Grawlix's recent activity
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix (edited )Link ParentYep, I was wrong to do it. I'm sorry. It was hypocritical for me to complain about it, then turn around to do it just because I was frustrated about that very thing. That said, I would still...Yep, I was wrong to do it. I'm sorry. It was hypocritical for me to complain about it, then turn around to do it just because I was frustrated about that very thing.
That said, I would still absolutely support some kind of measure to limit that kind of thing. I shouldn't be able to game the system because I'm mad, and it shouldn't be incentivized as the best way of "dealing with" comments in lieu of downvotes.
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix Link ParentSee, that would have been the healthier way of doing what I did. :PSee, that would have been the healthier way of doing what I did. :P
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix Link ParentI already clicked on your comment, but I didn't see any particularly markings around any of the labels. I'm afraid to click anything again now, because, well, you know. :( I don't really want to...I already clicked on your comment, but I didn't see any particularly markings around any of the labels. I'm afraid to click anything again now, because, well, you know. :( I don't really want to mess with things again. If the label usually sticks, maybe it has already been removed.
I want to say if I did see it, I might have undone it. That may be me being generous to myself, though. A part of what I was doing was really just seeing how the system works, albeit in a childish and angry way.
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix Link ParentI know, and I'm not saying I was right. If I could take it back, I would, but as far as I know, once a label is clicked, it's just out there. I can't even find how I rated previous comments. Maybe...I know, and I'm not saying I was right. If I could take it back, I would, but as far as I know, once a label is clicked, it's just out there. I can't even find how I rated previous comments. Maybe I was curious about what happens, maybe I was in a bad mood, maybe I got defensive and thought you were justifying what happens here, but none of that is a sufficient reason for what I did. It's just the way in which I was being petty and irresponsible. I was wrong, it's not how I usually behave, and it's not how I'll behave in the future, if I even continue using the site.
As for credibility, I stand by what I said. I'm included in that, and I'll take my lumps.
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix (edited )Link ParentI was wrong to do so, and I apologize. I was frustrated with the labeling system, admittedly because a past comment was drowned out, and I was tempted to futz with the system. That doesn't at all...I was wrong to do so, and I apologize. I was frustrated with the labeling system, admittedly because a past comment was drowned out, and I was tempted to futz with the system. That doesn't at all justify it in any way, and I don't intend to do it again. I'm sorry.
Only Deimos can actually check, and unfortunately seems to be misrepresenting my past behavior, but it's not something I "habitually" do. As far as I can remember, I only used the "malice" label when bullying happened in the past. (EDIT: With the eception of the last couple of days, when things really got under my skin.) Obviously you can only take my word for it, but for whatever it's worth, there it is.
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix (edited )Link ParentWe're getting into it publicly because doing it privately via the report system has done nothing. My labels of the past few days were trying to see if the system did anything. I would say it's...We're getting into it publicly because doing it privately via the report system has done nothing. My labels of the past few days were trying to see if the system did anything. I would say it's "habitual," especially since (to my memory) I've almost exclusively used the "malice" label up until now, and then, please take a look at the context. I regularly report rude behavior, and nothing is done about it. I did label things in the wrong way, I was wrong to do it, and it won't happen again.
And I stand by the fact that it doesn't do anything. Even when you mention me swearing at you, that wasn't an insult at you personally, but my frustration at the situation, which I think is absolutely justified. You let people be bullies. I apologize for the language, but I stand by my point.
And I've received around a half-dozen private messages from users who agree. They stopped visiting political threads because of this behavior, and I can only guess what number stopped using Tildes entirely.
Frankly, I'm disappointed you're taking a harder line with me being exasperated using the reporting system and using rude language in it than you are with users who are toxic time and time again, and have a net negative impact on the communication here.
I mean, come on. The "gotcha" quote from me is saying "what the fuck." What the fuck indeed.
Ugh. This is tremendously disappointing.
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix Link ParentFirst, I have labeled their posts as "malice" when they directly attack or are needlessly rude to other users. That seemed to go nowhere, because they're as active and toxic as ever. Next, I...First, I have labeled their posts as "malice" when they directly attack or are needlessly rude to other users. That seemed to go nowhere, because they're as active and toxic as ever.
