Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by caractacus View Post
    I see you conveniently drop the use of the word "extremely"

    All those things you mentioned can be contextual, subjective, unintentional and cause varying degrees of harm.

    A film maker might include racist or homophobic behaviour to make their film more hard hitting, it's not toxicity it's dramatic license.

    A man might hold a door open for a women who finds it sexist, it's not toxic it's just a misunderstanding.
    I see you conveniently can't read.

    You conveniently missed the malice and harm bits.

    Homophobia and Sexism are objectively harmful when malicious.

    This is no subjective here.
    Last edited by Mihalik; 2021-11-23 at 02:47 PM.

  2. #42
    Dreadlord Sagenod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    That's a whole lot of horseshit for saying- I don't like being called out for holding utterly reprehensible positions concerning social issues.



    ...and...

    When I engage in racist, sexist, homophobic etc discourse, I'm not actually being a racist, sexist, homophobe, I'm just being an intellectual, don't cancel me bro.

    Again. The dictionary definition works perfectly fine. Stop trying to redefine things to fit into your alternative facts nonsense.

    Not all forms of discourse have value, are productive or make any contribution to society.

    Liberal democracies are very vulnerable to anti-democratic, anti-social and deeply regressive movements using the mechanisms of free speech and freedom of association to erode democracy and personal freedom. That's why recognizing such things, labeling them and rejecting them is so important.
    False! Thank you for your thoughtfulness, but don't try to tell me what my words mean.
    Check out the Drakonaar, my playable race concept! (WIP -- Looking for artists)


  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    The dictionary definition fits.

    Extremely harsh, malicious or harmful behavior.

    Sexism or more specifically in your example sexual abuse is harmful behavior.

    It's really not rocket science. So when there's pearl clutching about sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise harmful speech or behaviour being called toxic, there's no need to over think it.

    If it walks like a duck...
    Yeah I mean plenty of examples would be easy to point out as toxic. Donald Trump is toxic.

    But that word gets thrown around a lot when talking about things not political or workplace related.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Yeah I mean plenty of examples would be easy to point out as toxic. Donald Trump is toxic.

    But that word gets thrown around a lot when talking about things not political or workplace related.
    Politics nor workplace are prerequisite for toxicity.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    False! Thank you for your thoughtfulness, but don't try to tell me what my words mean.
    I see you went to the "I'm not saying that XYZ, I'm just saying" school of rhetoric, the same school as "I'm not "insert reprehensible crap" but...."

  6. #46
    Dreadlord Sagenod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    I see you went to the "I'm not saying that XYZ, I'm just saying" school of rhetoric, the same school as "I'm not "insert reprehensible crap" but...."
    And I suppose you went to the school for making baseless assumptions. Open discourse is incredibly important to a free society!
    Check out the Drakonaar, my playable race concept! (WIP -- Looking for artists)


  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    And I suppose you went to the school for making baseless assumptions. Open discourse is incredibly important to a free society!
    Nobody is stopping you from engaging in open discourse.

    But allowing open discourse is not the same as platforming harmful reprehensible shit. For someone who claims not to be rolling with people engaged in reprehensible shit, you sure carry a lot of water for them.

  8. #48
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    And I suppose you went to the school for making baseless assumptions. Open discourse is incredibly important to a free society!
    If you can't handle people telling you how reprehensible and unjustifiable your positions are, then you're not looking for "open discourse", you're looking for an echo chamber.

    When a racist says something racist and a dozen people jump on them (rhetorically) pointing out that they're a racist saying racist things and that means they're abusive asshole shitheads who should eat shit and fuck off, that's what open discourse looks like. Don't like getting dogpiled for holding really egregiously shitty views? Try not having such views. Or at least, not expressing them in public. If you do, given that open discourse exists, people are gonna give you a piece of their mind.

    That's how this works.

    Edit: I'll also note, pre-emptively, before you come back with a shocked-face response to the suggestion such conduct is laudable, the racist posting racist drivel fired first. The racism they posted was itself an attack, and that's why it triggered a hostile response. Bigotry is hostile and aggressive. It's an attack. Trying to phrase it politely just means you're trying to conceal the knife you're expecting to stab someone with. It doesn't make it less hostile.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-11-25 at 02:37 AM.


  9. #49
    Sweet, this is an easy one.

