Grumble4681's recent activity
-
Comment on Haliey Welch interview (Hawk Tuah) by Channel 5 in ~life
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't take it as an attack. It doesn't bother me. I recognize that it probably puts me on the "bystander" side in that particular aspect. But I also know that in the way that I could be...I'm going to answer this since you asked, I think my answer is more mild than you might expect, but either way please don't take it as an attack on you or anything.
I would consider this behaviour to be on the "bystander" side of things. I think it's less ethical than someone who is raising awareness and trying to reduce the effectiveness of her hate. It's more ethical than someone actively supporting her. It makes me "think less of you" but it doesn't automatically make you "a bad person" if that makes sense.
I don't take it as an attack. It doesn't bother me. I recognize that it probably puts me on the "bystander" side in that particular aspect. But I also know that in the way that I could be characterized as a "bystander" in this aspect of this subject, you're a "bystander" on other aspects of other subjects. I know it because it's impossible for you to not be. So while you may think less of me, which I have no real control over so I can't worry about it that much, I can attempt to explain why I think that's not an ideal outcome. If I were to think like that, less of you because you're a bystander in something else, and you think less of me on this subject, what's actually gained from that 'trade' so to speak? What is lost because of it? To me, the loss outweighs the gain.
As for the last part, I do think there's an important aspect of awareness. If you bought her books 20 years ago and didn't know about her hate, I don't hold that against you. If you do so today, knowing full well what she will use that money to do, then I do think that's worse. It doesn't make you evil, but it would lower my opinion of you.
Fair enough. I agree with that. But if I were to take it to a more extreme level, and this is partly going back to why I think we can pick on anyone for anything, and it was brought up in the other thread where some comments attempted to equivocate on the issue, anyone who was subscribed to HBO Max or Max or whatever they were calling it at the time someone subscribed to it, was supporting JKR because they were supporting Warner Brothers and Warner Brothers owns distribution for Harry Potter and were the likely candidate to make continuing Harry Potter content. I don't even view it as much of a stretch to say that subscribing to HBO Max may have actually led to the creation of the show. I have never subscribed to HBO Max. Not because I thought they were going to make a Harry Potter TV series, but if I was not a 'bystander', I would have known better than to subscribe to HBO Max.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentWell that's the reason why people haven't done it or are hesitant to do it, because there's no guidance or clarity. I could see it being the way you said as well, but even then, how do you know...Well that's the reason why people haven't done it or are hesitant to do it, because there's no guidance or clarity. I could see it being the way you said as well, but even then, how do you know what the "right way to go about that" is?
I think even this meta topic/question kinda reaches into that grey area as well. It kind of reinforces your perception, that perhaps having a 'meta' type conversation is the "right way to go about it", but who knows?
If I imagine the scenario where this meta topic didn't happen, and someone just re-posted the same trailer video again, how are we to assume anything would play out any differently? And if we cheat and use some knowledge gained from this meta topic, where people have stated that they will continue to comment about JKR on every Harry Potter post, then even more so we can assume it would play out very similarly. Given that Deimos didn't say what prompted his response or why he took that action, and because things can be deleted without anyone knowing what was said, there's very little clarity and just going back and looking at it alone isn't necessarily enough in part because things can be deleted with no evidence remaining of what was said or if that is what prompted it.
If I was Deimos, and I locked a topic because people can't discuss the topic in a manner that doesn't require my intervention, and then someone creates another topic that turns into the same thing that then requires my intervention again, perhaps I would see that as someone circumventing my action of shutting down the prior topic.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI see them as connected. I don't think it has drifted at all. "why her and not ____" is that I perceive comments moralizing and leveraging the "you're with me or you're against me" tactic, and I'm...But I'm not saying it's black or white so you're not really disagreeing with me anyway. If that's your only point though I think it's drifted quite a bit as your posts talk about all the other stuff I was responding to. Just my reading, and it's late so maybe I'm off. The hill I perceived was the "why her and not _____" that kept coming up.
I see them as connected. I don't think it has drifted at all. "why her and not ____" is that I perceive comments moralizing and leveraging the "you're with me or you're against me" tactic, and I'm saying that if everyone behaved the same way, we could all do the same thing to everyone else in here. "why her and not ____" is the idea that we could pick anything else and we could all do for every person in here if we knew enough about them. Which is an absolutely atrocious approach in dealing with people. No one wins, everyone loses, and everyone hates each other. All because it's a tactic designed to strong arm people who have similar ethics to yourself, but not exactly the same and not for every single subject. So "why her and not [insert subject that is personally impacting me in similar ways that other subject is personally impacting someone else]".
