window will instill a sense of persecution in you. Anyone with any measure of power over your exercise of speech comes to be viewed with suspicion until they prove themselves trustworthy. This is particularly the case where views on the nature of the family and its proper place in society are concerned.

Until recently, I saw the RWDT as proof that the moderation team would tolerate reactionaries. Due to recent moderation decisions, that proof has been effectively deconstructed. If you're truly committed to establishing an environment where "all viewpoints are considered acceptable so long as they are argued within the rules," then you should think about providing an alternate line of evidence.

[Katganistan]

Yes. The Archregimancy answered that, in part, above. Perhaps that it's not obvious who is who is actually a good thing, as it means they haven't ruled in a way that makes their affiliation noticeable.

The trouble is that all those who seem to make their affiliation noticeable seem lean towards the left. Perhaps that contributes to your "PR problem"?

Perhaps the problem is not so much PR as following the very reasonable site rules?

[Diarcesia]

Just because someone is convinced of something does not mean that they've really been given a reason to think that way. People twist situations to suit their own interests all the time, especially if that situation involves them being slighted or placed in the role of wrongdoer. "I didn't do anything wrong, they just hate me because I'm X/Y/Z!" Believe it or not, right-wingers are not the only people on this site who have griped that Moderation has some kind of ideologically-motivated grudge against them — to the point where it is now a common joke to describe the staff using a breathless list of contradictory labels ("Those evil gay liberal Nazi Jew commie Satanists!") — but funny enough, most users outside of those ideologies don't tend to share that opinion. It's easier to tell themselves all this than to consider that maybe they actually have a problem with the way they conduct themselves. Self-adjustment is hard, finger-pointing is easy. All human beings are guilty of this at one point or another.

I'm going to suggest that right wing distrust of moderation comes from an entirely different source.

I would submit that watching a substantial chunk of your views on what the eudaimonia consists in be suddenly and violently punted out the Overton window will instill a sense of persecution in you. Anyone with any measure of power over your exercise of speech comes to be viewed with suspicion until they prove themselves trustworthy. This is particularly the case where views on the nature of the family and its proper place in society are concerned.

Until recently, I saw the RWDT as proof that the moderation team would tolerate reactionaries. Due to recent moderation decisions, that proof has been effectively deconstructed. If you're truly committed to establishing an environment where "all viewpoints are considered acceptable so long as they are argued within the rules," then you should think about providing an alternate line of evidence.

As we speak reactionary arguments are still being debated here without consequences, because the rules were not broken.

[Katganistan]

The thread which you point to was not adhering to the rules.
There are right-players who absolutely post their views without the trolling, flaming, and other nonsense that anyone on this site is perfectly able and willing to go see in the locked, not deleted, thread. Those players, oddly enough, don't end up warned, banned or deleted.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Wait, what? LWDT and RWDT are out? Looks like NS Ragnarok has arrived.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

The trouble is that all those who seem to make their affiliation noticeable seem lean towards the left. Perhaps that contributes to your "PR problem"?

Perhaps the problem is not so much PR as following the very reasonable site rules?

I'm perfectly willing to admit that RWDT's idea of "friendly banter" was problematic. That doesn't change the image problem.

For one example, take your signature. I am a religious person with strong views about the nature of the family and its place in society. Given what I've said about watching those views being violently and suddenly punted out the Overton window, I also have the tendency to assume that people will attempt to silence me. I suspect that most socially conservative religious people come to the table with similar assumptions.

Now, when I see your sig, this tendency causes me to assume that I am one of the zealots to whom you refer - and thus that I will have to "deal with it" accordingly.

You and I have had next to no interactions, and solely due to the nature of my views and your presentation of yourself, you've already convinced me that you are an outsider to be feared.

Now, perhaps you'll reveal yourself to be tolerant of - or even open-minded towards - my views. But the point is that you've already alienated me, without even trying. And without a visible counterbalance, my assumption will be that the entire moderation team will be like you - out to "correct" my "zealotry." This is what I mean by an "image problem."

I put it to you that, while part of the RWDT's problem was its unwillingness to submit to the rules, part of it was also distrust of the mods. And that distrust may well have been due to the way you present yourselves. Most of you seem to be social liberals, and if any of you are traditional conservatives, they're not publically presenting themselves as such - causing the mod team to be viewed as a single monolithic block of outsiders. And that, more than any other factor, resulted in hostility towards the mods. Hostility that was only reinforced every time you moderated the thread.

If you want traditional conservatives to trust that the system will work for them, you need to overcome the "presumption of hostility" that many of us bring to the table. If you don't care about us, then you need to come out and admit that we aren't welcome here. It's up to you which option to go with, but I don't see a third one.