    It was a single released by System of a Down in 2002. It's known for its aggressive vocals, dynamic chorus, and prominent drum beat. It's predominately in triple meter. The guitar during the verse plays in 6/4 using a 2+2+2 phrasing while the heavy part makes use of a hemiola with the guitar switching to a 3+3+3+3 pattern while the drums remain in compound duple meter until the bridge. During a performance at the 2005 Download Festival, Daron Malakian said that the song was about Attention Deficit Disorder. It's a little weird to hear people say "the System is rigged" in this thread, but maybe "rigged" is just slang kids use these days to express appreciation for a band. So in that respect, I agree that System of a Down and the song Toxicity are both absolutely rigged.

  10. #50
    It's weird that people seem to not comprehend that being a racist fuckwad, or disingenuous person, are abhorrent qualities.

  11. #51
    Dreadlord Sagenod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If you can't handle people telling you how reprehensible and unjustifiable your positions are, then you're not looking for "open discourse", you're looking for an echo chamber.

    When a racist says something racist and a dozen people jump on them (rhetorically) pointing out that they're a racist saying racist things and that means they're abusive asshole shitheads who should eat shit and fuck off, that's what open discourse looks like. Don't like getting dogpiled for holding really egregiously shitty views? Try not having such views. Or at least, not expressing them in public. If you do, given that open discourse exists, people are gonna give you a piece of their mind.

    That's how this works.

    Edit: I'll also note, pre-emptively, before you come back with a shocked-face response to the suggestion such conduct is laudable, the racist posting racist drivel fired first. The racism they posted was itself an attack, and that's why it triggered a hostile response. Bigotry is hostile and aggressive. It's an attack. Trying to phrase it politely just means you're trying to conceal the knife you're expecting to stab someone with. It doesn't make it less hostile.
    Yes but here's the issue with this reply to the thread: You're presuming the subject being deemed toxic is already bigoted or otherwise despicable. That's a flawed conclusion because you don't even know the source of the supposed toxicity that may or may not have influenced me positing the question to begin with.

    Of course there is no specific subject of toxicity because that's not what this thread is about. The question is: What do you personally believe toxicity is and even further, when does someone become toxic? At what moment do they cross the threshold of being a toxic person? My personal answer to that is that there is no clear line and it's all based on society's response to the nuances of each event based on current social standards.

    You're not wrong about radicalized people and their echo chambers, however. And it's particularly destructive to ideological interests that usually begin as benign if not benevolent. Look at the USSR as a perfect example. Marxist ideology led a revolution that had benevolent intentions for the people of Russia (at least from at outward perspective and not one enlightened by inside knowledge of the politics at play in Russia at the time), yet the flawed application of the philosophy led to the deaths of tens of millions of people. That could not have happened to such an extent had the communists not exterminated all perceived threats to their ideological power, resulting in a massive echo chamber where only Soviet sentiment could be spread.
    Last edited by Sagenod; 2021-11-25 at 05:37 PM.
    Check out the Drakonaar, my playable race concept! (WIP -- Looking for artists)


  12. #52
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    13,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotmail View Post
    It's just a leftist rallying cry for anyone they don't like
    So this right here is a great example of toxicity.

    It does a few things - first it denies that there is indeed someone who may act in a way that is negative and toxic. Just flat out pretends toxicity isn't a valid thing that exists. Two, it is used as a way to bash a group of people the poster doesn't like. And finally it's overall just dismissive and patronizing.

    So, funny enough, in a thread about toxicity you have a great example.
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  13. #53
    Dreadlord Sagenod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    Nobody is stopping you from engaging in open discourse.

    But allowing open discourse is not the same as platforming harmful reprehensible shit. For someone who claims not to be rolling with people engaged in reprehensible shit, you sure carry a lot of water for them.
    Who is it I carry water for? You came into this thread with some sort of predisposition that I am not aware of. I wanted to know what a sample of people here on MMO-C thought of "toxicity" from more of a sociocultural perspective. Strangely enough you insisted the dictionary definition was appropriate, which is a valid opinion, then made some sort of assumption on my intent behind the thread. It's fascinating how far people read into things, especially things that don't exist.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nastard View Post
    Sweet, this is an easy one.

    It was a single released by System of a Down in 2002. It's known for its aggressive vocals, dynamic chorus, and prominent drum beat. It's predominately in triple meter. The guitar during the verse plays in 6/4 using a 2+2+2 phrasing while the heavy part makes use of a hemiola with the guitar switching to a 3+3+3+3 pattern while the drums remain in compound duple meter until the bridge. During a performance at the 2005 Download Festival, Daron Malakian said that the song was about Attention Deficit Disorder. It's a little weird to hear people say "the System is rigged" in this thread, but maybe "rigged" is just slang kids use these days to express appreciation for a band. So in that respect, I agree that System of a Down and the song Toxicity are both absolutely rigged.
    You've won the thread.