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't expect people not to talk about them. It does not bother me that people express their ideas. What I don't like is when people simply try to reduce the situation into 'you're with me or...But I don't think the solution is never to talk about anything or to stop talking about something that matters to me (or you, or whomever) because there are bigger/worse/different problems out there. Harry Potter may be the equivalent of a stubbed toe in the scheme of the world. But if you've experienced or watched others experience a bunch worse for being trans, having someone say you should ignore the stubbed toe and let everyone talk about how great the thing that keeps hurting your toe is can still sucks.
I don't expect people not to talk about them. It does not bother me that people express their ideas. What I don't like is when people simply try to reduce the situation into 'you're with me or against me' and is often employed to try to make people feel bad that they don't go all the way to a level that the person deems the minimum line. It's not that they disagree on a fundamental level, it's that they don't agree enough. The 'you're with me or you're against me' is a cheap method of trying to guilt someone who is mostly in agreement into fully agreeing but just not quite as much as you want. You recognize they value similar ethics and know that it might make them feel worse if another person of similar values makes them feel bad for not being fully on board. This is probably the hill you perceive me dying on.
Notably, that tactic doesn't work on anyone who is completely in disagreement with you on a fundamental level, which is why it's generally not employed in that scenario. It's already established, they're against you.
In another comment chain you discussed with another user how you don't agree that some conversations can push people away from viewpoints, I already read the whole chain of comments there so I don't expect you to repeat yourself for my sake, but I do think the other side of that perspective aligns with what I'm describing.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentThere's probably not anything stopping people from doing that, but presumably it's a grey area. In many places, that would be like circumventing moderator action. Since Deimos doesn't provide...There's probably not anything stopping people from doing that, but presumably it's a grey area. In many places, that would be like circumventing moderator action. Since Deimos doesn't provide reason for his actions and there's no specific outline for what should be the response to those actions, it's unclear.
The locked topic could be perceived as "don't talk about this particular thing ever again", but I don't necessarily think that is intended to be how it works either, in that case I assume it would be deleted. More so I think it would unofficially be "let things cool off before talking about that again". But who knows.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI get that you're not saying that facetiously or sarcastically, but the question was sort of rhetorical, or perhaps some other word that I don't know to describe what I mean. I don't think there...I get that you're not saying that facetiously or sarcastically, but the question was sort of rhetorical, or perhaps some other word that I don't know to describe what I mean. I don't think there is a 'bad' or 'good' side in that way, not that there isn't any ethical components at all, but rather that they don't squarely fall to bad or good. However I perceive some others to think that it does work that way, and the question is geared towards that. But it's also rhetorical because I don't believe in that black and white thinking. So it does not personally concern me what someone thinks of me on that level, not because I don't care about ethics but because I don't believe ethics can be simplified to that degree. I wasn't seeking a genuine answer for my own gratification or awareness, rather to highlight a contradiction that I felt was present in the posed scenario in the form of a question.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't think it does either, what I'm trying to convey isn't that you can only call out the worst offender that exists, it's the component where I think some people are going past just calling...I don't think "there are worse people out there" means you give up and only call out the single worst person in existence. Systemically this is a problem and we should do what we can to move the needle.
I don't think it does either, what I'm trying to convey isn't that you can only call out the worst offender that exists, it's the component where I think some people are going past just calling out JKR, they're calling out people who watch or consume Harry Potter/JKR content. Not to raise awareness, but on the fundamental basis that they see it as an either "You're with me or you're against me" basis. You're either an enemy, or an ally, and an ally wouldn't watch or consume any content that has anything to do with JKR. This is what I think is what results in getting the topic locked, which is what really underlies the basis of this post being created.
One of my points is that you can make anyone an enemy if you have that mindset. If we had access to everyone's purchases in here, we could make an enemy out of every single person. Even the brightest angel can be made into a demon if that's the mindset you approach it with. So why are we drawing the line that people who are still into Harry Potter are the enemies? Let me be clear, I don't think most people here are seeing it that way, but some of the more charged comments to me do convey that, and the overall voting activity and signal boosting amplifies the effects of those charged comments. It would be different if I was describing a comment that had no votes, and there was no other context around it that indicated people may agree with it, then I'd not even talk about it as though it has any kind of backing that isn't even worth mentioning.