[Cisairse]

I would just like to point out that, in absence of a dedicated space for leftists, my Marxism thread has become 80% leftists trying to explain basic concepts of leftism to people with no understanding of them and often getting more falsehoods and low-effort nonsense as a response.
The average quality of post has definitely taken a massive drop compared to similar discussions held in the LWDT.

[Minoa]

I think political ideologies certainly meets the criteria for a recurring debate, although I can see why the LWDT and RWDT were locked on the basis of being too broad (and also too generalised). For example, I recently visited a country where politics is mainly based on a treaty from 99 years ago.

I also think that one of the reasons for the backlash against the decision to close the LWDT and RWDT is that there are people who hold their political beliefs very dearly, and for that reason it would be a good idea for the OP to recommend better ways of discussing political ideologies than the former arrangement of one-stop shops for any and all left- and right-wing discussions respectively.

[Drop Your Pants]

I put it to you that, while part of the RWDT's problem was its unwillingness to submit to the rules, part of it was also distrust of the mods.

If you don't follow the site rules then of course you'll get mods chasing you. Their distrust comes from being warned for....not following the rules. Trying to call bias for political or religious leanings is just silly.

[Katganistan]

Perhaps the problem is not so much PR as following the very reasonable site rules?

I'm perfectly willing to admit that RWDT's idea of "friendly banter" was problematic. That doesn't change the image problem.

For one example, take your signature. I am a religious person with strong views about the nature of the family and its place in society. Given what I've said about watching those views being violently and suddenly punted out the Overton window, I also have the tendency to assume that people will attempt to silence me. I suspect that most socially conservative religious people come to the table with similar assumptions.

Now, when I see your sig, this tendency causes me to assume that I am one of the zealots to whom you refer - and thus that I will have to "deal with it" accordingly.

You and I have had next to no interactions, and solely due to the nature of my views and your presentation of yourself, you've already convinced me that you are an outsider to be feared.

Now, perhaps you'll reveal yourself to be tolerant of - or even open-minded towards - my views. But the point is that you've already alienated me, without even trying. And without a visible counterbalance, my assumption will be that the entire moderation team will be like you - out to "correct" my "zealotry." This is what I mean by an "image problem."

I put it to you that, while part of the RWDT's problem was its unwillingness to submit to the rules, part of it was also distrust of the mods. And that distrust may well have been due to the way you present yourselves. Most of you seem to be social liberals, and if any of you are traditional conservatives, they're not publically presenting themselves as such - causing the mod team to be viewed as a single monolithic block of outsiders. And that, more than any other factor, resulted in hostility towards the mods. Hostility that was only reinforced every time you moderated the thread.

If you want traditional conservatives to trust that the system will work for them, you need to overcome the "presumption of hostility" that many of us bring to the table. If you don't care about us, then you need to come out and admit that we aren't welcome here. It's up to you which option to go with, but I don't see a third one.

If you are alienated by making an assumption about my views without ever interacting with me, that's a you thing, not a me thing.

Furthermore, you're making a lot of assumptions about conservatives not being welcome on the site. Conservatives are welcome on the site. What is not welcome is flaming and trolling. There are plenty of conservatives who make their points -- points that people might find disagreeable -- without resorting to flames and trolling. These conservatives are not warned, and when people complain of their position, they are told to discuss it because it is not breaking the rules.

If some conservatives find it difficult to make their point without calling their opponents names, that is not a bias against conservatives, it is correcting rule-breaking behavior.

If to improve our PR we are supposed to embrace people trolling and flaming, then our PR will not be improving.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Perhaps the problem is not so much PR as following the very reasonable site rules?

I'm perfectly willing to admit that RWDT's idea of "friendly banter" was problematic. That doesn't change the image problem.

For one example, take your signature. I am a religious person with strong views about the nature of the family and its place in society. Given what I've said about watching those views being violently and suddenly punted out the Overton window, I also have the tendency to assume that people will attempt to silence me. I suspect that most socially conservative religious people come to the table with similar assumptions.

Now, when I see your sig, this tendency causes me to assume that I am one of the zealots to whom you refer - and thus that I will have to "deal with it" accordingly.

If you were familiar with Kat from the forums, you'd know she is not THAT intolerant of religious zealots that she would ban them just for being so. She's actually a thoughtful and moderate poster for the most part.

You would still disagree with her I'm sure, and you'd think from her opinion expressed on the forum, that she is likely to be biased against you. I see you have no faith in moderators to be objective when making judgements ... and I doubt anything will change your mind on that. Lefties are inherently biased, I guess is your view.

Anyway, what do you expect moderation to do about your distrust? The most obvious would be that they stay off the forums, don't have sigs or flags, or any other "personal" presence, but act only as mods. I can't speak for them, but I think they wouldn't like that, and furthermore they'd become detached from the culture of the forums they moderate, unresponsive to community concerns, and generally just bad mods.