Next, I addressed the issue here, in the hopes of getting a response from Deimos. If that doesn't work, I'll send a PM, and if that doesn't work, I don't know. I'll either make a post, or just quit reading political threads or using this site entirely. I wouldn't be the first, as several users have mentioned to me in PMs. :/
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix (edited )Link Parent...I was literally talking about the kind of issue the article was talking about happening on Tildes, so if it was being labeled as "offtopic," that's also abusing the system. EDIT: It looks like......I was literally talking about the kind of issue the article was talking about happening on Tildes, so if it was being labeled as "offtopic," that's also abusing the system.
EDIT: It looks like the "offtopic" label, if active, treats the comment as though it had -1 total votes. I guess the question is, how much does it take to activate that? Is it a single user, or does it require more, maybe in relation to other labels? Because it seems like it would be the best label to exploit someone wants to bury comments even if they're not off topic. You know, hypothetically.
-
Comment on Stop trying to shame socialists into voting for Joe Biden: It’s really about performatively denouncing leftists as irresponsible, for the edification of the liberals who are watching in ~society
Grawlix Link ParentTrue. Granted, there's usually going to be a back and forth, but at a certain point, if the conversation is really about the subject matter and not just a fight, then there's a point where you can...True. Granted, there's usually going to be a back and forth, but at a certain point, if the conversation is really about the subject matter and not just a fight, then there's a point where you can feel like you said your piece, gotten as far as you ever will with the other person, and be happy with how the conversation looks for passers-by.
There are times where it's easy to get sucked in, though, sadly. Maybe someone is being disingenuous and getting away with it. Maybe they misrepresent what you said and you want to clarify. Maybe they're just being a bully, to you or someone else. On the other hand, we don't owe them a response, but on the other, it's a digital shared space, and sometimes you feel like you have to speak up, you know?
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix Link ParentThat's exactly the problem. I got a private message from a user saying they stopped commenting and nearly quit using the site entirely because of those two specific users. One person who commended...That's exactly the problem. I got a private message from a user saying they stopped commenting and nearly quit using the site entirely because of those two specific users. One person who commended me said those two users are the reason they don't participate in political threads. Another person who commended me said "it's always the same two users," despite the fact that I never mentioned the number two in my original comment, so they're likely thinking of the same users. Heck, my original comment was about how posting in those threads made me feel anxious and exhausted. And now, you're echoing the same point: it makes you not want to post to begin with.
Those users are actually subtracting from the dialog on Tildes by driving users away. Ironically, they're also the first to bemoan the toxic behavior of others while CONSTANTLY being toxic themselves. They're "punching back" against people who never took a swing at them.
So, our options are to take the high road and act the way we wanted people to act on this site, or give up, stoop to their level, and play into their narrative by taking the bait.
-
Comment on Stop trying to shame socialists into voting for Joe Biden: It’s really about performatively denouncing leftists as irresponsible, for the edification of the liberals who are watching in ~society
Grawlix Link ParentI think your last point is particularly salient, because I got a couple other direct messages from people saying that, yeah, the behavior from some users in these threads prevents them from...I think your last point is particularly salient, because I got a couple other direct messages from people saying that, yeah, the behavior from some users in these threads prevents them from participating in the first place. It happens to me, too. Sometimes I have something to say, but I don't bother because I know that I'll get dragged into an argument with one of the regular problem users.
-
Comment on Would it be beneficial to ban certain topics of political discourse? in ~tildes
Grawlix Link ParentJust yesterday, I mentioned that there are some resident users here who are almost always toxic in political threads. It got a bunch of votes and three "Exemplary" commendations, but it's sitting...Just yesterday, I mentioned that there are some resident users here who are almost always toxic in political threads. It got a bunch of votes and three "Exemplary" commendations, but it's sitting at the bottom of the thread. I don't care about taking credit, but it sure does seem like some users of this site were abusing the negative labels, maybe because I was talking about them. Whatever, it's done, and it's not like it was outright buried out of sight.
But, I also got a private message and an explanation for one of my commendations that mentioned two specific problem users. Those two were exactly the users I had in mind making the post. I imagine that right now, even without having said who those two users are, you know exactly who I'm talking about. These aren't isolated incidents where someone just isn't their best self, they're patterns of behavior with, at best, very rare exceptions. I don't expect you to babysit them, but as a host, you keep inviting them over despite the fact that they always make your other guests uncomfortable.
