Thank you for the satire tag. For a minute I was thinking, “What is with all these grossly negative posts lately?” and then I realised that was (probably) your point. 😅
Thank you for the satire tag. For a minute I was thinking, “What is with all these grossly negative posts lately?” and then I realised that was (probably) your point. 😅
It was indeed. I wasn't sure whether it would be obvious so I tried to copy-paste as many full sentence structures as possible from the original post. To clarify, this is not intended to pick on...
Exemplary
It was indeed. I wasn't sure whether it would be obvious so I tried to copy-paste as many full sentence structures as possible from the original post.
To clarify, this is not intended to pick on anyone and I hope it isn't taken the wrong way. It's just an attempt to illustrate what it looks like when someone unfamiliar with a subject makes an effort to dismiss it.
We've all been at the bottom of the competence hierarchy and most of us, when it comes to many areas of life, still are. And it's completely fine. Nobody can be well informed about everything. It would be awesome, though, if before expressing overly critical views we could spend a moment checking our level of professionalism/enthusiasm and if we find it to be low, maybe consider that professional/enthusiastic people in fact know more about it than we do. And that the statements we make as facts are most likely incorrect in some way.
In other words, when we couldn't care less about something and don't know much at all about it, our perception of its value is likely incorrect.
...I mean, a programmer just sits all day in front of a computer screen, staring at it, occasionally tapping the keyboard. How utterly lazy and meaningless. Who do these people think they are?
I don't really see how this can be taken any other way than "needlessly hostile". You just reworded the post from yesterday to belittle the person for their post. I don't feel that saying "it's...
I don't really see how this can be taken any other way than "needlessly hostile". You just reworded the post from yesterday to belittle the person for their post. I don't feel that saying "it's satire" absolves this of just being bullying. That's the excuse of 2016 prank YouTube. If you wanted to make this point, surely commenting on the actual thread with this would have been better (this comment is a good contribution, why wrap it in the mean sub-tweet instead of engaging with the original post?).
Fair point, but the impact would have been different as a comment. I'm a professional artist and seeing the title and reading the post was an absurd experience. I wanted to try to share the...
If you wanted to make this point, surely commenting on the actual thread with this would have been better (this comment is a good contribution, why wrap it in the mean sub-tweet instead of engaging with the original post?).
Fair point, but the impact would have been different as a comment. I'm a professional artist and seeing the title and reading the post was an absurd experience. I wanted to try to share the experience with others by showing how I felt, rather than explaining or describing it.
...to belittle the person for their post.
No, I did not do this to belittle anyone. I showed OOP a mirror. I hope that they didn't take offense but at least it wasn't my intention and if my post did offend them, I will apologise.
Ironically, I think this post is an example of, or at least parallel to, some of the modern art that that OP doesn't get (which is fine; I'm often in the same boat with modern art, even though I...
Ironically, I think this post is an example of, or at least parallel to, some of the modern art that that OP doesn't get (which is fine; I'm often in the same boat with modern art, even though I generally like modern art). How often, modern art is critiquing or criticizing past art. So now we have new post critiquing or criticizing past post. Tildoes are such artists! Who knew?
Either way, I don't see a huge problem with this post. Clearly the OP of the main post wanted to have a conversation. Why can't we have a conversation here, too? Would it be a problem if this post were simply another comment in that thread? Would it still be considered needlessly hostile? Or is it because this is its own post, that's what makes it needlessly hostile? If so, why?
It definitely reads as hostile, but that’s partly because the original post it’s paralleling in structure is hostile. The main difference is the original post was hostile to a medium and people...
It definitely reads as hostile, but that’s partly because the original post it’s paralleling in structure is hostile. The main difference is the original post was hostile to a medium and people into it generically while this directs that tone at a recognizable someone specifically. Is it more mean-spirited if I point directly at you and say you’re ugly but a-okay as long as I only say “God I hate anyone whose name reminds me of a mall department store combined with a mythological bird! What!? Why are you mad? I didn’t single anyone out!”
So I don’t know if it’s “needlessly” hostile, since the intent of the post is to demonstrate to anyone inclined to agree with the original post how that sort of take sounds. So wow, yeah, that is pretty hostile. OP ends up sounding like kind of a jerk. What could the implications of this be!?
You're ignoring how incredibly childish it is to just make another topic to mock someone. This entire topic exists for people to come in and dogpile on someone else.
It definitely reads as hostile, but that’s partly because the original post it’s paralleling in structure is hostile.
