How not to deal with other people and their art
category: general [glöplog]
and i have to admit that wayfinder totally has a point here.
thus, he is not random sjw from the internets, i am sorry for the word "idiots".
how guys you'll eventually come up with the solution.
thus, he is not random sjw from the internets, i am sorry for the word "idiots".
how guys you'll eventually come up with the solution.
Best thing would be, that no one here spills more oil into the fire by commenting.
Even those guys who love seeing houses on fire, please just hold back a little.
It is a pure personal conflict, with not cool tools used on both sides.
Like in every other conflict.
I dont care who started.
No one should.
Wayfinder and scamp, both loose here.
The posse around them, loose here.
Scene in general looses here.
We need:
a table. Beer. Mediation.
This is not just breaking up a friendship, i call it a family conflict.
Letting this case unsolved is not an option.
I saw and was involved in so many conflicts during the last decades, that imho this is absolutely solvable.
When way and scamp agree, let the family find a solution and a way (no bad wordjoke here) to get this thing working again.
You both are hurt, made your points, showed balls, now it should be enough.
Its not „he went too far“ or „its too late“.
It is never. Really.
Its not only you both who suffer.
Even those guys who love seeing houses on fire, please just hold back a little.
It is a pure personal conflict, with not cool tools used on both sides.
Like in every other conflict.
I dont care who started.
No one should.
Wayfinder and scamp, both loose here.
The posse around them, loose here.
Scene in general looses here.
We need:
a table. Beer. Mediation.
This is not just breaking up a friendship, i call it a family conflict.
Letting this case unsolved is not an option.
I saw and was involved in so many conflicts during the last decades, that imho this is absolutely solvable.
When way and scamp agree, let the family find a solution and a way (no bad wordjoke here) to get this thing working again.
You both are hurt, made your points, showed balls, now it should be enough.
Its not „he went too far“ or „its too late“.
It is never. Really.
Its not only you both who suffer.
the underlying issue is the opposite of purely personal, imo.
no one should care who's in the right? are you sure?
no one should care who's in the right? are you sure?
I just try too build bridges way...
I honestly doubt that the underlying issue is simply a disagreement over the name of an MP3 compo.
now that sounds like a good plan !
Quote:
We need:
a table. Beer. Mediation.
now that sounds like a good plan !
The underlying disagreement is:
- Nobody has the right to force me/us to remove content from a demo, or rename a compo, because he thinks that a non-existing hypothetical person could feel hurt by the name "Paralymp3", a wheel chair icon or a UC HCR logo in a tent icon. Asking was OK. At the moment I said it's my art and I want to keep it that way, the discussion should have ended.
- None of that should have happened on Twitter
Yes, I am aware that I could just remove content and obey to the missionary (if you prefer this term over "sjw". That's what most people do - give in. And I tried that, by changing the graphics in the website, but it wasn't enough. It's never enough, until you agree to accept to adhere to someone elses world view.
I don't want that. Wayfinder has all the right to have his world view in which words matter more than actions, but it is not mine. In my world view art is free, satire is free, and unless someone who is actually affected personally contacts me, I won't censor anything I do.
Wayfinder simply needs to accept that my art is my art, his art is his art, my speech is my speech, his speech is his speech and that if he doesn't like my stuff nobody is forcing him to watch it, and that if he doesn't like the general theme of UC, that all he needs to do is not to join it.
Basically this is a case of thought totalitarianism: It is not acceptable to Wayfinder that I have a different view than he has. I am not trying to force my view onto him, but he won't stop until he has succeeded in forcing his on mine. And this is not OK.
- Nobody has the right to force me/us to remove content from a demo, or rename a compo, because he thinks that a non-existing hypothetical person could feel hurt by the name "Paralymp3", a wheel chair icon or a UC HCR logo in a tent icon. Asking was OK. At the moment I said it's my art and I want to keep it that way, the discussion should have ended.
- None of that should have happened on Twitter
Yes, I am aware that I could just remove content and obey to the missionary (if you prefer this term over "sjw". That's what most people do - give in. And I tried that, by changing the graphics in the website, but it wasn't enough. It's never enough, until you agree to accept to adhere to someone elses world view.
I don't want that. Wayfinder has all the right to have his world view in which words matter more than actions, but it is not mine. In my world view art is free, satire is free, and unless someone who is actually affected personally contacts me, I won't censor anything I do.
Wayfinder simply needs to accept that my art is my art, his art is his art, my speech is my speech, his speech is his speech and that if he doesn't like my stuff nobody is forcing him to watch it, and that if he doesn't like the general theme of UC, that all he needs to do is not to join it.