And that's us taking personal responsibility. We don't want to get into fights, so we don't talk, because we know if we did, one of those users would start a fight with zero repercussions. Yeah, we can walk away, but you should know that it means the only people left will be people who start fights and people willing to continue putting up with fights.
-
Comment on Stop trying to shame socialists into voting for Joe Biden: It’s really about performatively denouncing leftists as irresponsible, for the edification of the liberals who are watching in ~society
Grawlix (edited )LinkThere are some users I recognize on this site who, almost without fail, absolutely jump at any opportunity to shame the left. They are by far the most toxic users tolerated on the site, and...- Exemplary
There are some users I recognize on this site who, almost without fail, absolutely jump at any opportunity to shame the left. They are by far the most toxic users tolerated on the site, and ironically (and hypocritically) constantly blame the behavior of toxic leftists while engaging in the same sort of general toxicity they claim to be bothered by.
They're the reason I hate political threads on Tildes, because I know if I make a point, they'll show up, call me thin-skinned and delusional, argue against points I never made, and prefer to attack me directly before or even instead of the point I'm trying to make. They will then, without a hint of irony, turn around and bemoan the toxic behavior of anyone left of the DNC for being even moderately critical or upset. Even now, I expect they're going to call me a hypocrite over behavior I never engaged in or endorsed, and that was never endorsed by my preferred candidate. It makes me flinch expecting some new frustration if I get a notification about a new message.
It's a double standard where leftists have to answer for all other leftists, real or imaginary, while no one else is really being pushed to consider their own behavior. I don't say I'm going to abstain from voting because Biden supporters were being mean to me on the internet, and if that kind of thing did change my vote, that'd be ridiculous. Same goes for anyone else else who let the narrative about "toxic behavior" change their vote. It's mostly just an excuse to "fight back," even when the person had nothing to do with it.
I try to assume good faith in any discussion online unless and until proven otherwise, but it is exhausting, especially when the same courtesy isn't extended in return, and doubly so when that person is trying to claim the moral high ground.
-
Comment on What are your favourite space games? in ~games
Grawlix Link ParentSpeaking of Stellaris, it's currently on sale and free to play through this weekend, since it's the fourth anniversary of the game. Now's a good time to check it out!Speaking of Stellaris, it's currently on sale and free to play through this weekend, since it's the fourth anniversary of the game. Now's a good time to check it out!
-
Comment on As a DM, I kinda hate Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition in ~games.tabletop
Grawlix Link ParentNot quite! There's a first and second edition of AD&D, but there were other D&D products. Third edition continued the numbering system of the Advanced line, but dropped the word "Advanced" because...- Exemplary
I believe 2nd edition is the one generally referred to as AD&D.
Not quite! There's a first and second edition of AD&D, but there were other D&D products. Third edition continued the numbering system of the Advanced line, but dropped the word "Advanced" because there were no longer multiple versions of the game at once.
Longer version, if you'll excuse my excitement to retell the story:
There's Original D&D (sometimes referred to as the "white box" or 0e), which was a box set with three pamphlets, and a bunch of expansions.
Then there was the Holmes Basic Set (or "blue box), designed as a compiled intro to the full game.
THEN, legal shenanigans. Gygax created D&D with Dave Arneson, and so Arneson would be owed royalties. To prevent this, they split the product line between Basic and Advanced. The argument went that the Basic version is the one Arneson helped design, whereas Advanced was a totally new product made without him. If there was a single product line, or a game simply called "Dungeons & Dragons" without any other modifier, Arneson's lawyers could more easily say, "this is clearly the game he helped design, so pay him." Both games were kept in print, with several versions of Basic and two editions of Advanced.
Then, TSR went under and was acquired by Wizards of the Coast. They only create a single version of the D&D rules at a time, and from the numbering, you can tell they're continuing the Advanced line—but, since they finally paid out Dave Arneson, they own the game outright and can drop the word "Advanced."