You're ignoring how incredibly childish it is to just make another topic to mock someone. This entire topic exists for people to come in and dogpile on someone else.
So what? I'm not encouraging the view of the original topic, but at least there we had some meaningful discussion and some well meaning and well thought out posts to try and explain to OP where...
Exemplary
So what?
I'm not encouraging the view of the original topic, but at least there we had some meaningful discussion and some well meaning and well thought out posts to try and explain to OP where they might be faulty in their views.
This topic exists solely to make fun of someone. What possible gain is there? Who cares which is less mature? At least something positive can come of the other topic. What positive outcome is there here?
I mean it's a social commentary on the other post, which is clearly shared by many people in these comments. To expand upon this a bit because I didn't have the heart to leave a short comment or...
Exemplary
This topic exists solely to make fun of someone. What possible gain is there? Who cares which is less mature? At least something positive can come of the other topic. What positive outcome is there here?
I mean it's a social commentary on the other post, which is clearly shared by many people in these comments.
To expand upon this a bit because I didn't have the heart to leave a short comment or jump into the fray on the other topic, but feel prompted to now:
The other post was extremely childish. OP was angry that people enjoyed something they didn't enjoy. They spent the effort to write up a post explaining they were angry and to actively judge people who enjoyed a thing they didn't. They even went above and beyond that, ascribing active malice to people who take part creating the thing that they do not enjoy, because they felt the need to justify their anger - to prove to others that they were correct.
I cannot state enough how fucking cringe that was. And that people weren't in the comments calling out OP for such a useless post. An equally inflammatory post. A post which garners no more meaningful discussion than this post. The other topic also existed solely to make fun of someone. These two topics are the same, just one is slapping you in the face about it rather than disguising itself.
Yes let’s bully people into self reflection through embarrassment rather than the meaningful discussion in the original topic that already led to that.
Yes let’s bully people into self reflection through embarrassment rather than the meaningful discussion in the original topic that already led to that.
I apologize, but I'm afraid that I don't really understand how you can think that the original post was appropriate while this one wasn't. If one is bullying, than so is the other, for the very...
I apologize, but I'm afraid that I don't really understand how you can think that the original post was appropriate while this one wasn't.
If one is bullying, than so is the other, for the very similar reasons. You can't have it both ways.
How is discussing, even extremely negatively, “art” the same as bullying? Is any negative discussion of a thing that any other person does “bullying”? For a concrete example, every tenth post on...
How is discussing, even extremely negatively, “art” the same as bullying? Is any negative discussion of a thing that any other person does “bullying”? For a concrete example, every tenth post on this site is about how AI is bad, does that amount to bullying people who develop or use AI?
Like I said above, I did not make this to mock someone. If you are unable/unwilling to believe me, then you should equally agree that the original topic exists to mock someone like me (an artist).
Like I said above, I did not make this to mock someone.
If you are unable/unwilling to believe me, then you should equally agree that the original topic exists to mock someone like me (an artist).
I don’t care. The purpose of the topic is just “lol they suck” And? Just because they maybe shouldn’t have doesn’t mean a dogpile topic is justified. What possible positive discussion do you see...
I don’t care. The purpose of the topic is just “lol they suck”
And? Just because they maybe shouldn’t have doesn’t mean a dogpile topic is justified. What possible positive discussion do you see arising from this topic?
To me, the post illustrates casts a new light on how hostile the prior post actually was, and would encourage me to be more thoughtful if I ever felt the need to discuss something I disliked.
What possible positive discussion do you see arising from this topic?
To me, the post illustrates casts a new light on how hostile the prior post actually was, and would encourage me to be more thoughtful if I ever felt the need to discuss something I disliked.
And that couldn’t have been done in the comments? We need an entire diss topic which explicitly calls out the OP? This is basic bullying and the number of people defending it is disheartening.
And that couldn’t have been done in the comments? We need an entire diss topic which explicitly calls out the OP?
This is basic bullying and the number of people defending it is disheartening.
Actually, no. The thrust of the parody is that, for the initial second that you believe it's genuine, you experience the knee jerk feeling of "eye roll someone is angry that sports exist" before...
And that couldn’t have been done in the comments?
Actually, no. The thrust of the parody is that, for the initial second that you believe it's genuine, you experience the knee jerk feeling of "eye roll someone is angry that sports exist" before you realise that it's related to the other post and that it therefore might have a similar level of merit. If it was posted in the thread your guard would be up, so it wouldn't illicit a genuine reaction and wouldn't have made its point.
which explicitly calls out the OP?