Basically this is a case of thought totalitarianism: It is not acceptable to Wayfinder that I have a different view than he has. I am not trying to force my view onto him, but he won't stop until he has succeeded in forcing his on mine. And this is not OK.
Aha. Now I'm starting to grasp the full picture.
Both (Wayfinder's and your) points are valid.
On the other hand, literally every episode of South Park is less politically correct than this.
How about
- you meet half-way and just call it "Streaming Compo"
- let the content-creators decide whether they want to submit (mildly) offensive, politically incorrect entries (i.e. no censorship, unless it's clearly over the top)
Both (Wayfinder's and your) points are valid.
On the other hand, literally every episode of South Park is less politically correct than this.
How about
- you meet half-way and just call it "Streaming Compo"
- let the content-creators decide whether they want to submit (mildly) offensive, politically incorrect entries (i.e. no censorship, unless it's clearly over the top)
Quote:
On the other hand, literally every episode of South Park is less politically correct than this.
South Park (usually) has a sociopolitical message, your point being?
scamp did you forget that you talked to a disabled scener who was uncomfortable? do they not count because you had already made them not wanna come with other stuff earlier?
your art is not just yours when you are a team. in your eyes, i stopped being part of the team the moment i had a difference of opinion. but really my name is on two of the invitations, and as an organizer i would have been a representative of the party. i told you in very clear terms that i would not organize the compo under that name again because i do not want to represent that. and imo that's a legit reason to not have me on as an orga if you care deeply about the message you are sending. but when i said i'd rather be a visitor then, you told me to stay home, so i'm pretty pretty sure that's vindictiveness right there. and the message doesn't even matter to you, you just don't want ANY infringement on your speech.
nobody has the right to make you do stuff, but you seem to interpret that as "nobody has the right to criticize you" or "nobody has the right to even ASK you to change three words and a logo". my hope was that you would see why i had misgivings, but it looks like you don't really care and you just wanna do whatever you wanna do, and never suffer negative consequences.
whats wrong with twitter that's not a ridiculous non-argument? may as well disqualify people for using a telephone or something, get real
you are still seeing basic empathy as something you have to fight against, and that's not a good look.
your art is not just yours when you are a team. in your eyes, i stopped being part of the team the moment i had a difference of opinion. but really my name is on two of the invitations, and as an organizer i would have been a representative of the party. i told you in very clear terms that i would not organize the compo under that name again because i do not want to represent that. and imo that's a legit reason to not have me on as an orga if you care deeply about the message you are sending. but when i said i'd rather be a visitor then, you told me to stay home, so i'm pretty pretty sure that's vindictiveness right there. and the message doesn't even matter to you, you just don't want ANY infringement on your speech.
nobody has the right to make you do stuff, but you seem to interpret that as "nobody has the right to criticize you" or "nobody has the right to even ASK you to change three words and a logo". my hope was that you would see why i had misgivings, but it looks like you don't really care and you just wanna do whatever you wanna do, and never suffer negative consequences.
whats wrong with twitter that's not a ridiculous non-argument? may as well disqualify people for using a telephone or something, get real
you are still seeing basic empathy as something you have to fight against, and that's not a good look.
Quote:
South Park (usually) has a sociopolitical message, your point being?
be nice and people will (usually) return the favour.
...what?
Quote:
...what?
now that is a perfect example that illustrates my point.
some people _love_ to misunderstand each other (deliberately). It's probably due to a lack of empathy.
it makes you look cool, though. then again, our world leaders are considered sociopaths by experts in the field.
the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership
The official UC statement https://uc9.party/sjw.html is really bad.
1) I have a very different opinion of what the demoscene should be:
UC: "I am defending my right to still be able to do what the demo scene always had allowed for well over 30 years: We are a closed community setting our own standards. External standards do not apply."
I think the demoscene should be a place that attracts and includes new fans and talents. That's why we do all that outreach work. That's how we get more amazing productions.
2) What makes the statement really bad is the tone. "SJW" is a caricature and straw-men used to defend absolutists positions on free speech while denying the same to the other side. The statement follows tone and logic those who do anti-"SJW" propaganda.
Please note that the UC has not been censored. Not at Revision and not afterwards. Some people felt offended by the invites - I guess they won't come. No censorship. Some people have asked for minor adjustments in tone. the UC had to decide whether to make those adjustments and be a more inclusive event or not to and possibly loose a few visitors. They made a decision and now can't handle the reaction. No censorship here, too. But taking the victim-role is exactly how anti-"SJW" propaganda works. I don't like the playbook. This is really bad.
The context of this post is purely the statement linked above, not any private conversations. Critique is not the same as censorship. And yes, call me SJW, I want the demoscene to be "inclusive" and "diverse".