Also I didn't initially start out talking about people being worse than JKR either, that only came from my last comment. What I am trying to convey with mentioning that is how fickle attention can be. The idea that someone who is worse can escape attention and the criticism that comes with it is illustrative of the fickleness. If it's not based on who is doing the most harm, then what is the criteria for who is being targeted? And again, I don't really care what individuals choose to put their focus on even if it's not the most logical to me. I think all of us have our own personal logic to who deserves to be boycotted or called out and I'm fine with everyone attempting to persuade others to see their point of view but that's also different than 'you're with me or you're against me'. That's not simple persuasion.
Just to be clear where I'm coming from on it, I don't care much at all about Harry Potter, I never read the books, have only watched the movies a few times and never paid for them, never watched Fantastic Beasts or had anything to do with any other things JKR has made, so I've probably contributed less financially to JKR than most people here. I also think there's a certain oddness to that too. I'm apparently not a fervent JKR hater to the point where I'm going to go out of my way to tell everyone how much she sucks as a person, and I don't have a problem with people who still consume Harry Potter content. So am I on the 'bad' side? Even if I have given JKR less money than the people who are now on the 'good' side?
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI know you're being ironic about it to highlight the nature of the conversation about HP by further mentioning the discussion of the artist is off-topic, but since said artist is long dead and in...I know you're being ironic about it to highlight the nature of the conversation about HP by further mentioning the discussion of the artist is off-topic, but since said artist is long dead and in no way benefits from it at this point I imagine many people could probably discuss it without as many qualms these days.
I would be one of those people. I wouldn't in this scenario since it's not a genuine offer but also because I don't really respond to that kind of art, it does not really provoke anything to me. I'd probably look at it for a few seconds and then forget about it. It is possible that I've even seen it before and just don't remember it.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentIf not for his name in the URL, that would have been simple for me. I wouldn't have recognized it and the signature isn't legible enough to notice it without studying it more (even then) and I...If not for his name in the URL, that would have been simple for me. I wouldn't have recognized it and the signature isn't legible enough to notice it without studying it more (even then) and I wouldn't have done that ordinarily.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentThat isn't at all what the OP said. I still don't understand how that is being understood that way. The point of the original post appears to be that the topics get locked because bringing up JKR...OP seems to want a safe space for HP fans to talk about HP without people bringing up the real harm Rowling is doing to people:
That isn't at all what the OP said. I still don't understand how that is being understood that way. The point of the original post appears to be that the topics get locked because bringing up JKR results in inflammatory discussion which causes the topic to be locked. So sure, indirectly that can be interpreted as, don't talk about JKR, but what they said directly that contradicts it is also a part you cut out.
To be clear, I am not advocating suppressing either side as I prefer to have dialogue rather than censor it.
So they would probably not care so much about mentions of JKR if those mentions of JKR also didn't result in the topic being locked.
What I am suggesting is that people should be free share their thoughts when someone is being discussed that does things they think are amoral. I'm not arbitrarily picking specifically on Rowling, loads of famous people do terrible stuff and deserve to be called out, call them all out! I listed a few people who created works I like that I think are reprehensible.
And that is my point. You just singled out famous people. Why are only famous people ones worth calling out? I know, it's a bit pedantic and nitpicky and you probably meant for that to convey that everyone should be called out, but what I'm saying is that people often focus on the wrong things. Relying on popular sentiment or whatever conveniently pops up in front of you is not evaluating how those names even get there or their real impacts compared to other things you could be boycotting. Do you know how much JKR contributes to anti-trans groups than anyone else? What if you're funding someone who spends 10 times as much on anti-trans messaging as JKR, but they aren't as visible or noticeable? How do you know that you're not?
If you really want to get into the weeds of things, which is really off topic but shows how dumb it is what people focus on, arguably the people and organizations who support copyright law in its current form, whether they helped it get here or they are making it worse or helping it be as bad as it is now, have created a situation where someone like JKR gets ungodly sums of money, like those people are arguably worse than JKR, because they not only enabled someone like JKR to get into the situation she is in now, but they also have enabled other people to have ridiculous amounts of money that they shouldn't have. Without the totally broken copyright laws that exist right now, JKR wouldn't be nearly as rich, and wouldn't still be making money off HP. And there's not only JKR to reckon with, but tons of others, and if not for AI there would likely be future JKRs to follow.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentJust to be clear, the site has responsive moderation as far as I can tell, in that if you do something to generate a response from Deimos, Deimos does respond, but as far as I can tell, he does...Just to be clear, the site has responsive moderation as far as I can tell, in that if you do something to generate a response from Deimos, Deimos does respond, but as far as I can tell, he does not go looking for things to moderate and if you look at his post/comment history, he does not post much. He could be just a lurker, but again, just from all the pieces I've put together, that isn't the impression I have. I would guess that if everyone here started throwing mud at each other and calling each other vile names but no one ever labeled any of the comments as malice or tagged him, Deimos probably wouldn't see it or know about it and the topic would remain unmoderated in that hypothetical scenario.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't believe that I'm generalizing as much as you say, because I'm not saying everyone who advocates awareness is in that category. The vast majority of the comments I think are fine. You want...I don't believe that I'm generalizing as much as you say, because I'm not saying everyone who advocates awareness is in that category. The vast majority of the comments I think are fine. You want to make sure people know JKR is a transphobe, great, that's good. But if your goal is to make people who already know this feel bad about watching Harry Potter because JKR gets money either directly or indirectly from it, that's the moralizing that I'm talking about. And I do believe there are some comments on here where that is the goal.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentThis site has no active moderation. There is one person who has stereotypical moderator capabilities, the owner of the site, and from what I can tell, they do not actively browse the site looking...Then again, if tildes is OK with that, fine. But I just wanted to point out that doing so will make this website in its entirety unfriendly to Potter fans, and if that's what tildes wants, that's fine too. but at least make it clear in the rules.
