She is very talented and is a smoking hot fox. I say she just quit twitter altogether but it’s hard for celebrities to do that when getting face time and attention is part of the job.
She is very talented and is a smoking hot fox. I say she just quit twitter altogether but it’s hard for celebrities to do that when getting face time and attention is part of the job.
There is a lively thread on reddit's Out of the Loop, where someone refers to her as "sexy giraffe Tahani al-Jamil." Now I can't get that nick name out of my head.
There is a lively thread on reddit's Out of the Loop, where someone refers to her as "sexy giraffe Tahani al-Jamil."
That seems like a really weird take to me. I know plenty of people who aren’t straight and identify as queer. Some people aren’t as interested in finding the exact boundaries of their gender or...
That seems like a really weird take to me. I know plenty of people who aren’t straight and identify as queer. Some people aren’t as interested in finding the exact boundaries of their gender or sexuality as others. Sometimes it’s enough to say “look, I’m different, and the people I have various kinds of relationships with might not look like what you’d expect”.
My first thought is that she kissed a girl once, so she now feels qualified to call herself "queer"
This seems extremely judgmental, and honestly I have no idea where it comes from. I don’t know anything about these literal circumstances, but I think attacking people who use the word queer to identify themselves is completely uncalled for.
"Queer" is what you use when you're trying to claim membership of the LGBT community without actually being L, G, B, T, or any of the other minority sexualities and genders.
... LGBT? You mean the initialism that is very, very often spelled LGBTQ? Or LGBTQ+? Literally including queer? I dunno, I just don’t buy the outrage here, and I think this comment is really dismissive of an entire group of people that we should be welcoming and empathizing with.
From her tweet: She's already coming out as not-straight because she felt she had to, rather than on her own terms. I don't think now is the best time to pry into the details.
This is absolutely not how I wanted it to come out. I'm jumping off this hell app for a while because I don't want to read mean comments dismissing this.
She's already coming out as not-straight because she felt she had to, rather than on her own terms. I don't think now is the best time to pry into the details.
Yes. They almost always contribute nothing of value, especially on subjects like this. There's nothing useful or valuable about saying, "Actually, this isn't really coming out. She's probably just...
Yes. They almost always contribute nothing of value, especially on subjects like this. There's nothing useful or valuable about saying, "Actually, this isn't really coming out. She's probably just doing it for attention". Denigrating her actions doesn't affect anyone positively.
And now I'm locking this thread because I'm going to bed and don't want any arguments to continue. I'll unlock it when I'm around tomorrow.
I'm having a hard time matching this up with the code of conduct, and the fact that a few cynical/critical threads about Donald Trump that still stand. Is it cynical comments that criticize...
I'm having a hard time matching this up with the code of conduct, and the fact that a few cynical/critical threads about Donald Trump that still stand.
Is it cynical comments that criticize actions in general? Or are you especially sensitive to this subject?
You seem to be getting unnecessarily hung up on the "cynical" description, but that only tells part of the story IMO. https://docs.tildes.net/policies/code-of-conduct And I would say that accusing...
You seem to be getting unnecessarily hung up on the "cynical" description, but that only tells part of the story IMO.
Don't act like an asshole and routinely make other people's experiences—or lives—worse. Almost all of the restrictions on how you can use Tildes are just more-explicit versions of this basic guideline.
And I would say that accusing someone who was just forced to publicly out themselves due to the harassment they received on other social media sites, as just doing it purely for attention or not being genuine, and then further attempting to apply a purity test to their choice to describe themselves as queer (a perfectly valid umbrella term) instead of getting specific as to their exact gender identity and sexual orientation, counts as making their life and others experience here worse, IMO.
As to other comments being left up you feel were potentially similarly problematic, did you report them using the Malice label? In my experience Deimos is usually pretty responsive to them when the report is warranted, often warning the people involved to cut it out, removing the offending comments if they're egregious, or even locking the topic entirely if the comment section has gone completely off the rails.
I'm sorry, I'm not discussing this specific case in point, that is not going to be productive. I am asking if there is a general principle that would apply to other topics. No, I don't want to tag...
I'm sorry, I'm not discussing this specific case in point, that is not going to be productive.
I am asking if there is a general principle that would apply to other topics.
No, I don't want to tag "Donald Trump is a pathalogical liar" with Malice. Yet, by your logic, if there are any Donald Trump supporters here, that criticism makes their life arguably worse. But, I feel there is value in having a broader discussion on how Donald Trumps lies are highly effective. Except, those discussions are likely to go off the rails if they attract supporters of Donald Trump.
I don't really see how that would be the case, for what its worth. A criticism of Trump would not make his supporter's life harder, and definitely wouldn't have the same effect as deriding in...
Yet, by your logic, if there are any Donald Trump supporters here, that criticism makes their life arguably worse.
I don't really see how that would be the case, for what its worth. A criticism of Trump would not make his supporter's life harder, and definitely wouldn't have the same effect as deriding in general terms a label which people apply to themselves, often after a long process of figuring themselves out.
I am asking if there is a general principle that would apply to other topics.
The general principle is
Don't act like an asshole and routinely make other people's experiences—or lives—worse.