    "You, what do you own the world? How do you own disorder?"
    Check out the Drakonaar, my playable race concept! (WIP -- Looking for artists)


  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    Who is it I carry water for? You came into this thread with some sort of predisposition that I am not aware of. I wanted to know what a sample of people here on MMO-C thought of "toxicity" from more of a sociocultural perspective. Strangely enough you insisted the dictionary definition was appropriate, which is a valid opinion, then made some sort of assumption on my intent behind the thread. It's fascinating how far people read into things, especially things that don't exist.
    Here, I remind you of what you said earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    Couldn't agree more. The breakdown of communication prevents proper discourse between representatives of opposing ideals, which I see as anathema to true social progress. It seems as though nowadays the groups that want to affect social change tend to put the cart before the horse, believing their stance is inherently just and thus everyone should just follow along. But that's now how it works because people's minds don't change overnight. It takes time and effort, with a whole lot of debate. Our best intentions should always be to continue that debate, and maintain the sophisticated and productive "tug of war" between right and left that allows us to enact true progress as a society.
    You're demanding that "progressives" engage in dialogue with toxic, as defined by the dictionary, discourse. You are legitimizing and validating harmful opinions and also shifting the blame to progressives for the breakdown in communication. There is speech, opinions, values etc which are toxic, which do not merit serious dialogue, and not alone do not merit it, but simply engaging with it carries the risk of mainstreaming it.

    You are engaging in this Jordan Petersonian rhetoric where you don't quite say what you mean, try to hide it behind some enlightened centrist bullshit, while doing a lot of legwork for legitimizing reprehensible ideas that you claim not to hold.

    Not to mention that dragging a bit of the good old Red Scare into this is a huge tell too.

    WHAT THE FUCK DO MARXISTS HAVE TO DO WITH PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET CALLING RACISTS, SEXISTS, HOMOPHOBES AND OTHER SHITHEADS LIKE THEM TOXIC?
    Last edited by Mihalik; 2021-11-25 at 05:21 PM.

  15. #55
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    Yes but here's the issue with this reply to the thread: You're presuming the subject being deemed toxic is already bigoted or otherwise despicable. That's a flawed conclusion because you don't even know the source of the supposed toxicity that may or may not have influenced me positing the question to begin with.
    I'm forced to presume, because there's no actual specific instance being discussed.

    So you're not coming at this honestly.

    However, those accused of being "toxic", and who complain about it most vehemently, tend to be bigots being labelled due to their bigotry. So I'm comfortable with that "presumption", and my posts should be taken as descriptive of that particular form of toxicity, not all accusations of such. Obviously, if you're a poison dart frog, people calling you "toxic" probably aren't saying you're a bigot.

    Of course there is no specific subject of toxicity because that's not what this thread is about. The answer is subjective to a rather clear question: What do you personally believe toxicity is and even further, when does someone become toxic? At what moment do they cross the threshold of being a toxic person? My personal answer to that is that there is no clear line and it's all based on society's response to the nuances of each event based on current social standards.
    This is deflection and apologism, nothing more.

    The definition of "murder" is also "subjective" and "dependent on societal standards". Doesn't mean murder isn't murder.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-11-25 at 05:18 PM.


  16. #56
    The Insane Arafal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Invading your mind
    Posts
    16,180
    Double effectiveness against water types.

    Trans Rights are Human Rights // Elune Says Queer Rights!


  17. #57
    Dreadlord Sagenod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    Here, I remind you of what you said earlier.



    You're demanding that "progressives" engage in dialogue with toxic, as defined by the dictionary, discourse. You are legitimizing and validating harmful opinions and also shifting the blame to progressives for the breakdown in communication. There is speech, opinions, values etc which are toxic, which do not merit serious dialogue, and not alone do not merit it, but simply engaging with it carries the risk of mainstreaming it.

    You are engaging in this Jordan Petersonian rhetoric where you don't quite say what you mean, try to hide it behind some enlightened centrist bullshit, while doing a lot of legwork for legitimizing reprehensible ideas that you claim not to hold.

    Not to mention that dragging a bit of the good old Red Scare into this is a huge tell too.
    You're missing the point behind what Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein and the like state when asked about the topic of discourse: Let them speak their rhetoric. The masses will see them for what they are which is radicalized to the point of irrationality and potential villainy. By shutting them down you may radicalize them further and allow for the growth of cancerous, extremist groups. Don't you know people hate being told what to do? And they hate when you try to hide information from them. Refer to the Streisand Effect.

