« first day (2015 days earlier)      last day (38 days later) » 
01:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00

1:42 AM
there are so many things I need to read
1 hour later…
3:06 AM
So many things to read
Sooo many. I just discovered a new author I like and I am like "oh no you wrote many books now my TBR list is even bigger"
3:52 AM
8 hours later…
11:59 AM
(needed to upload a closer recrop)
12:14 PM
@Yuuki serving up some searingly hot tea there 👏☕💯
2 hours later…
2:01 PM
2:18 PM
hoi ahoy aloha hola holla
how are you
so I see the drama has died down somewhat but is still somewhat ongoing
time heals all wounds, or at least people have relatively short attention spans and forget
it's hard to forget what happened
and I'm still not sure how comfortable I feel here
anyways I'll shut up
2:36 PM
it's alright
nobody's very happy about how it all went down
@Gwideon here on stackexchange in general, or here in the RPG chats?
no stack exchange in general. everyone here has been super nice and I like this place
@Gwideon oh good! Was hoping that was the answer :) I think we do a lot here to make everyone feel welcome.
or at least try
not always successful
but we also try to own our mistakes and move forward having learned something
2:55 PM
yeah I can see that
I get the feeling that Meta is really toxic right now
i don't know
@Gwideon I'm...not sure. There is definitely a big issue that's going on, but I'm not sure that the discussions are toxic. I think some approaches are, though.
But ultimately, I think if we can get a good answer and update our direction, it'll be a good thing for the site.
Yeah, some folks may not be happy, but if we can address it reasonably, then I think folks may be open to things they weren't open to before.
What do you see as toxic? You're relatively new and a fresh perspective can be helpful!
The current ... everything ... has drawn a lot of toxicity out of the woodwork, I agree. I've been pointedly avoiding meta.se.
@doppelgreener Drawing toxins out can be good (see asbestos discussion :) )
Do you see myself as being toxic @doppelgreener?
3:05 PM
some people are just unwilling to accept any change to policy and some of the arguments in the comments boil down to "I shouldn't have to do this because of insert -arbitrary reason-" such as grammer, personal beliefs, Politics. it's really hard to read some of this as alot of it comes off as ignorant and malicious
there are many toxicities going around on meta. Some are the result of oneself own heart. Some are the reflection of the toxicity in the hearts of others. Too many different arguments going on at the same time
you can't even longer tell who is who there.
and the fact that at one point the gay lobby "argument" came up just made me.... Sad
I mean, the Meta post about the new change to the Code of Conduct brought out a metric ton of Transphobia and Transphobic rhetoric.
@NautArch I do not.
Some incidentally through ignorance, but a lot of it was pretty blatant.
3:07 PM
Aza probably had one of the only good posts in that entire Meta, and she got down-voted to like -100 or something.
@doppelgreener okay, making sure i'm not making it worse. I personally am surprised that the answer stating one side is being pedantic is getting so many upvotes is occurring.
I've been limiting my activity during the past few weeks to here and mod spaces as much as possible, and here has been the best place for me.
@Xirema that is a facet of this mess, yep. Sadly, there are many more and none of them is going to heal soon.
I'm an idiot, aren't I? Y'all are talking about the BIG issue around the stack CoC and not our little issue around subjective support. I gotta get out more.
3:09 PM
@NautArch Oh, LOL. Yes.
@Gwideon Yeah, awful people are everywhere. THat's part of life, unfortunately.
@NautArch That particular issue remains heated to some degree, but not nearly as volatile as the SE meta stuff
and it's honestly shocking and really really hurtful. I knew this kind of bigotry existed but um it's kinda the first time I've seen so much of it
But it's better for those people to be vocal than to be hidden. Reminds everyone that these issues still exist and need to be addressed.
@Gwideon Sadly this happens mostly everywhere in internet spaces where many users attend but few communicate effectively
3:10 PM
@NautArch I've been staying out of that debate because I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I am very curious if or how we change our standards on subjective questions.
true but um it doesn't make it hurt any less
Nope. But luckily the General Chat community has been resilient so far. Silver linings and such.
@NautArch It's not just the CoC. The big issue is the company losing touch with the community entirely, it seems, and refusing to communicate with the community while being all to willing to be buddies with the press and twitter.
@vicky_molokh and that is another facet of the dice.
@vicky_molokh an issue which is unfortunately manifested by a lot of transphobic whining on meta
3:12 PM
@vicky_molokh Most companies are out of touch with their customers. That isn't shocking to me and it's not the norm to be.
@vicky_molokh I mean, I definitely agree that that's the thing that most people are upset by—and make no mistake, I definitely agree with that perspective that says SE hasn't been communicating well—but given the outpouring of Transphobia that occurred in response to that CoC meta, I'm somewhat disinclined to give a ton of credence to that particular side of the argument right now.
community disengagement is the big problem for SE as corporation, sure, but I don't consider it the big problem for people
It's pretty difficult for me to not view that particular side of the argument as just being the "It's actually about Ethics!" part of this ersatz StackExchange!Gate blowup.
Which now that I've typed that out, suddenly crystallizes a lot of the forces in play in this whole debacle, for me at least.
I was initially supportive of the community when it was just about se being out of touch but now that transphobic rhetoric has just spilled out of the community they've lost all credibility to me
@Xirema to be fair, people were lamenting that SE lost touch with the community FAR before the CoC thing even happened. Animated Ads, leaked email address, contact info given to amazon, the whole April Twitter thing, the license change... should I continue? I don't think some of those users started lamenting that just now.
3:17 PM
@Xirema That's . . . well, that's the kind of statement that makes me feel caught between two warring groups and wary of raising my head out of concern that both will see me as 'belonging' to the opposite group. (I do wonder if my assessment is accurate, but the only way of trying that is to speak up and risk drawing more ire from one or both sides.)
That said, I also won't say some other users didn't "jump in the boat just now" because it was convenient to do so.
@Gwideon be wary of simplifying the landscape into two opposing groups. Reality is much more complicated
i know
@vicky_molokh I mean, that's why Monica ultimately deleted her post to that same Meta: she realized, if only too late, that her arguments were being repurposed by bad faith actors who just wanted to use her as an effigy/martyr for their own sinister purposes.
@Gwideon You also need to be careful and not assume the loudest voices are the most common. Especially in Meta discussions where you're already dealing with a subsection of the community.
3:19 PM
(At least according to her explanation in the Tavern, and the conversation between her and Aza)
@Gwideon a quick hint: try to keep in mind that those words came from the ones wo wrote them, not from the community as a whole.
yes it is more complicated and I understand that alot of the community isn't like that but I was just saying that it's hard for me to take community arguments seriously right now
@Xirema And similarly, by assuming that any objections to the new policy are caused by hate and not by some legitimate reasons, you too seem to be disincentivising people with a complicated stance from speaking out.
@Gwideon Don't feel sorry about the way you feel! But you should be open to reassessing why you feel that way.
@vicky_molokh I mean, that happened when people started using this conflict to attack the LGBT community. Bear in mind: I absolutely agree with those essential arguments. But, well...
3:21 PM
@Gwideon no need to apologize, I wasn't angry at you. Just suggesting you don't see the community as your "enemy". It is distinct people who posted those word, not a community collective entity.
> We live in a Society.
@Xirema bottom text
@Xirema Was that the stated reason it was deleted? I haven't checked in on any new developments recently.
@Derpy @Gwideon And there will be bad actors in every community. Those folks are also often the most vocal.
@Gwideon it's cool. Not trying to be critical, just don't want you to feel like things are worse than they really are.
3:22 PM
Sorry I'm really frustrated with some things I'm seeing and I admit I maybe a bit to emotionally compromised when it comes to this situation.
@NautArch At the same time, the second half of the phrase/proverb "bad apples" is "spoils the bunch".
Something people seem to forget when they use that term.
@Derpy So one thing I should point out though: many of the arguments I objected to most vehemently also got very popular and highly upvoted. So yes, those arguments do represent only the precise views of a very small number of people, but they also represent the broad consensus of a large number of active users on the site.
@Yuuki Well, I'm not sure I totally agree with at either. Letting those apples do their thing can drive people away. Or we can opt to ignore those apples and just focus on the delicious apples (not the red delicious apples, those are bad apples.)
So while I respect to an extent the argument saying "this is just a vocal minority; they don't speak for everyone", there were a whole lot of people who implicitly declared that they agreed with the perspectives being put forwards.
@Xirema link please? I haven't been following very closely and I'd like to take a look.
3:25 PM
@Xirema Oh, yes, I am sure that is true. Just pointing out it is not every user. I for one don't really want to be put in some of those groups, thank you.
@GcL It was in the tavern. I'd have to dig through literally tens of thousands of messages to find it.
@Gwideon the best I can tell you is to find space for yourself that isn't dealing with this - it's okay to not have the spoons to do it. It doesn't mean any less of you, it just means there are people who have more resources and capacity right now to do the thing. Rest. Care for yourself, if you are burned out and sad and in a bad place, you can't possibly fight. Be kind to yourself, so you can take up the sword again when it is the right time.
@Xirema Not the chat. I mean one with a lot of upvotes.
(and it is perfectly okay to decide that for this, there is never ever a right time)
@Xirema Which, unfortunately, likely also reflects peoples attitudes off-site as well. THere's a lot of work to do with the world.
3:26 PM
@GcL Oh. I mean... It was a plurality of them.
@Xirema I'll take two, please.
@Derpy not all, not you, sure, but enough.
Like this one, top rated on the post, which has the not-as-subtle-as-they-think accusation that they're being forced to respect pronouns, and gets upset at the implication that they might have to double-check a user before trying to engage with them.
@NautArch One thing that I think the age of the Internet worsened: people's ability to deal with people who radically disagree with them. E.g. when I was in school, the closest friend of mine was a hardcore commie. And when I say hardcore, I mean 'he thought that nationalists should be sent to GULags, Ukrainian language obliterated, USSR resurrected, and a new leader should emulate Stalin'. And yet we got along on other fronts. But I see a lot of Internet communities break up over smaller stuff.
Or this one who just goes straight to the bad-faith attack "but what if someone's trying to troll us??" like that's a credible issue they've dealt with.
And I'm literally just starting from the top, but this is how I've been seeing these posts the whole week.
3:29 PM
@vicky_molokh That is definitely an aspect here. But it's also that folks can be more 'free' with their opinions because of a level of perceived anonymity. But I think the world in general is dividing up more right now. I'm not sure the internet is to blame, as it has also connected many.
@Xirema to be fair, while I agree with you on this... it think something similar actually happened in the past. C++ chat room I think.
This one calls it "compelled speech" and refers to the dogwhistle "Identity Politics" to demonize it.
@Xirema I'm reading that as the user is unhappy with having a safe default. I can definitely concur with them about technical discussions. I avoid gendered pronouns in those discussions like the plague. Nobody should care if the suggestion for a particular study design came from a person of whatever gender, but it does affect the conversation if it's there.
@Derpy I mean, I've been in that chat room before, and I didn't walk away from it feeling like it was a bastion of civilized, respectful discussion in the first place.
3:31 PM
@vicky_molokh Well, did you ever compromise with him on those points? "Well, I guess I'm all right with some nationalists being sent to gulags, part of the Ukrainian language obliterated, bring back some of the USSR (I mean, Putin's in power, so mission accomplished?), and our new leader can kinda emulate Stalin but not completely (again, Putin's in power, so mission accomplished?).
I'm finding the bad faith Argument to be the most frustrating right now as it's a logical fallacy and but it's hard to argue against
And like, I do know that there are trolls out there, and they will try to abuse this kind of stuff, but like... It's usually pretty obvious when they are, and they're often quite rare.
@Xirema Many chat room aren't. This one you got here is an exception, not a rule.
@Yuuki We would each stand one's ground. He didn't budge in his opinions, I didn't budge in mine. We kept interacting, and each kept speaking as one saw fit.
It seems people are sometimes unwilling to offer someone basic dignity and respect
3:36 PM
Like, I could give a rundown of why I find many of the top-level posts in that meta objectionable, but that feels like a tedious use of everyone's time here, if I can just simplify and say "these posts are all framed and phrased to make their objections sound reasonable, or like they're not really about objections to respecting the pronouns of Trans People, but it's incredibly difficult to buy their sincerity".
@Xirema Mistype that. They seem unhappy with not having a safe default so they can get on with the discussion at hand. Websockets or whatever.
One thing to keep in mind is that different users come to SE for different reasons. Many use the site as a community where they want to belong, so inclusiveness is important. Others just show up for technical questions, so questions of inclusiveness may seem irrelevant to them.
@Gwideon Certainly many people are unwilling to give others respect, just like the two of us in school wouldn't give each other's stances respect. But nobody can give you dignity - nor can anyone take it away from you; while respect is external and relates to society, dignity is internal.
@GcL I mean, the "safe default" continues to be not that difficult: use the pronouns you're aware of, use they/them for people whose pronouns are unknown to you, and if you mess up, just honestly admit your mistake and correct yourself in the future.
So if you're writing a post on Meta about how you think these rules are going to be used as "gotcha's" by people trying to personally attack you/demod you/ban you, I don't get the sense you've actually tried to follow those rules in the first place.
@Xirema This is the only post I made on the issue. Fell free to vote as you wish, and please do leave a comment if you want to discuss anything about it. Should you wish, fell also free to ping me there if you want to avoid meta.se mess right now.
Disclaimer: yep, that one is my alternate meta account. Long story.
3:40 PM
@Xirema Yeah, but someone can specifically tell you to introduce gender into the conversation and not use they. That makes me really uncomfortable. I don't like having gender in any discussion that isn't specifically about that.
@Xirema That's an assumption. I don't know what their experience is nor how they perceived their experience. I read that post as an expression of their anxiety for fear surrounding the issue. I believe they specifically stated "fear", but I assume it could be anxiety.
@GcL It is an assumption, but it's an assumption backed by my experience interacting with users on a lot of other sites with a variety of different political climates.
Nope. They used "scared". I assume that could be fear or anxiety. Maybe misapprehension, but I'm not super clear on how to use that term.
@GcL Not sure what you mean by this scenario. "Please use my pronoun but also I'm not going to tell you my pronoun"?
@Xirema And on the flipside, if someone is asking a question and using pronouns of their choice, then don't question them. Unless the pronouns of choice in the question are the problem.
@Xirema Is your experience include directly asking people about their experiences and believing them? If so, just believe that the poster is actually "scared" about the issue. It's their perception of the situation.
@Yuuki If someone says use xyz, but I don't want gender in the conversation about database schemas. I just want to use they or their name, because I don't want gender in a discussion about database schemas. It's not relevant, but will affect the conversation if it's there.
3:45 PM
@GcL Yes; but that also involves asking people about their experiences being the people whose gender identities are most often under attack in these conversations.
I have to balance the concerns of a hypothetical well-meaning-but-ignorant Cis-Person's "I'm really worried that if I don't understand this policy I'll be attacked/demonized" vs a Trans-Person's "People keep calling me 'she' and I'm not a 'she' and they won't apologize or change their behavior", and I apologize: but I don't see those concerns as equally weighted.
@Xirema The poster isn't advocating that. They want a safe default such as, just referring to people by name. It's conference call protocol and is kind of cumbersome, but it's not bad.
And I don't blame anyone (for example the hypothetical people putting their pronouns on Q's, etc.) for wanting to inject their gender into a conversation, because many people aren't comfortable assuming the 'Anon' identity that so many people tend to occupy, which itself is, let's be honest, coded male, white, cisgendered, etc.
@Xirema Is it coded that way? I thought the whole point of anonymous identity is specifically not assuming that.
Both "I'm really worried that if I don't understand this policy I'll be attacked/demonized" and "People keep calling me 'she' and I'm not a 'she' and they won't apologize or change their behavior" sound like legitimate concerns to me.
I'm sorry if this is annoying but um as someone who has to hide their gender identity in meatspace due to fear of being attacked or demonized it's incredibly freeing to be able to express that part of my identity online. It's um kinda hard to feel comfortable when I feel like I can't express that part of my identity without being antagonized or attacked.
3:51 PM
@Xirema Your name is definitely not an "Anon identity"... or not what I assume an "Anon identiy" is. I don't actually know that phrase.
@MikeQ I think a lot of people like to say that that's the point, without realizing themselves that it doesn't really work like that, in practice.
@Xirema something something "no girls on the internet" meme
@Yuuki Yyyyyup.
sorry i probably need to shut up cause I'm not doing well with keeping up
@Gwideon I feel the same way
3:54 PM
@GcL I can agree that both perspectives are valid without needing to treat them as both holding the same priority—or, given that those perspectives can and do sometimes come into conflict with each other, presume that any conflict between them must be resolved by simply finding a compromise between them.
Being nonbinary on the internet can be a lot less scary
yeah it is
but um right now I don't feel safe expressing that part of my identity. I honestly don't
Yeah, that's difficult here right now
@Xirema And a safe default that could be blindly followed would ameliorate both.
@Gwideon I know, as a matter of fact, that things will get better, if not necessarily in a linear order.
3:57 PM
It's rarely been properly safe on stack exchange the way it should be, and witnessing that over and over made me decide I needed to be Out, and start working to change things to protect others like me.
And boy this whole thing has drawn a lot of need to act out of me.
then do it
@Xirema Odd. Is that what the data shows, that neutral identity tends to default to a specific identity instead?
@Gwideon Isn't that a Shai Labeouf meme?
@Xirema And things should improve because of how vocal the folks who don't want change are. You can't fix the problem that hides itself.
no wasn't intending on that
3:59 PM
@MikeQ I think that's what Xirema is saying: in lieu of other information people tend to assume others on the internet are white cis het males.
it's the "default"
Do we have statistics to support that?
@MikeQ I mean, I don't have a specific study to point to, but yes: when communities assume "no identity" as a matter of stated practice, the implicit assumptions about who constitutes that community skew towards white men.
Now, there's a corollary: it's extremely contextual to the actual community we're talking about.
@MikeQ Likely. I wonder where I would find polls that include information about that. Maybe user experience studies?
@doppelgreener Personal anecdote: given the unisex nickname I've been given (and now carry on the Internet), people seem to guess masculine and feminine about equally. Nobody ever guessed a true neuter, but a bunch (mostly here) seem to have guessed plural.
Like, if we were talking about the Tumblr community, you'd find that the "anonymous identity" often skews towards the assumption of female identities, despite Tumblr being a relatively gender-balanced website by demographics.
4:02 PM
@MikeQ facebook as an approximation? forbes.com/sites/ninaangelovska/2018/12/20/…
it's a thing in video games. I mean look at most "everyman" characters. what do most of them have in common? they're cis, white, males.
sorry I'll shut up
(Although I would be Jacks complete lack of surprise if that's a manifestation of the way that many people, especially men, tend to perceive "gender balance" when a community is only 1/3 female, and perceive "female dominated" at gender parity, but technically that's a different discussion)
The whole idea of a "safe default" isn't really a compromise, in my opinion. The trans-phobic position is one where they want to be able to ignore the transgender community completely. So the concept of a default that you blindly follow in safety is essentially the trans-phobic position written in language that sounds compromising.