Please feel free to go to UC and have fun, this is not a call for boycott. It's just that this UC statement ... bad.
1) I have a very different opinion of what the demoscene should be:
UC: "I am defending my right to still be able to do what the demo scene always had allowed for well over 30 years: We are a closed community setting our own standards. External standards do not apply."
I think the demoscene should be a place that attracts and includes new fans and talents. That's why we do all that outreach work. That's how we get more amazing productions.
2) What makes the statement really bad is the tone. "SJW" is a caricature and straw-men used to defend absolutists positions on free speech while denying the same to the other side. The statement follows tone and logic those who do anti-"SJW" propaganda.
Please note that the UC has not been censored. Not at Revision and not afterwards. Some people felt offended by the invites - I guess they won't come. No censorship. Some people have asked for minor adjustments in tone. the UC had to decide whether to make those adjustments and be a more inclusive event or not to and possibly loose a few visitors. They made a decision and now can't handle the reaction. No censorship here, too. But taking the victim-role is exactly how anti-"SJW" propaganda works. I don't like the playbook. This is really bad.
The context of this post is purely the statement linked above, not any private conversations. Critique is not the same as censorship. And yes, call me SJW, I want the demoscene to be "inclusive" and "diverse".
Please feel free to go to UC and have fun, this is not a call for boycott. It's just that this UC statement ... bad.
Thank you for that, chaos. Wayfinder already pretty much laid out his pov conclusively and I fully agree and sympathize with him, but your points were exactly what I thought had been left out so far. I couldn't bring myself to say those things because having already witnessed scamp's dismissiveness it felt it'd be a futile effort. I hope that coming from you actually will make a difference. Couldn't have said it better.
1.) I agree to that. But UC is not an outreach event. It is very clearly self-referential and meant for people who can handle the amount of freedom and craziness.
Nonetheless, as you know, UC still has been the first demo party for a lot of today's most-respected sceners. 20 years ago we clearly had less "snowflakes" *)
2.) I am not into all this theoretical social stuff. I am not aware what words today are on the forbidden-word-list and which aren't. I dislike the whole concept of forbidden words.
Please give me a different term to describe "People who have strong personal believes, try to force them onto others, and will not stop doing that". SJW for me does not have any negative connotation as a term, it's descriptive. It's people who have made it to their mission to reach what THEY think is social justice, who have the believe that they have a given right to do that. In the past, the source of that "given right" was typically claimed to be God. It's unclear where today's SJW claim to take their given right from.
Also, I would like to point out that the demoscene has ALWAYS been inclusive and diverse. Simply because most of us didn't give a shit about how you look, and this largely still is the case today. We do care about what art you produce.
Look, there is an outside world and a global context where things are really bad. People are shot. There is no equal pay if you are a woman. If you are black, you most likely will end up in jail. If you do not earn much money, you are disrespected. People shoot each other. The outside world has TONS of these problems.
In the local context of the demo scene, we never had any such problems. We had some sceners getting into some fistfights in the past, or people throwing chairs into a tent fire, or people getting too drunk. The last racist demo I can remember was on the C64 in the eighties.
Aren't people trying to offer solutions to non-existing problems here?
*) I was told that SJW is an offensive term, but snowflake isn't.
Nonetheless, as you know, UC still has been the first demo party for a lot of today's most-respected sceners. 20 years ago we clearly had less "snowflakes" *)
2.) I am not into all this theoretical social stuff. I am not aware what words today are on the forbidden-word-list and which aren't. I dislike the whole concept of forbidden words.
Please give me a different term to describe "People who have strong personal believes, try to force them onto others, and will not stop doing that". SJW for me does not have any negative connotation as a term, it's descriptive. It's people who have made it to their mission to reach what THEY think is social justice, who have the believe that they have a given right to do that. In the past, the source of that "given right" was typically claimed to be God. It's unclear where today's SJW claim to take their given right from.
Also, I would like to point out that the demoscene has ALWAYS been inclusive and diverse. Simply because most of us didn't give a shit about how you look, and this largely still is the case today. We do care about what art you produce.
Look, there is an outside world and a global context where things are really bad. People are shot. There is no equal pay if you are a woman. If you are black, you most likely will end up in jail. If you do not earn much money, you are disrespected. People shoot each other. The outside world has TONS of these problems.
In the local context of the demo scene, we never had any such problems. We had some sceners getting into some fistfights in the past, or people throwing chairs into a tent fire, or people getting too drunk. The last racist demo I can remember was on the C64 in the eighties.
Aren't people trying to offer solutions to non-existing problems here?
*) I was told that SJW is an offensive term, but snowflake isn't.