Unless the post has been edited since posting it doesn't appear to explicitly mention OP at all.
This is basic bullying
I genuinely don't see how you came to this conclusion. It responds (validly) to the argument of the original post, doesn't mention the original poster at all, doesn't link to the original post, doesn't personally insult the OP, in fact the only people it personally insults are athletes and only in a tongue-in-cheek manner.
I personally found the original post far meaner because it does earnestly engage in personal attacks: calling anyone creating modern art a scammer and (implicitly) anyone enjoying modern art as a scammee. That means it most definitely did directly personally insult Tildes users who read it.
If by chilling speech you mean "Maybe i need to reconsider the words I say before I say them" then...I'd consider that mission accomplished, and I honestly don't see why that's a bad thing.
If by chilling speech you mean "Maybe i need to reconsider the words I say before I say them" then...I'd consider that mission accomplished, and I honestly don't see why that's a bad thing.
While I mostly agree with you, I specifically didn't comment on the other post from yesterday because I knew that I had nothing nice to say and didn't want to bring pure negativity to tildes if I...
While I mostly agree with you, I specifically didn't comment on the other post from yesterday because I knew that I had nothing nice to say and didn't want to bring pure negativity to tildes if I could avoid it.
A comment on the thread might've been good for discussion, but they still made it clear it was about the sentiment lately and seeing a satirical post when written with purpose feels like a worthy...
A comment on the thread might've been good for discussion, but they still made it clear it was about the sentiment lately and seeing a satirical post when written with purpose feels like a worthy case for creative critique
I'm reminded of the Onion's description of parody in their famous amicus brief I think the post is an effective use of parody to demonstrate the point. By posting it in a way that the reader...
I'm reminded of the Onion's description of parody in their famous amicus brief
tricking readers into believing that they’re seeing a serious rendering of some specific form [...] and then allowing them to laugh at their own gullibility
I think the post is an effective use of parody to demonstrate the point. By posting it in a way that the reader initially takes it as genuine, it lets us fully feel the absurdity of getting angry at a thing just because you don't see why other people like it.
That's right, I just cited the US supreme court's website in an argument about whether reductio ad absurdum counts as online bullying
Parodies are commonly shared on social media because it's easy and people think it's clever. Sometimes it actually is clever! (With the Onion, often it's just the headline that's clever.) Sure, it...
Parodies are commonly shared on social media because it's easy and people think it's clever. Sometimes it actually is clever! (With the Onion, often it's just the headline that's clever.)
Sure, it should be allowed and occasionally it's fun, but often it's mean-spirited and not the sort of thing I like to see in my feed.
What's the underlying point in this case? It's basically a rough analogy. How is criticizing modern art similar to criticizing sports? Well, it's similar in some ways and different in others.
With a bit more thought, it might be possible to figure out something meaningful to say without the sneer that parody often adds?
Off the top of my head, there's clearly a lot of money that goes into sports, and like modern art it can seem rather excessive and wasteful, to people who aren't into it. And that's not even taking into account sports betting.
(I'm not going to go around calling it "sportsball" though, because I see no reason to be mean about it.)
Hilariously you're engaging in similar logic as both posts. You fail to see the subjective value in parody and so you react with annoyance to what you see as simple low-brow meanness, when in fact...
Hilariously you're engaging in similar logic as both posts. You fail to see the subjective value in parody and so you react with annoyance to what you see as simple low-brow meanness, when in fact there's far more there if you're willing to engage with it.
I did actually find your post insulting in places: Implying parody is easy and appeals to people who think (usually wrongly) that they're clever. Implying this post didn't require much thought and...
I did actually find your post insulting in places:
Parodies are commonly shared on social media because it's easy and people think it's clever. Sometimes it actually is clever!
Implying parody is easy and appeals to people who think (usually wrongly) that they're clever.
With a bit more thought, it might be possible to figure out something meaningful to say
Implying this post didn't require much thought and didn't say anything meaningful, which I found quite audacious when you were replying to (but ignoring) my explanation of why it was effective parody.
This is the most reddit I've seen Tildes be.
Ouch, and I deserved that.
Devastating comment
We did it Tildes
Thank you for the satire tag. For a minute I was thinking, “What is with all these grossly negative posts lately?” and then I realised that was (probably) your point. 😅
It was indeed. I wasn't sure whether it would be obvious so I tried to copy-paste as many full sentence structures as possible from the original post.
To clarify, this is not intended to pick on anyone and I hope it isn't taken the wrong way. It's just an attempt to illustrate what it looks like when someone unfamiliar with a subject makes an effort to dismiss it.