@Gwideon Your viewpoint is actually very relevant here
i'm just not exactly sure how to present it
4:04 PM
Although pointing to fictional video game characters may not be the greatest example, since that's usually a marketing decision
@Gwideon It gets even stranger when you look at a lot of anime. Many of the features are western, but their primary audience is not.
@MikeQ But see above ^
Unless you're saying the target market, regardless of their own identity, is asking for westernized white males.
actually not really. the videogame community is much more diverse than most people assume. it's not the 90s anymore.
@Gwideon What?! When did that happen?
@Rubiksmoose no more than a couple of years ago, surely
late 2000s early 2010s
4:10 PM
@Gwideon can you support that? Quick googling shows about an 8% shift since 2006. But there's also the issue of how you define 'gamer'.
@Gwideon It was never the 90s, even during the 90s. /s
i've been to smash tourneys and there is such an interesting mix of people. sorry this is just personal expierence
@Gwideon [note to self, talk to Gwideon about Smash]
@NautArch Closest I could find offhand is an ESA report... so not exactly impartial, but their survey methods could have been fine. Haven't found those yet. theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/…
Ok, but in the context of an online Q&A community, this assertion still doesn't make much sense to me
4:13 PM
@NautArch Everyone who played Minseweeper on a slow day, obviously. ^_^
@GcL Hmm, that shows a fewer percentage of female players than other studies.
@NautArch Dunno... Also, still haven't found a survey methods section about it.
If someone addresses someone else anonymously, why should we assume that they assume that the addressee is a cis white male? Doesn't that mean making assumptions about the addresser's identity too?
oh sorry I was responding to the idea that the everyman that i pointed out was some kind of marketing decision
@vicky_molokh You joke, but 'casual' gaming is a thing :) The minesweeper player could be just as much as a gamer as the indie RPGer or the AAA gamer.
4:14 PM
@doppelgreener I'm so tired I can't even come up with an attempt at a funny 90's reference to respond lol. So, just substitute your own and have a hearty laugh, from me.
i was just pointing out that the market had shifted and that the everyman in video games no longer makes sense as a marketing decision.
@Rubiksmoose Were 90s references ever funny to begin with? 🤔
@NautArch Slight misconception, actually: if you watch Anime where a character shows up that is explicitly coded as American/European/"Western", they actually usually look pretty distinct and stand out compared to the other characters.
@Yuuki I mean we're talking about my sense of humor, so funny is often "funny" and has a very low bar ;)
@Rubiksmoose Cheers.
4:18 PM
@Xirema Is it? I mean, I guess they may make a lot of Western protagonists, but it seems most at least have westernized eyes.
@GcL Oh wow, Cheers did go into the 90's.
If you ask Japanese audiences why the characters in Anime look "White" or "European", they'll give you a perplexed response along the lines of "they didn't look Caucasian to me."
@Rubiksmoose Yup! One of the greatest sitcoms of all time.
That ending still brings a tear to my eyes.
@NautArch I definitely love(d) Cheers.
@NautArch nah it's the "default human" thing: they're just drawing people. to a Japanese resident, those people look Japanese, because they look like their default human. To Westeners they look Western. Someone a couple of years ago went and tried to demonstrate that anime typically depicts Westeners through comparison to Asian features, but their effort made a lot of fallacies.
4:20 PM
Meanwhile, speaking as someone who has watched quite a lot of Anime, characters that are explicitly American often usually have some major facial signifiers, like really well defined jawlines (maybe a reference to Western comics/superhero books?).
@doppelgreener Interesting! I've always looked it at through the perspective of how they draw eyes. But does that mean that the everyday eastern doesn't look at that difference?