This site has no active moderation. There is one person who has stereotypical moderator capabilities, the owner of the site, and from what I can tell, they do not actively browse the site looking for infractions or such. From what I gather, they do not make money off the site, and instead the site costs them money to maintain, and they have a full time job doing something else and therefore this site hasn't gotten feature updates in years. They also don't want to give other people moderation capabilities from what I recall seeing in past conversations. Likely the site doesn't have all the features or functionality to support that without giving other people more than desired amounts of access and power, which would then require someone to develop those features and as I said, that's not happening at the moment.
The more likely outcome in my perspective to come from a call or demand for action is anything that requires less of Deimos (the owner and sole moderator), up to or including dissolution of the site. Again, that part is purely my speculation of how I see the situation.
I'm not a fan of how easy it is for people to get topics locked for things they don't want others to discuss, but that is a function of a site that only has one moderator who doesn't seem to have a lot of free time and doesn't spend all of that free time on this site. It's easier and faster for him to just lock the topic rather than have to deal with the social issues of declaring hard set rules and enforcing them or digging through the weeds to sort out how to better handle the situation.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentThe prior post got locked. Perhaps you didn't see the prior post that sparked this post or how that post ended up getting locked, but then again, if you didn't, I find it rather peculiar to post...The prior post got locked. Perhaps you didn't see the prior post that sparked this post or how that post ended up getting locked, but then again, if you didn't, I find it rather peculiar to post on this one as if you know something when you don't have a clue what happened.
So the request is really about the posts not getting locked because people who don't want anyone to like Harry Potter anymore can easily get posts locked about Harry Potter.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentThis is in the post. Where are you getting that from again?To be clear, I am not advocating suppressing either side as I prefer to have dialogue rather than censor it.
This is in the post.
The request is "Please don't discuss what a bigot JKR is (and how it relates to where she is directing her largest expenditure) when discussing the new adaptation, as that makes HP fans uncomfortable".
Where are you getting that from again?
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentMy point isn't even to make a "gotcha" type of post anymore than people who are trying to point out that JKR is a transphobe is trying to make some kind of "gotcha" post. I bet most people know...I know that JKR is hugely problematic and wants to legislate certain groups out of existence, and I can live without Harry Potter, and so I chose to not give any money to her or the franchise in anyway. And I see no harm in advocating for others to do the same. We aren't all innocent, and we are all going to have things we decide we cant live without that others may dislike, but I don't see how that lessens the value of advocating to cause less harm in ways where we can relatively easily make the choice to live without. You don't have to listen, but I dont think we should discourage people from speaking up because you can "gotcha!" them on something in their bank account that also supports problematic endeavors.
My point isn't even to make a "gotcha" type of post anymore than people who are trying to point out that JKR is a transphobe is trying to make some kind of "gotcha" post. I bet most people know that at this point, just like most people know their money goes to shitheels somewhere down the line. My primary point is that the application of this type of 'justice' is arbitrary and there's a lot of moralizing about it. I just find it rather peculiar for people to moralize about an arbitrary application of justice, like great, you spent an inordinate amount of time and focus on one issue to attempt to shut others down, and all the meanwhile, you conveniently get to ignore all the other things you personally are supporting that are objectionable while doing it. Like it's easy to avoid being told the money you spend on your toothpaste or underwear or whatever is going to pieces of shit because you're spending so much time in one thread talking about JKR or in another thread talking about whatever else. How convenient that it works out, the more you moralize to others about their wrongdoings, you also get to escape scrutiny for your own actions.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentNotably, you said "had" space, not "has" space. Not sure how you don't see how that conflicts with what you're saying.Notably, you said "had" space, not "has" space. Not sure how you don't see how that conflicts with what you're saying.
