SC Controller driver and UI version 0.4.5 is out, last release for a while

Well, I rephrased it for a reason. There's a big, huge, gigantic difference between "being responsible" for the persecution of LGBT+ folks by my ancestors and simply recognising that it happened and that I'm part of the group that caused it.

It's most certainly not the "same difference" at all.

Quoting: scaineWell, I rephrased it for a reason. There's a big, huge, gigantic difference between "being responsible" for the persecution of LGBT+ folks by my ancestors and simply recognising that it happened and that I'm part of the group that caused it.

It's most certainly not the "same difference" at all.

Be on my side of the fence just once and you'll soon realise that holding accountable/responsible can come in millions of ways and "being mindfull and recognising that it has happened" IS ONE OF THEM.

So again I repeat same difference.


Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 1:04 pm UTC

Here's something to consider. If you aggressively put people into boxes with negative connotations, it's quite normal for them to not be all that happy about it. Now, some might do a bit of introspection and strive to be better but others will take offense and could very well have less sympathy for those who suffer and have suffered. If you call someone an abuser they might just become one or turn a blind eye to those conducting the abuse, after all they've been called an abuser and they haven't done anything wrong so clearly the other guy is also being falsely labelled. You can say how you don't mean that they are the enemy and how you don't accuse them specifically but words have this property where their meaning is often up for interpretation. If your method creates more enemies than gains allies you might want to rethink your methods. If you keep throwing around labels then eventually the meaning of the labels diminishes.

Quoting: scaineWell, I rephrased it for a reason. There's a big, huge, gigantic difference between "being responsible" for the persecution of LGBT+ folks by my ancestors and simply recognising that it happened and that I'm part of the group that caused it.

It's most certainly not the "same difference" at all.

I'd go as far as adding the responsibility to actively speak and act against ongoing persecution by your peers. What we should not accept is guilt by association any more than we should recognise honour by association.


Last edited by tuubi on 29 September 2018 at 1:36 pm UTC

Quoting: SamsaiHere's something to consider. If you aggressively put people into boxes with negative connotations, it's quite normal for them to not be all that happy about it. Now, some might do a bit of introspection and strive to be better but others will take offense and could very well have less sympathy for those who suffer and have suffered. If you call someone an abuser they might just become one or turn a blind eye to those conducting the abuse, after all they've been called an abuser and they haven't done anything wrong so clearly the other guy is also being falsely labelled. You can say how you don't mean that they are the enemy and how you don't accuse them specifically but words have this property where their meaning is often up for interpretation. If your method creates more enemies than gains allies you might want to rethink your methods. If you keep throwing around labels then eventually the meaning of the labels diminishes.

Be on my side of the fence just once and you'll soon realise that holding accountable/responsible can come in millions of ways and "being mindfull and recognising that it has happened" is one of them.

Sorry won't develop any further because I'm just about done repeating myself.

So from now on it's gonna be my only response.


Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 2:11 pm UTC

Quoting: GuestTelling people to be on your side of the fence presumes they haven't been in minority situations themselves. I believe I know what you're trying to say, and generally agree, but I don't think you're communicating it very well.
Please take this only as a critique of your communication skills, not of experiences.
Some of it will be a language barrier, and cultural differences do play their part. But your "tone" (as much as text has tone) is more forceful than not, and it doesn't generally help.
The same is true of others, but in my view they're attempting to be more...gentle, perhaps, for the most part. And I understand you may be trying as well, but sadly it's not (in my own opinion of course) quite working. I only suggest to please continue, just change tact a little bit; I think what you have to say is important, and want to encourage you being able to say it such that it's more accepted.

Again I'm done trying to explain myself and repeating myself, the only way for anyone that still thinks I'm antagonizing them to realise I'm not is to live through a very close form of systematic discrimination during years to start to envison that no I'm not antagonizing here.
In other words "only an abuser or a silent accomplice of an abuser gets mad at being called one" but that sentence no matter how you reformulate it will only be understood once you have been in the seat of the discriminated.

Heck the ending of the film Red State is a perfect example of that. So I dunno maybe go watch that movie and you'll start to get it

As far as I'm concerned I'm done repeating myself.

Quoting: TheSyldatIn other words "only an abuser or a silent accomplice of an abuser gets mad at being called one"

Well, despite doing my best to defend your position (which I think I have a fair bit of empathy for), we'll never agree on that. Total nonsense. You walk up to any "innocent" person and accuse them of being an abusive aggressor out of the blue and you'll get a justifiably angry reaction.

And If you call people abusers, unproven by their behaviour, simply for being part of a group, you're literally no different from the people abusing YOU for being part of a different (albeit smaller) group.

We won't agree on the responsible part either. If an LGBT+ person commits a crime, does that make all LGBT+ people responsible? Of course not. If angry, hateful CIS/straight white guys commit despicable crimes against your group, I'm not responsible for that either. I'll take responsibility by calling it out when I see it, but that's my choice as a (hopefully) decent human being. I dunno, maybe that's what you meant, but the way you put it was pretty negative/aggressive - like "this is your fault, man up and fix it".

I mean, even if that's what you meant and want... it's not going to happen, is it? Humans don't work like that. Society barely works like that.

Quoting: TheSyldat

Quoting: tuubiI don't hold every single modern-day Brit responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of the British empire,

But you should and that's where you fail here.

Don't enslave yourself to a lifetime of victim-hood with that thought process. Everyone has battles to fight. Sooner or later you will have to let go of that anger.

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: TheSyldatIn other words "only an abuser or a silent accomplice of an abuser gets mad at being called one"

Well, despite doing my best to defend your position (which I think I have a fair bit of empathy for), we'll never agree on that. Total nonsense.

Again and for the last time that's nonsense to you because you've never been on my side of the fence and therefore you don't GET what I mean by that. And I provided you an alternative way to maybe start to understand it. Go watch Red State and pay carefull attention to the end of the movie maybe it'll finally dawn on you.

I won't reformulate myself another time

Either you get it or you need to watch red state or have somebody doing some piece of art that will make you understand what that sentence ACTUALLY means.

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: TheSyldatIn other words "only an abuser or a silent accomplice of an abuser gets mad at being called one"

Well, despite doing my best to defend your position (which I think I have a fair bit of empathy for), we'll never agree on that. Total nonsense. You walk up to any "innocent" person and accuse them of being an abusive aggressor out of the blue and you'll get a justifiably angry reaction.

Ad hominem is ad hominem, schoolyard pseudo-psychology doesn't change that. I have plenty of empathy for him and other people suffering abuse, but I have better things to do than congratulate random internet strangers for the shape of the turd they deign to drop on a conversation.