The funny thing about this is that the two versions of the game, despite sounding like an introduction and a full version, were two separate product lines. So you had things like the D&D Expert Set, which was built off of the Basic Set, but was unrelated to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Likewise, there's a product called First Quest, which is labeled "The Introduction to Role-Playing Games," and is meant to introduce people to AD&D, but is distinctly NOT the Basic Set. Weird, isn't it? :P
And as a side note, the two games diverged pretty significantly in style of play. Basic was more streamlined and flexible, whereas Advanced was more rigid, expansive, and codified (for reasons I could get into, but I'm already getting long-winded). And there are still folks who like the old style of play, with a pretty significant preference for Basic. In fact, people are still publishing new, unofficial versions of the rules, and a TON of supplements for it, in something called the OSR (Old School Renaissance/Revival/Rules/RwhateverYouWantThatStartsWithR). And it's not just people grumbling about how things are different from what they liked as a kid (...or at least, not all that :P). I also started with 3e, I'm in a 5e campaign that I enjoy now (albeit with some gripes), but Basic is a really neat, distinct kind of game. Not better or worse, but different. Worth checking out, IMO. :)
-
Comment on Has anyone had any new cooking adventures during the quarantine? in ~food
Grawlix Link ParentOoh, good call. I tried that a while back but couldn't get it right, so now's a good time to practice. I think I blamed it on the fact that I didn't have a rectangular pan, but some video recipes...Ooh, good call. I tried that a while back but couldn't get it right, so now's a good time to practice.
I think I blamed it on the fact that I didn't have a rectangular pan, but some video recipes seem to indicate I was just making excuses. :p
-
Comment on Has anyone had any new cooking adventures during the quarantine? in ~food
Grawlix LinkA few! First, eggs. I've been watching a bunch of J. Kenji Lopez-Alt's videos lately, and he's been super active filming form home during the quarantine. For whatever reason, I've taken to his egg...A few!
First, eggs. I've been watching a bunch of J. Kenji Lopez-Alt's videos lately, and he's been super active filming form home during the quarantine. For whatever reason, I've taken to his egg videos most.
First, the one-pan egg sandwich. I think it became a small-scale trend, but unlike a lot of food fads or hacks, it's just a convenient way of making an egg sandwich. I usually keep it simple with just eggs and cheese (and salt & pepper), and I tend to use bigger slices of bread that only require a single fold (and trimming a tiny bit on the sides to put back in the center).
Second, the Spanish tortilla. Very similar to a frittata, which more people will be familiar with, but made entirely on the stove. I made this one simply because I had some leftover chips. :p
And finally, extra-creamy scrambled eggs. I think this is just generally the French style of scrambled eggs. Anyway, I love serving the eggs in a small bowl with a side of toast to dip into it. Super fancy-feeling and tasty in like 5-10 minutes. My new favorite breakfast/light meal.
I also made some pulled pork! We got a few pieces thanks to a sale at the supermarket, so we took the chance to do an experiment: cooking two in a kamado/big green egg/akorn-style smoker vs. our verticle smoker. The kamado was super sensitive to tweaking of the vents, but incredibly stable and efficient. The vertical smoker was a lot more finicky, but forgiving if you got it too hot (and ESPECIALLY if the fire goes out, which is unlikely with the kamado but an absolute nightmare if it happens, since the fire is in a closed system underneath the food). Most importantly, the kamado just plain had better results, being done faster and with better results. Granted, that might be down to technique, or even something like the accuracy of the built-in thermometer on our vertical smoker. It could also be because the vertical smoker had a much less stable temperature. Regardless, we're going to favor our kamado next time we make the recipe. (The vertical smoker is fantastic for pork loin and fish, though!).
And a while back I made a cottage pie thanks to a Binging with Babish video. Technically that was before the quarantine, but early in the quarantine I made something similar with boneless skinless chicken thighs, and the results were fantastic.
-
Comment on US polling suggests Tara Reade's allegations are having a moderate effect on public opinion of Joe Biden in ~society
Grawlix (edited )Link ParentSigh. I wasn't cherry-picking, I merely posted an essay I thought made a compelling point. It also looks at the history of presidential elections over the past several decades to find a pattern...Sigh.
I wasn't cherry-picking, I merely posted an essay I thought made a compelling point. It also looks at the history of presidential elections over the past several decades to find a pattern with very few exceptions, which is something none of your sources do.
The first looks at a single race in North Carolina.
The second is looking at the House.