    You can't shut down freedom of speech because that's just as slippery of a slope as is allowing harmful ideologies to grow.

    "If you let a person talk long enough, you'll hear their true intentions."
    -Tupac

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'm forced to presume, because there's no actual specific instance being discussed.

    So you're not coming at this honestly.

    However, those accused of being "toxic", and who complain about it most vehemently, tend to be bigots being labelled due to their bigotry. So I'm comfortable with that "presumption", and my posts should be taken as descriptive of that particular form of toxicity, not all accusations of such. Obviously, if you're a poison dart frog, people calling you "toxic" probably aren't saying you're a bigot.



    This is deflection and apologism, nothing more.

    The definition of "murder" is also "subjective" and "dependent on societal standards". Doesn't mean murder isn't murder.
    Coming at this honestly? Buddy, it's a question about peoples' perspectives. Somehow to you it's a thinly-veiled defense of toxic people or ideologies? Who or what do you think I'm defending? I'd love to know, because this entire thread has been a discussion of subjective view on a term concerning it's societal applications. You've tried to make it about me, please stop. Try to discuss this without assuming anything about my position, because you have no idea what said position is. Because my position doesn't matter, because this thread isn't about a specific instance of toxicity. Need I clarify further?
    Last edited by Sagenod; 2021-11-25 at 05:34 PM.
    Check out the Drakonaar, my playable race concept! (WIP -- Looking for artists)


  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's weird that people seem to not comprehend that being a racist fuckwad, or disingenuous person, are abhorrent qualities.
    Says the person who wants corporations to control all aspects of modern life while claiming they oppose corporate influence…

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    You're missing the point behind what Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein and the like state when asked about the topic of discourse: Let them speak their rhetoric. The masses will see them for what they are which is radicalized to the point of irrationality and potential villainy. By shutting them down you may radicalize them further and allow for the growth of cancerous, extremist groups. Don't you know people hate being told what to do? And they hate when you try to hide information from them. Refer to the Streisand Effect.

    You can't shut down freedom of speech because that's just as slippery of a slope as is allowing harmful ideologies to grow.

    "If you let a person talk long enough, you'll hear their true intentions."
    -Tupac

    - - - Updated - - -



    Coming at this honestly? Buddy, it's a question about peoples' perspectives. Somehow to you it's a thinly-veiled defense of toxic people or ideologies? Who do you think I'm defending? I'd love to know, because this entire thread has been a discussion of subjective view on a term concerning it's societal applications. You've tried to make it about me, please stop. Try to discuss this without assuming anything about my position, because you have no idea what said position is. Because my position doesn't matter, because this thread isn't about a specific instance of toxicity. Need I clarify further?
    Nobody is shutting down freedom of speech, unless they are the government.

    Nobody is obligated to listen to you, platform you, or take you seriously.

    As far as you trying to turn bigots into victims... that's not happening.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-11-25 at 05:40 PM.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Sagenod View Post
    You're missing the point behind what Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein and the like state when asked about the topic of discourse: Let them speak their rhetoric. The masses will see them for what they are which is radicalized to the point of irrationality and potential villainy. By shutting them down you may radicalize them further and allow for the growth of cancerous, extremist groups. Don't you know people hate being told what to do? And they hate when you try to hide information from them. Refer to the Streisand Effect.

    You can't shut down freedom of speech because that's just as slippery of a slope as is allowing harmful ideologies to grow.
    Bullshit. The existence of people like Peterson and their platforming lead to widespread radicalization and the mainstreaming of extremist views, not the other way around. You are empirically and factually wrong, or lying. I'd wager you are lying.

    The ceaseless moaning about "cancel culture" is literally these extremists just demanding that society allow them to increase their reach without any push back.

    As Endus already pointed out, when toxic shits are called out for being toxic shits, that's free speech and free discourse.

    You are entitled to say whatever the fuck you want, what you are not entitled to is others to platform you or to not push back, and that's exactly what you are demanding. You are demanding we allow toxic shits to spread their toxic shit and dare not say anything about because that would infringe on their "freedom of speech". We must all bow down to our toxic shit overlords and at beast we get to silently judge them, but we aren't allowed to call them out or not to permit them to spread their vile in spaces they do not own.

    That's why I said you carrying water for all these assholes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •