What do you think of NS's mainly male population?

[Luveria]

Holy fucking shit. And this is why I prefer to stay out these debates. Shit flies and everyone gets shot.

Actually, in that same thread someone called me an "unemployed keyboard feminist". And of course, implied that I'm also trans*.

I wish that behaviour wasn't so common.

Me too. It's not conductive to discussion at all.

It's depressing seeing it. The things said are so stupid there's really nothing to be said in response because we all know there's nothing anyone can say to them to make them stop.

I wish that behaviour wasn't so common.

The behavior isn't common, it's just vocal, noticeable and downright sad.

It looks common by how it shows up so often. It's vocal because there's no consequences for it.

I remember that thread. Luckily I haven't seen any of those posters since.

And more just keep coming and coming.

All of them the same.

[The Tectonic Plates]

Those six points just seem like three anti-equality individuals circle-jerking. While it is a sad reflection on the NS Community, I stand by my point that we'll lose nothing by banning sexists.

I don't want to ban them. HOWEVER, this doesn't help, and it decreases my enjoyment here. At some point I just gave up on that thread because I was getting responses like these in a thread that had great potential.

I don't want to ban them, either. We do have precedent for banning unpopular and malicious opinions and I think the mods would be justified in banning sexism. The FAQ Specifically says you can't post malicious content, and I very well believe the sexist opinions are malicious.

My only problem is, where will the line between sexist and not sexist be drawn?

[The Tectonic Plates]

\

The behavior isn't common, it's just vocal, noticeable and downright sad.

It looks common by how it shows up so often. It's vocal because there's no consequences for it.

I don't think it shows up often, I think it just shows up, and we notice it, and we react to it and since we react to it, the said sexists continue to posts in the ensueing arguments and their presence in a thread is inflated.

[Luveria]

\


It looks common by how it shows up so often. It's vocal because there's no consequences for it.

I don't think it shows up often, I think it just shows up, and we notice it, and we react to it and since we react to it, the said sexists continue to posts in the ensueing arguments and their presence in a thread is inflated.

The sexists mostly all look the same to me. A few ones that really stood out come to mind like a certain banned rape-advocate but generally the only difference is how extreme they go.

[Individuality-ness]

Actually, in that same thread someone called me an "unemployed keyboard feminist". And of course, implied that I'm also trans*.

Me too. It's not conductive to discussion at all.

It's depressing seeing it. The things said are so stupid there's really nothing to be said in response because we all know there's nothing anyone can say to them to make them stop.

And like I said earlier, those comments and similar ones eventually just made me say "fuck this", and I gave up on the thread. This sucks.

And more just keep coming and coming.

All of them the same.

It's like a game of whack-a-mole, except now it's whack-a-misogynist.

I don't want to ban them. HOWEVER, this doesn't help, and it decreases my enjoyment here. At some point I just gave up on that thread because I was getting responses like these in a thread that had great potential.

I don't want to ban them, either. We do have precedent for banning unpopular and malicious opinions and I think the mods would be justified in banning sexism. The FAQ Specifically says you can't post malicious content, and I very well believe the sexist opinions are malicious.

My only problem is, where will the line between sexist and not sexist be drawn?

Except that this isn't that malicious, although it contributes to this aura of "anti-woman".

[The Blaatschapen]

Case in point, I don't want to start a discussion with this OP, and have responses like this: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Probably not that extreme, but this doesn't really help.

I hope I've never been that obnoxious. I know that I make jokes sometimes a lot, and that I am quite facetious, but I sincerely hope that I've never crossed such lines.

If I ever have crossed the line (when it comes to sexism, etc.), please tell me (per telegram is best probably).

[Individuality-ness]

Case in point, I don't want to start a discussion with this OP, and have responses like this: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Probably not that extreme, but this doesn't really help.

I hope I've never been that obnoxious. I know that I make jokes sometimes a lot, and that I am quite facetious, but I sincerely hope that I've never crossed such lines.

If I ever have crossed the line (when it comes to sexism, etc.), please tell me (per telegram is best probably).

Trust me, if you EVER cross that line, I'll tell you forthwith.

[The Blaatschapen]

I hope I've never been that obnoxious. I know that I make jokes sometimes a lot, and that I am quite facetious, but I sincerely hope that I've never crossed such lines.

If I ever have crossed the line (when it comes to sexism, etc.), please tell me (per telegram is best probably).

Trust me, if you EVER cross that line, I'll tell you forthwith.

Thank you.

[The Tectonic Plates]

I don't want to ban them, either. We do have precedent for banning unpopular and malicious opinions and I think the mods would be justified in banning sexism. The FAQ Specifically says you can't post malicious content, and I very well believe the sexist opinions are malicious.

My only problem is, where will the line between sexist and not sexist be drawn?

Except that this isn't that malicious, although it contributes to this aura of "anti-woman".

Even if not malicious, some of what you linked to on the prior page would count as obscene in my opinion (clearly not in the Mods opinions or they would've acted on it). Maybe I need thicker skin or something.

[Individuality-ness]

Except that this isn't that malicious, although it contributes to this aura of "anti-woman".

Even if not malicious, some of what you linked to on the prior page would count as obscene in my opinion (clearly not in the Mods opinions or they would've acted on it). Maybe I need thicker skin or something.

Probably thicker skin, but it's this constant streamline of obnoxious posts like that that can drive anyone nuts.

[Luveria]

It's depressing seeing it. The things said are so stupid there's really nothing to be said in response because we all know there's nothing anyone can say to them to make them stop.

And like I said earlier, those comments and similar ones eventually just made me say "fuck this", and I gave up on the thread. This sucks.

I'm certain it's what is driving people away.

Except that this isn't that malicious, although it contributes to this aura of "anti-woman".

It's not just anti-woman. There's a significant anti-trans and anti-non-cisgender aura that goes along with the misogyny. It's from the same mindset of bigotry.

Case in point, I don't want to start a discussion with this OP, and have responses like this: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Probably not that extreme, but this doesn't really help.

I hope I've never been that obnoxious. I know that I make jokes sometimes a lot, and that I am quite facetious, but I sincerely hope that I've never crossed such lines.

If I ever have crossed the line (when it comes to sexism, etc.), please tell me (per telegram is best probably).

In my view you haven't crossed it. People can tell the difference between someone joking around or actually being a misogynist.

[The Tectonic Plates]

Even if not malicious, some of what you linked to on the prior page would count as obscene in my opinion (clearly not in the Mods opinions or they would've acted on it). Maybe I need thicker skin or something.

Probably thicker skin, but it's this constant streamline of obnoxious posts like that that can drive anyone nuts.

Things said about myself don't' really bother me, things said about others that are unjustified really tick me off though.

[Individuality-ness]

Probably thicker skin, but it's this constant streamline of obnoxious posts like that that can drive anyone nuts.

Things said about myself don't' really bother me, things said about others that are unjustified really tick me off though.

That's why you learn to be mostly indifferent to these things. And take a lot of breaks.

[The Tectonic Plates]

Things said about myself don't' really bother me, things said about others that are unjustified really tick me off though.

That's why you learn to be mostly indifferent to these things. And take a lot of breaks.

Eh, no harm is done by calling out someone when they're being a twit, even if they're just being a minor twit.

[Individuality-ness]

That's why you learn to be mostly indifferent to these things. And take a lot of breaks.

Eh, no harm is done by calling out someone when they're being a twit, even if they're just being a minor twit.

Well yes, we do that all the time, and yet they still keep coming.

[The Tectonic Plates]

Eh, no harm is done by calling out someone when they're being a twit, even if they're just being a minor twit.

Well yes, we do that all the time, and yet they still keep coming.

Yep, I'll drop this line of chat, so the thread doesn't get locked for derailing, wouldn't want that to happen.

[Araraukar]

I'm certain it's what is driving people away.

I haven't been to NSG for like 8 months. On the GA forum the threads tend to have to be more closer to their actual topic, and nasty comments are more readily reported.

[The Blaatschapen]

I hope I've never been that obnoxious. I know that I make jokes sometimes a lot, and that I am quite facetious, but I sincerely hope that I've never crossed such lines.

If I ever have crossed the line (when it comes to sexism, etc.), please tell me (per telegram is best probably).

In my view you haven't crossed it. People can tell the difference between someone joking around or actually being a misogynist.

Good. But I'm looking for those who actually think that I crossed the line somewhere(part of a sudden bout of introspection). Not for those who see that I'm joking around... that's usually my intention, but jokes can go too far, etc.

[The Blaatschapen]

Eh, no harm is done by calling out someone when they're being a twit, even if they're just being a minor twit.

Well yes, we do that all the time, and yet they still keep coming.

They're like zombies.

Attention eating, misogynist zombies.

[Individuality-ness]

I'm certain it's what is driving people away.

I haven't been to NSG for like 8 months. On the GA forum the threads tend to have to be more closer to their actual topic, and nasty comments are more readily reported.