We've all been at the bottom of the competence hierarchy and most of us, when it comes to many areas of life, still are. And it's completely fine. Nobody can be well informed about everything. It would be awesome, though, if before expressing overly critical views we could spend a moment checking our level of professionalism/enthusiasm and if we find it to be low, maybe consider that professional/enthusiastic people in fact know more about it than we do. And that the statements we make as facts are most likely incorrect in some way.
In other words, when we couldn't care less about something and don't know much at all about it, our perception of its value is likely incorrect.
...I mean, a programmer just sits all day in front of a computer screen, staring at it, occasionally tapping the keyboard. How utterly lazy and meaningless. Who do these people think they are?
I don't really see how this can be taken any other way than "needlessly hostile". You just reworded the post from yesterday to belittle the person for their post. I don't feel that saying "it's satire" absolves this of just being bullying. That's the excuse of 2016 prank YouTube. If you wanted to make this point, surely commenting on the actual thread with this would have been better (this comment is a good contribution, why wrap it in the mean sub-tweet instead of engaging with the original post?).
Fair point, but the impact would have been different as a comment. I'm a professional artist and seeing the title and reading the post was an absurd experience. I wanted to try to share the experience with others by showing how I felt, rather than explaining or describing it.
No, I did not do this to belittle anyone. I showed OOP a mirror. I hope that they didn't take offense but at least it wasn't my intention and if my post did offend them, I will apologise.
Ironically, I think this post is an example of, or at least parallel to, some of the modern art that that OP doesn't get (which is fine; I'm often in the same boat with modern art, even though I generally like modern art). How often, modern art is critiquing or criticizing past art. So now we have new post critiquing or criticizing past post. Tildoes are such artists! Who knew?
Either way, I don't see a huge problem with this post. Clearly the OP of the main post wanted to have a conversation. Why can't we have a conversation here, too? Would it be a problem if this post were simply another comment in that thread? Would it still be considered needlessly hostile? Or is it because this is its own post, that's what makes it needlessly hostile? If so, why?
It definitely reads as hostile, but that’s partly because the original post it’s paralleling in structure is hostile. The main difference is the original post was hostile to a medium and people into it generically while this directs that tone at a recognizable someone specifically. Is it more mean-spirited if I point directly at you and say you’re ugly but a-okay as long as I only say “God I hate anyone whose name reminds me of a mall department store combined with a mythological bird! What!? Why are you mad? I didn’t single anyone out!”
So I don’t know if it’s “needlessly” hostile, since the intent of the post is to demonstrate to anyone inclined to agree with the original post how that sort of take sounds. So wow, yeah, that is pretty hostile. OP ends up sounding like kind of a jerk. What could the implications of this be!?
You're ignoring how incredibly childish it is to just make another topic to mock someone. This entire topic exists for people to come in and dogpile on someone else.
One could argue it's no more or less childish than condemning an entire style of art.
So what?
I'm not encouraging the view of the original topic, but at least there we had some meaningful discussion and some well meaning and well thought out posts to try and explain to OP where they might be faulty in their views.
This topic exists solely to make fun of someone. What possible gain is there? Who cares which is less mature? At least something positive can come of the other topic. What positive outcome is there here?
"Oh yeah op sure does fucking suck!". Wow, great.
I mean it's a social commentary on the other post, which is clearly shared by many people in these comments.
To expand upon this a bit because I didn't have the heart to leave a short comment or jump into the fray on the other topic, but feel prompted to now:
The other post was extremely childish. OP was angry that people enjoyed something they didn't enjoy. They spent the effort to write up a post explaining they were angry and to actively judge people who enjoyed a thing they didn't. They even went above and beyond that, ascribing active malice to people who take part creating the thing that they do not enjoy, because they felt the need to justify their anger - to prove to others that they were correct.
I cannot state enough how fucking cringe that was. And that people weren't in the comments calling out OP for such a useless post. An equally inflammatory post. A post which garners no more meaningful discussion than this post. The other topic also existed solely to make fun of someone. These two topics are the same, just one is slapping you in the face about it rather than disguising itself.
Self-reflection? Reconsideration of the words we use when we talk about something we don't particularly care for?
Yes let’s bully people into self reflection through embarrassment rather than the meaningful discussion in the original topic that already led to that.
I apologize, but I'm afraid that I don't really understand how you can think that the original post was appropriate while this one wasn't.