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentBut the way it's applied is arbitrary. It's like a different version of GoFundMe. If you know anything about how GoFundMe or similar sites are being used, especially ones that get into mainstream...I think that's part of why I think it's a good idea for people to share problems about a person or company or whatever whenever it gets mentioned. Then you become informed and can make a conscious decision: follow your ethics and stop supporting or decide you don't really care and continue to do so.
But the way it's applied is arbitrary. It's like a different version of GoFundMe. If you know anything about how GoFundMe or similar sites are being used, especially ones that get into mainstream news, it's a bunch of feel good bullshit for people to pat themselves on the back for falling for the most creative sob stories. Giving millions of dollars to a few people who have just the right stories to pull on your heartstrings while there are tons of other people suffering under the same or worse conditions who get nothing. Tell me how that make sense. It's not unfamiliar in my experience that they end up being bullshit scams or such.
If we suppress people from talking about it then more people will remain ignorant.
Just to be clear, I'm not the person who posted the parent comment you replied to. Some people may have a different interpretation or takeaway from that comment than I did, which I didn't perceive a suggestion of suppression for certain talking points. And of course in my prior reply I made no implication whatsoever to suppression of any discussion.
I'm saying that if you make your decisions on what to boycott based on what other people tell you is bad, that is arbitrary and to me, similar to the example I used about how GoFundMe is used. I didn't suggest people shouldn't be able to use GoFundMe in that way, like you're free to give your $20 or whatever to someone who ends up getting millions while someone else who was suffering the same fate is getting nothing. So if you're just boycotting what other people tell you to boycott, whenever it conveniently pops up in front of your face, what kind of justice are you really imparting?
-
Comment on I think Tildes moderators and admins may need to make a decision regarding how to handle Harry Potter related posts in ~tildes
Grumble4681 Link ParentI think the main thing about the 2nd point is that it's arbitrary. If you aren't researching everything, then you're endorsing that it is OK to financially support horrible people as long you...For #2, I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to do research on every author, but that's very different from trying to suppress others from speaking up about horrible things an author has done when they come up. If others have done that research and can share information, then that's a great way to learn, and change your mind on things without having to do the research legwork yourself.
Lots of people now know Rowling is transphobic and hateful because people do this. They often don't know the extent, so the more people raise specifics the more that information spreads too.
I think the main thing about the 2nd point is that it's arbitrary. If you aren't researching everything, then you're endorsing that it is OK to financially support horrible people as long you choose to remain ignorant of it. I venture to say that if we cracked open everyone's financials in here and followed where the money they spent goes to, everyone in here is supporting some kind of evil and some kind of oppression of others. No one is innocent here, I would bet on it.
Ordinarily I would agree, but if there are people actively prodding you for reactions for their own profit motives, I think that changes things for me. It's a level of baiting or provocation that doesn't exist except because there's a profit motive behind it. If you distill the basic idea of entrapment for example, that's a concept that we generally agree isn't ethical or potentially lawful, that law enforcement should be able to manufacture crimes by baiting people into crimes they wouldn't have otherwise committed. If you distill the basic actions of that, not the strict definition or legal concept of it, there's a unique and negative motive involved for the person committing the crime in that case, entrapment from law enforcement/government officials, and actions from the target that were induced by the person with a bad motive, and that is not good for society. If we can agree on that basis, I don't see how we can't extract similar ethical concerns outside of that. To be clear, the consequences from the situations can be starkly different so I'm not attempting to equate making a drunken statement to a Youtuber has similar consequences to being baited into a crime by law enforcement.
Is it good for society to enable people with profit motives to induce behaviors from people that wouldn't have otherwise occurred? There probably still is and I know there was some Youtubers whose whole shtick was more 'shock' content and such on the unsuspecting public. Go up and knock someone's phone out of their hand and then call it a "prank" or "social experiment" or a myriad of other actions they do to induce reactions from people for views. These particular types of actions can often actually be charged as crimes under current laws, though perhaps not all of them can be. In any case, sometimes the consequences for breaking these laws are not necessarily enough because they weren't initially made around the basis that someone would do it for a profit motive. The concept that someone would have a motive to do that because they can make tons of money on Youtube didn't exist when those laws were made.
Likewise, I think the concept of 'Everything is fair game in the public square' doesn't account for these more modern circumstances.