But general principles are never enough when it comes to moderation - the context of the discussion must always be taken into account. Moderation is always a judgement call, and it is best to keep principles broader or else you fall into an infinite descent of nitpicking and adjust rules to try and cover every possible violation that might happen.
Ahhhhh. Thank you. I think I get it now. I'm sad Kat is no longer around. I'm sure she would have quickly been able to knock some sense into me.
definitely wouldn't have the same effect as deriding in general terms a label which people apply to themselves, often after a long process of figuring themselves out.
Ahhhhh.
Thank you.
I think I get it now.
I'm sad Kat is no longer around. I'm sure she would have quickly been able to knock some sense into me.
To add to @gpl's point about it generally being better to rely on broader principles so as to avoid the nitpicking (aka rule lawyering) feedback loop that inevitably goes with getting too...
To add to @gpl's point about it generally being better to rely on broader principles so as to avoid the nitpicking (aka rule lawyering) feedback loop that inevitably goes with getting too specific, I highly recommend checking out Eevee's On a technicality blog post on the subject. It's a truly eye-opening read, IMO.
She is very talented and is a smoking hot fox. I say she just quit twitter altogether but it’s hard for celebrities to do that when getting face time and attention is part of the job.
There is a lively thread on reddit's Out of the Loop, where someone refers to her as "sexy giraffe Tahani al-Jamil."
Now I can't get that nick name out of my head.
That seems like a really weird take to me. I know plenty of people who aren’t straight and identify as queer. Some people aren’t as interested in finding the exact boundaries of their gender or sexuality as others. Sometimes it’s enough to say “look, I’m different, and the people I have various kinds of relationships with might not look like what you’d expect”.
This seems extremely judgmental, and honestly I have no idea where it comes from. I don’t know anything about these literal circumstances, but I think attacking people who use the word queer to identify themselves is completely uncalled for.
... LGBT? You mean the initialism that is very, very often spelled LGBTQ? Or LGBTQ+? Literally including queer? I dunno, I just don’t buy the outrage here, and I think this comment is really dismissive of an entire group of people that we should be welcoming and empathizing with.
From her tweet:
She's already coming out as not-straight because she felt she had to, rather than on her own terms. I don't think now is the best time to pry into the details.
There's no reason to go looking for a way to be cynical about this.
Is there a reason to remove cynical comments?
Yes. They almost always contribute nothing of value, especially on subjects like this. There's nothing useful or valuable about saying, "Actually, this isn't really coming out. She's probably just doing it for attention". Denigrating her actions doesn't affect anyone positively.
And now I'm locking this thread because I'm going to bed and don't want any arguments to continue. I'll unlock it when I'm around tomorrow.
I'm having a hard time matching this up with the code of conduct, and the fact that a few cynical/critical threads about Donald Trump that still stand.
Is it cynical comments that criticize actions in general? Or are you especially sensitive to this subject?
You seem to be getting unnecessarily hung up on the "cynical" description, but that only tells part of the story IMO.
https://docs.tildes.net/policies/code-of-conduct
And I would say that accusing someone who was just forced to publicly out themselves due to the harassment they received on other social media sites, as just doing it purely for attention or not being genuine, and then further attempting to apply a purity test to their choice to describe themselves as queer (a perfectly valid umbrella term) instead of getting specific as to their exact gender identity and sexual orientation, counts as making their life and others experience here worse, IMO.
As to other comments being left up you feel were potentially similarly problematic, did you report them using the Malice label? In my experience Deimos is usually pretty responsive to them when the report is warranted, often warning the people involved to cut it out, removing the offending comments if they're egregious, or even locking the topic entirely if the comment section has gone completely off the rails.
I'm sorry, I'm not discussing this specific case in point, that is not going to be productive.
I am asking if there is a general principle that would apply to other topics.
No, I don't want to tag "Donald Trump is a pathalogical liar" with Malice. Yet, by your logic, if there are any Donald Trump supporters here, that criticism makes their life arguably worse. But, I feel there is value in having a broader discussion on how Donald Trumps lies are highly effective. Except, those discussions are likely to go off the rails if they attract supporters of Donald Trump.
I don't really see how that would be the case, for what its worth. A criticism of Trump would not make his supporter's life harder, and definitely wouldn't have the same effect as deriding in general terms a label which people apply to themselves, often after a long process of figuring themselves out.
The general principle is
But general principles are never enough when it comes to moderation - the context of the discussion must always be taken into account. Moderation is always a judgement call, and it is best to keep principles broader or else you fall into an infinite descent of nitpicking and adjust rules to try and cover every possible violation that might happen.
Ahhhhh.
Thank you.
I think I get it now.
I'm sad Kat is no longer around. I'm sure she would have quickly been able to knock some sense into me.
To add to @gpl's point about it generally being better to rely on broader principles so as to avoid the nitpicking (aka rule lawyering) feedback loop that inevitably goes with getting too specific, I highly recommend checking out Eevee's On a technicality blog post on the subject. It's a truly eye-opening read, IMO.
This is exactly the post I was thinking about but couldn't remember the name of nor where I saw it. It was recently posted here on Tildes, I think.
https://tildes.net/~comp/lhn/old_css_new_css#comment-4jiq ;)
That wasn't an invitation to do it again.