If one is bullying, than so is the other, for the very similar reasons. You can't have it both ways.
How is discussing, even extremely negatively, “art” the same as bullying? Is any negative discussion of a thing that any other person does “bullying”? For a concrete example, every tenth post on this site is about how AI is bad, does that amount to bullying people who develop or use AI?
I feel like personal attacks are always more childish than attacks on abstract concepts?
The OP of this post is a professional artist and clearly felt attacked.
Like I said above, I did not make this to mock someone.
If you are unable/unwilling to believe me, then you should equally agree that the original topic exists to mock someone like me (an artist).
I don’t care. The purpose of the topic is just “lol they suck”
And? Just because they maybe shouldn’t have doesn’t mean a dogpile topic is justified. What possible positive discussion do you see arising from this topic?
To me, the post illustrates casts a new light on how hostile the prior post actually was, and would encourage me to be more thoughtful if I ever felt the need to discuss something I disliked.
And that couldn’t have been done in the comments? We need an entire diss topic which explicitly calls out the OP?
This is basic bullying and the number of people defending it is disheartening.
Actually, no. The thrust of the parody is that, for the initial second that you believe it's genuine, you experience the knee jerk feeling of "eye roll someone is angry that sports exist" before you realise that it's related to the other post and that it therefore might have a similar level of merit. If it was posted in the thread your guard would be up, so it wouldn't illicit a genuine reaction and wouldn't have made its point.
Unless the post has been edited since posting it doesn't appear to explicitly mention OP at all.
I genuinely don't see how you came to this conclusion. It responds (validly) to the argument of the original post, doesn't mention the original poster at all, doesn't link to the original post, doesn't personally insult the OP, in fact the only people it personally insults are athletes and only in a tongue-in-cheek manner.
I personally found the original post far meaner because it does earnestly engage in personal attacks: calling anyone creating modern art a scammer and (implicitly) anyone enjoying modern art as a scammee. That means it most definitely did directly personally insult Tildes users who read it.
I guess if chilling speech is the actual goal, then it might be a good way to achieve it?
If by chilling speech you mean "Maybe i need to reconsider the words I say before I say them" then...I'd consider that mission accomplished, and I honestly don't see why that's a bad thing.
I like the term Tildoes...
While I mostly agree with you, I specifically didn't comment on the other post from yesterday because I knew that I had nothing nice to say and didn't want to bring pure negativity to tildes if I could avoid it.
A comment on the thread might've been good for discussion, but they still made it clear it was about the sentiment lately and seeing a satirical post when written with purpose feels like a worthy case for creative critique
I'm reminded of the Onion's description of parody in their famous amicus brief
I think the post is an effective use of parody to demonstrate the point. By posting it in a way that the reader initially takes it as genuine, it lets us fully feel the absurdity of getting angry at a thing just because you don't see why other people like it.
That's right, I just cited the US supreme court's website in an argument about whether reductio ad absurdum counts as online bullying
Parodies are commonly shared on social media because it's easy and people think it's clever. Sometimes it actually is clever! (With the Onion, often it's just the headline that's clever.)
Sure, it should be allowed and occasionally it's fun, but often it's mean-spirited and not the sort of thing I like to see in my feed.
What's the underlying point in this case? It's basically a rough analogy. How is criticizing modern art similar to criticizing sports? Well, it's similar in some ways and different in others.
With a bit more thought, it might be possible to figure out something meaningful to say without the sneer that parody often adds?
Off the top of my head, there's clearly a lot of money that goes into sports, and like modern art it can seem rather excessive and wasteful, to people who aren't into it. And that's not even taking into account sports betting.
(I'm not going to go around calling it "sportsball" though, because I see no reason to be mean about it.)
Hilariously you're engaging in similar logic as both posts. You fail to see the subjective value in parody and so you react with annoyance to what you see as simple low-brow meanness, when in fact there's far more there if you're willing to engage with it.
Well, I think I sufficiently acknowledged that some parodies are better than others.
Like how this post implied some sports are better than others?
Face it,you are the second parody.
That's clearly insulting. I don't think my post was much like that at all.
I did actually find your post insulting in places:
Implying parody is easy and appeals to people who think (usually wrongly) that they're clever.
Implying this post didn't require much thought and didn't say anything meaningful, which I found quite audacious when you were replying to (but ignoring) my explanation of why it was effective parody.
~circlejerk is... no-a-way :(
You've summed up the spirit of the comment I typed out on the last thread and then decided not to post.
I was getting so ready to be an asshole until I realized it was a joke, bravo.