A more moderate demand is that mods shouldn't have their personal beliefs in their signatures. All that Pro and Anti stuff, or links to overtly political polemics. I've never liked that in any poster, so I don't do it myself. But it does seem to be a thing to exaggerate one's beliefs in a signature and maybe mods could be discouraged from doing that?

[Grenartia]

Until recently, I saw the RWDT as proof that the moderation team would tolerate reactionaries. Due to recent moderation decisions, that proof has been effectively deconstructed. If you're truly committed to establishing an environment where "all viewpoints are considered acceptable so long as they are argued within the rules," then you should think about providing an alternate line of evidence.

Don't cry to the mods because your ideological comrades ruined your ability to have a safe space.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that RWDT's idea of "friendly banter" was problematic.

This, along with many other behaviors, is fundamentally the root of why the RWDT was banned, and why the LWDT, despite being innocent, was banned to give the appearance of fair and impartial judgement. Moderation bent over backwards and punished innocent players for your (collective) sake, and many of you are still salty about it.

Do the RWDT regulars complaining about it not realize how entitled that comes off as? That even when Moderation had to come down like a sack of hammers on the most toxic part of NSG, and did their best to avoid the appearance of political bias in so doing, they're still being accused of enacting a campaign of political persecution?

[Giovenith]

Perhaps the problem is not so much PR as following the very reasonable site rules?

I'm perfectly willing to admit that RWDT's idea of "friendly banter" was problematic. That doesn't change the image problem.

For one example, take your signature. I am a religious person with strong views about the nature of the family and its place in society. Given what I've said about watching those views being violently and suddenly punted out the Overton window, I also have the tendency to assume that people will attempt to silence me. I suspect that most socially conservative religious people come to the table with similar assumptions.

Now, when I see your sig, this tendency causes me to assume that I am one of the zealots to whom you refer - and thus that I will have to "deal with it" accordingly.

You and I have had next to no interactions, and solely due to the nature of my views and your presentation of yourself, you've already convinced me that you are an outsider to be feared.

Now, perhaps you'll reveal yourself to be tolerant of - or even open-minded towards - my views. But the point is that you've already alienated me, without even trying. And without a visible counterbalance, my assumption will be that the entire moderation team will be like you - out to "correct" my "zealotry." This is what I mean by an "image problem."

I put it to you that, while part of the RWDT's problem was its unwillingness to submit to the rules, part of it was also distrust of the mods. And that distrust may well have been due to the way you present yourselves. Most of you seem to be social liberals, and if any of you are traditional conservatives, they're not publically presenting themselves as such - causing the mod team to be viewed as a single monolithic block of outsiders. And that, more than any other factor, resulted in hostility towards the mods. Hostility that was only reinforced every time you moderated the thread.

If you want traditional conservatives to trust that the system will work for them, you need to overcome the "presumption of hostility" that many of us bring to the table. If you don't care about us, then you need to come out and admit that we aren't welcome here. It's up to you which option to go with, but I don't see a third one.

You having an irrational fear of people who disagree with you does not a "PR problem" make. "You and I have had next to no interactions, and solely due to the nature of my views and your presentation of yourself, you've already convinced me that you are an outsider to be feared" — This is a considerably immature reaction. Everyone has to learn to live with the fact that the people around them are going to have beliefs that contradict their own, including those in positions of authority of them. In my workplace, the manager is a conservative, Jewish, Republican woman, and I, her functional second-in-command, am a liberal anti-theist. Our views are not secrets to each other, nor are the equally contradictory views of anyone else who works there. At no point has anyone there ever interpreted the manager or anyone else's actions as ideologically-motivated spite, and no one is afraid of each other. This is not some consciously performed, begrudgingly-agreed-to state either, it is the unspoken understanding that this how adults are expected to behave and treat each other out and about in the real world. You will find that most functional workplaces and other social enterprises operate similarly. The people you navigate are allowed to have opinions.

Ironically, what you are describing has a name: It's called bias (and in its most extreme form, persecution complex). And it is everyone's job to confront and manage their own biases, not expect the rest of the world to cushion them. It is understandable to have a kneejerk moment of tribalism upon being confronted by someone who differs from you on a strongly held view, everyone experiences that, but just like any other kneejerk reaction, choosing to run wild with it instead of giving it a removed, secondary evaluation is a fool's errand. A genuine misstep of Moderation can be identified regardless of the personal views of either the Mod or effected players with a clear understanding of the rules. Whether or not Kat thinks that religious people are zealots is not going to make "Fuck you!" stop being a flame or "All Latinos smell bad" stop being trolling, and that should be simple enough to demonstrate.


TL;DR: If you think that something wrong has happened, but you can't actually show that it has outside of appealing to your sense of personal dislike over an entirely separate issue, then chances are high that the problem is actually with you and your attitude.