When you look behind the big words about artistic freedom and see what the actual subject matter being fought for is, in what manner it is done and with what sort of vocabulary, I am fascinated that so many will actually take scamp's side or a neutral stance.
Respect to wayfinder for standing up when it leads to getting such verbal abuse and lack of genuine support.
Respect to wayfinder for standing up when it leads to getting such verbal abuse and lack of genuine support.
I don't give a fuck on who is taking which "sides". This is not a pissing contest.
Yes, I am aware that we are talking about a minor element of UC. But yes, this is about artistic freedom. You do not have the right to force someone to change the content of his demo or party or website or speech. You have the right to have your opinion, but no right to bully, threaten and public drama.
Again, if you don't like my art: Don't vote for it. If you don't like the party: Don't go there. It's as simple as that.
Yes, I am aware that we are talking about a minor element of UC. But yes, this is about artistic freedom. You do not have the right to force someone to change the content of his demo or party or website or speech. You have the right to have your opinion, but no right to bully, threaten and public drama.
Again, if you don't like my art: Don't vote for it. If you don't like the party: Don't go there. It's as simple as that.
Exactly. I, for one, just won't attend.
And that's the way it should be handled.
(Not that you had ever attended a UC during the last 25 years anyway, or have you?)
(Not that you had ever attended a UC during the last 25 years anyway, or have you?)
In regard to the responses of people on Twitch etc., I'd like to point out that the world is a lot smaller than it used to be. These days it's a lot easier to bump in to someone on the internet who does not share your opinions, and who has a different perspective of the world than you do. That's reason enough to try to be more considerate of other viewpoints to avoid getting into fights, and to avoid offending people (and I really think one should try not to offend, unless one is an artist attempting to make a useful point by means of shock or satire).
Please realize your right to artistic freedom doesn't preclude you from being criticized. Nobody really has any ability to stop you, neither legal nor extralegal—and I certainly don't endorse any action, especially of the latter kind here—but a lot of people will be vocal about their disagreements with how you choose to profess your freedom. Your invitation demos were barred from entry to their respective compos at Revision, that wasn't even suggested by anyone. But understand that just as important as it is that you can pursuit your artistry, we can also lay criticism towards it. Demanding a silent boycott is not fair or productive. If you can't deal with that then look into some introspection.
Quote:
Snowflake is a 2010s derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions. Common usages include the terms special snowflake, Generation Snowflake, and snowflake as a politicized insult.
Quote:
'The pot calling the kettle black' is a response often given when someone criticises another for a fault they also have themselves.
I don't have a problem with criticism. Wayfinder for sure have given me his fair share of criticism. I've spent by now more than 20 hours talking to him face-to-face and on IRC.
But at a certain point you have to stop and accept the other person to have a different opinion and world-view than you. Again, there must be a point where this is stopped.
And I have now made it very clear that this point has been passed, so I am now stopping it myself with force. And this shouldn't come as a surprise, am I am generally known to be a person you can very well discuss with, but who will kick your ass to space if you bully me.
But at a certain point you have to stop and accept the other person to have a different opinion and world-view than you. Again, there must be a point where this is stopped.
And I have now made it very clear that this point has been passed, so I am now stopping it myself with force. And this shouldn't come as a surprise, am I am generally known to be a person you can very well discuss with, but who will kick your ass to space if you bully me.
hollowman: Ok, so "snowflake" and "SJW" are terms that are fully spot-on, but are outlawed because they are also used by bad people describing others?
Geez, it is really hard for me to stand this hypocrisy. If you don't wanna be called Elephant, then don't fucking be an Elephant.
So what is today's PC replacement term to now describe people in the same meaning as "snowflake", but "non-derogatory", and the PC replacement term for what "Social Justice Warrior" means?
Let me guess: The replacement is "do not name or criticize these people at all?"
This tendency to censor language to make it harder to communicate is stupid.
Geez, it is really hard for me to stand this hypocrisy. If you don't wanna be called Elephant, then don't fucking be an Elephant.
So what is today's PC replacement term to now describe people in the same meaning as "snowflake", but "non-derogatory", and the PC replacement term for what "Social Justice Warrior" means?
Let me guess: The replacement is "do not name or criticize these people at all?"
This tendency to censor language to make it harder to communicate is stupid.
Quote:
The last racist demo I can remember was on the C64 in the eighties.
and what is little known - and probably surprising to most - the group that was most famous for these wasnt actually "nazis" (or even racist). it was a bunch of random teenagers with random backgrounds that tried to mock others with their twisted humor, it was attentionwhoring, with questionable messages - and as it worked really well for them, they kept doing it for a while. (the racist "games" we all heard about really originated in the neonazi scene though.)