The third claims Trump ran as a moderate (what?!) while Clinton was viewed as a liberal anyway, despite being the centrist, "electable" nominee.
The fourth even directly states that name recognition was a FAR more important factor, and show numbers at a fixed point in time. The thesis that these numbers would hold true in a general election only works if you assume no movement. I know I'm heading into speculation here, but my entire point was looking at primaries vs. general elections for the presidency.
And while we're here, let's say for the sake of argument that you're right, that the left has fallen hook, line, & sinker for agitprop and can't be relied on to vote for the Democratic candidate. (Would love to see some sources, though.) If Biden were pushed as the "electable" candidate, shouldn't this be one of the factors taken into consideration? If it's purely a pragmatic choice, and if you're worried the left could swing the election, aren't they some of the voters you should be trying to reach? Is "rallying the base" only a winning strategy for Republicans and not Democrats? Or, are you purely talking about centrist swing voters, and willing to throw the left under the bus?
It seems to me like the left was warning the party about Biden's weaknesses, which much of the party is taking as a threat.
By the way, if you're really bothered by hostility, falling for trollbait, and falling for constructed narratives designed to cause self-propagating division, you really ought to look at your own behavior.
-
Comment on US polling suggests Tara Reade's allegations are having a moderate effect on public opinion of Joe Biden in ~society
Grawlix Link ParentThere's a difference between turnout in the primaries and turnout in the general election. As a result, moderates tend to win primaries but lose general elections. And while some of it is internal...- Exemplary
There's a difference between turnout in the primaries and turnout in the general election. As a result, moderates tend to win primaries but lose general elections.
And while some of it is internal politicking, like endorsements, public statements from DNC members, candidates being allowed into or barred from debates, the scheduling of those debates, or coordinated withdrawal of candidates, there are some confounding factors that don't even need human involvement. Some states have open primaries, some don't. Even considering that, there are people who simply don't bother to vote in primaries but will vote in the general election. The staggered order of primaries creates early winners & losers that shape the future of the primaries. Like most voting in America, first-past-the-post warps preference and pushes "strategic" voting. I'm sure I'm missing something, but there are a ton of ways the way we run elections influences the results of those elections.
Biden was on the verge of dropping out after pathetic results in early states, but a win in South Carolina, along with the support of Buttigieg and Klobuchar (and I would say the DNC in general, but I'll drop that for the sake of argument), he pretty much zoomed out front and rode his way to victory. He barely even campaigned outside of South Carolina, but here we are. One of his biggest selling points was the intentionally vague "electability" metric, which is now ironic in hindsight, since some of the warning signs the left pointed out seem to be coming true—and ironically again, the left is getting blamed for it.
So yes, I at once can accept that Bernie lost the primary election, but would have done better in the general. I'll still vote for Biden if I have to, and barring the unexpected, that seems to be the case.
Here's my corroboration, for what it's worth:
I will straight-up admit to mislabeling that specific comment. It was after I was upset by this whole thing, and I don't know what headspace I was in, but I did something petty and irresponsible. I take full responsibility, I apologize, and I fully support efforts to prevent this kind of thing from being abused in the future. I shouldn't game the system just because I'm salty, and others shouldn't be able to do it as the most effective way of burying comments they disagree with.
As for the "Why the fuck aren't you doing anything about this, Deimos?" I'll also cop to that. There's also definitely some context missing. I'm fairly positive there was something before that in the same comment, where I was pointing out some user bullying others. If not, then almost certainly another report in the same thread. I don't interpret that as "berat[ing] and swear[ing] at," especially not habitually. It was a "what the fuck," not a "fuck you," and I was asking him to do something about others' behavior, not flaunting what I was doing. I was definitely aggressive, but I think it's disingenuous to say I was "habitually" insulting Deimos, especially if this is the prime example. Still, maybe I got too angry when I felt like I was shouting into the wind, and forgot there's another person at the other end.
If universally enforcing a certain standard of behavior would also affect me, I'm fine with it. I can hem and haw about context and frequency, but if the rules are fair, so be it. It would absolutely be worth it to deal with habitual problem users I had in mind.
By the way, I think it's worth mentioning that I never mentioned those two users by name in a public comment. I don't want to draw their attention, but I also didn't want to out them because they'd get a bunch of negative attention. Kind of ironic, all things considered. :/