The WA's also the Festering Snakepit, and NSG's worse. Take that how you will, fellow Generalite who goes to the WA.

[Forsher]

I reckon you probably view such comments in much the same way as Individuality-ness does and that's why I am often quite suspicious of certain claims that the likes of the (spelt incorrectly*) "dykes" comment that TSM brought up (without sources, that helps too) are condoned by the mods.

* That is to say, it's very much possible that "dyke" isn't actually being used offensively. For example, I've been reported for my use of fag and, well, NERVUN's ruling says it all. Well, basically it comes back to the idea that in my experience "dykes" are very common in the Netherlands.

When Sidhae was finally deleted? I'm on my phone, links are annoying to find, but it took Choronozon complaining about the ruling before anything was done about it.

I was thinking about a different instance, my confusion has been cleared up.

I reckon you probably view such comments in much the same way as Individuality-ness does and that's why I am often quite suspicious of certain claims that the likes of the (spelt incorrectly*) "dykes" comment that TSM brought up (without sources, that helps too) are condoned by the mods.

* That is to say, it's very much possible that "dyke" isn't actually being used offensively. For example, I've been reported for my use of fag and, well, NERVUN's ruling says it all. Well, basically it comes back to the idea that in my experience "dykes" are very common in the Netherlands.

I remember when you posted that. I knew someone was going to end up mistaking it.

I can see I was going for a fun bit... criticism of smoking "burning" but it just comes across as being clumsy to future Forsher. I think chucking the people in there is the problem... I was trying to explain that people who smoke might be doing something idiotic but they're not all bad people. Although some are incredibly stupid... five metres from the school gates, in uniform, smoking like a chimney... I mean, what?

This is a pretty major misreading of what Indi actually said which was not "I don't want to hear opinions I don't like", but was "maybe being the kind of forum where a significant proportion of the posters are teenage boys and where posts such as 'women shouldn't be on the internet' or whatever are bandied around regularly is one of the reasons why we don't have a large proportion of female posters and maybe it would be nice to do something about that".

Quite so. There's a difference between having an opposite side and having a bunch of children who constantly repeat the same thing, just phrased in another manner, with virtually no supporting arguments, and ignore any attempt at debate by replying with a steadfast "you're wrong".

You just can't argue with some people if they just reply with strawmen. Elvish is easier to understand.

Mind you, age doesn't necessarily play a big role in this, stubbornness to participate in debate and remain receptive to other people's argument and perhaps even revise your own opinions is something of all ages. It's just more concentrated in teenagers for the same reason that some of them consider losing popularity in high school is the end of the world.

Be the better person.
Take the high road.

They're actually quite relevant here because you can argue with people who say "you're wrong" but it's much harder to argue with people who ignore the heart of your argument and just keep repeating the same things again and again (see Xerographica versus Forsher... even though I stopped posting my last reply to him and my first one could be used with a few minor changes to respond to the one I never got around to disagreeing with).

At least with "you're wrong" and posts that talk past you (for example, "communism is stupid because Stalin" being met with "I like your eyes") we're able to point out what they're doing (you're wrong isn't actually furthering your case, or, that doesn't have any relevance to what I said at all) even if we've got to be careful with tone because doing so can come across as an attempt to rile up the opposition (because the tone is too antagonistic or, maybe, condescending). With this, well arguing for the lurker is difficult.

Actually we should debate them and show exactly why those opinions should not be taken seriously.

There are many lurkers out there who otherwise might be convinced of the correctness of those opinions because they're not debunked as idiocy.

Exactly. Drag 'em out into the light and expose them for what they are.

Here's a challenge. Find me two posts from the last two days that might be met with responses like "Ah, summer..." and then find me two posts actually dragging them out for what they are. It's not really something that is done.

It is, however, something that people are convinced they do on a regular basis.

When it's fairly fucking blatant trolling we most certainly should.

Well yeah, trolling is trolling. There's a difference between banning trolling and banning controversial opinions outright, however.

What is the maxim? Just because you disagree it doesn make it trolling?

It's also worth considering. NSG may very well be a source for youngsters to learn more about the world, politics and so-on.

Not sure if it is a good source, though.

OK. It may well be that. Here's the thing though. I'm an adult in my 30s. How much of my time do you think is spent in the pursuit of the company of teenagers?

Basically none.

I don't seek out or particularly care for interaction with children offline. Why would I want to do that online? Adults typically don't spend time with children, and when you have an enviornment with children, adults typically move elsewhere.

And if the powers that be are interested only in website hits and ad revenue, then sure, have as many people as you can.

If you're interested in being a place where reasonably intelligent adults congregate, then don't have so many children around. Because, and this should be obvious, reasonably intelligent adults generally do not seek out the company of children.

Two things. Firstly, teenagers aren't children but they aren't adults either. It's rather the point. Secondly, Real Life and the Internet are totally different.

In Real Life, for example, teenagers do not talk about abortion, feminism or politics. They might in classrooms from time to time because, say, their economics teacher is countering the "subliminal indoctrination" claim posed in question form by a student by deliberately stating political views and referencing this (although, he stopped short of saying who he votes for -- which is another real world convention). What they do talk about are computer games, school, what they're doing/did in the weekend, friends, girlfriends (and presumably boyfriends but most of my mates are blokes) and race-relations in modern NZ (okay, I've no idea how that last one started but I joined in once it had begun and arrived in the courtyard). The weather is likely to feature but that's cultural.

So, you might not want to talk to children online and they probably don't want to talk to you, but teenagers probably do want to talk to anyone about political topics in a way that the internet is really the only avenue available. They might have ideas that you do not like, they might go about it in ways that you do not like, they might (like TSM does for Neo Art... in feminism threads at least) pretty much agree with you about everything. They are also much less set in their ways than you and they are definitely becoming politically conscious. Places like NSG are, really, where you might be able to get while they're young (give me a boy until the age of 7 and I'll show you the man, or something like that).

If you don't want to talk to children, find the heavier topics and stop thinking about anyone younger than you (and, I daresay in many cases, people older than you) as children. In fact, just talk to the ideas and ignore the buggers making them.

No. She did not. Stop lying.

If, on examination of the rest of your post (which I've yet to read, as of writing this), it turns out I'm wrong, I still haven't been lying. Assuming that someone is lying because they said something is untrue is assumption of bad faith which is a little silly. I didn't intend to mislead. It's not lying if there was no intention to mislead. It's important to distinguish between lying and being mistaken.

There's actually a thing like Occam's Razor for this. I like this version more.

Indeed.

Not that I'm biased.

You're welcome here if you are over 13, unless you're from the US in which case the age is 21.

I think it'd be funnier if I wrote 18 instead of 13 and that's ignoring the whole "You're too young to even drink" rant reference that I would get had I written that.

I fully agree with the position of which Neo Art is speaking from, but I too will concede an age limit isn't the way to go about fixing the problem.

Back on the Jolt forums, particularly in the RP section, we had a way to ensure quality. New players who didn't meet community standards were flamed and trolled until they left. It was the highest quality RPing group to date on NS, but it was also the most ridiculously hostile, unpleasant and arguably the most disgusting part of NS's forum history. And I hope to Christ we never end up back at that stage although with the ever increasing prevalence (and tolerance) of snarky, borderline insulting posts, we're heading that way.

Perhaps a specific forum could be made that would be locked to the general public. To get on you'd have to have been on the forums for a certain time and be judged worthy (based on your post history) by a panel of members of that forum or mods or some OOC equivalent of the RP mentors.

Just an idea I came up with now, I don't know how it'd actually fare in reality.

Well, it's much better than any age-based suggestion although, I fear, that it could become to, well, cliquey is kind of the word I am looking for.

It'd probably enhance the whole "mostly left-wing" problem, though.

Oh, and you can tell that age limits aren't a good way to go by looking at the likes of Keronians, he was a week younger than me I think...

[Hathradic States]

Like I should give a damn? I deal with men and women the same, with a short temper and a long sword. That sounded diiirty

[Mushet]

Like I should give a damn? I deal with men and women the same, with a short temper and a long sword. That sounded diiirty

Overcompensation *nods*

[Araraukar]

The WA's also the Festering Snakepit, and NSG's worse. Take that how you will, fellow Generalite who goes to the WA.

Yeah, but at least GAR#8 means the WA acknowledges that freely.

I agree NSG is worse. It's a reef with lots of sharks just looking for any sign of weakness. Swim in at your own risk.

[Forster Keys]

The WA's also the Festering Snakepit, and NSG's worse. Take that how you will, fellow Generalite who goes to the WA.

Yeah, but at least GAR#8 means the WA acknowledges that freely.

I agree NSG is worse. It's a reef with lots of sharks just looking for any sign of weakness. Swim in at your own risk.

I don't know whether I'm used to the behaviour, or whether I'm old enough not to be nibbled up, but a few of my good friends have come on here and got absolutely blindsided for no good reason by certain older posters. It was really quite disgusting and they haven't really been back.