@Xirema And asking Japanese people stuff in English.
It's interesting because I'm watching FMA brotherhood right now, and I certainly wouldn't say that the main characters look any different than most anime characters, to my eyes at least.
@NautArch To the everyday Asian, they're just seeing Asian eyes.
@doppelgreener But...they're not asian eyes. I mean, that's a pretty distinct thing, no? Or is it just not something that's drawn in eastern styles?
4:22 PM
@Yuuki Yup, and the trope of the protagonist flailing hilariously trying to figure out how to say something intelligible back. XD
Afros are also perhaps over-represented.
@Yuuki Afro samurai even more so ;)
@NautArch 😃 isn't depicting western eyes but you're not picturing an Asian person looking back at you through that
@doppelgreener As an Asian, I desperately want to make a joke about the color of the emoji.
@doppelgreener I'm not sure a single pupil emoji is the same thing, but I see where you're coming from.
I mean, you look at traditional japanese paintings, and the eyes are not like they how are in anime.
4:27 PM
@Rubiksmoose Weeeeellllll.... Fullmetal Alchemist is kind of a trap in terms of character designs. The Manga never made this explicit (though the 2003 anime did) but "Amestris" is coded as a pre-World-War-II Germany, where the protagonists are all basically 1930's German Liberals/Leftists.
(I'm not going into further details on the extended metaphor, because I think some of it might constitute spoilers otherwise)
@Yuuki (oh nooooo)
@Xirema careful not to spoil, :)
@Xirema the guy in charge of their fictional country is literally a "Fuhrer" and a major part of the setting background is a campaign of genocide against another race, is there anyone who didn't get the subtle nazi germany thing?
@Xirema I mean, I think that was kind of my point right? they are clearly coded as western, but don't look that different from normal anime characters?
@Rubiksmoose this one's in an exception situation
4:30 PM
@Carcer Not everyone does. I've seen the original FMA so you don't have to worry about spoiling me on that specific point.
FWIW, I don't know that the characters in FMA are literally supposed to not be Japanese, aside from the Ishvalans, but FMA is still a weird example where we can't be totally certain these characters are definitely Japanese.
when we're talking about how Western characters look visibly very different, we're talking about in animes where Western characters aren't already the default.
@Rubiksmoose you should watch brotherhood, it's good
off to play gaaaaaames
@doppelgreener ah that's a fair point. If there were appearance differences they would likely be more used to show a difference between asian/non-asian in the same anime. Which isn't something that would happen in FMA. Right?
so I made an answer um I'm not sure how good it is
4:32 PM
@Carcer I am, and it is :)
@Rubiksmoose FMA has characters that come from an analogue of China, who look visibly different to the main cast.
But yeah, there's two major examples I tend to think of with respect to Western/American characters in Anime: a scene in Azumanga Daioh, where a man who is Obviously American™ because of his blonde hair, blue eyes, and extremely detailed jawline, nonetheless speaks in a stilted, Japanese-accent English while asking for directions to the train.
And the characters who first confront him are baffled by how to talk to him, until their friend, a child genius, manages to talk to him.
@doppelgreener oh! well I do not remember this. So maybe my example is actually more of a counterexample to my point?
4:34 PM
Talking about eye differences in Western/Eastern in anime is somewhat strange to me partly because we're tiptoeing around what those differences are. The most obvious difference that exists in real life is the double eyelid that most East Asians are pre-disposed to have. And eyes in anime very rarely if ever go into enough detail to depict that.
The other example comes from Steins;Gate, where a man is coded as American because he's black, so Okabe blurts out a bunch of nonsense in stilted English before the man replies, in perfect Japanese, "can I help you?"
@Yuuki I dunno. You look at some traditional asian art that's fairly simplistic and there is a difference. It's not a hard/detailed thing to draw.
In both cases, it's pretty obvious that the non-Japanese characters are visually distinct.
@Xirema Dang. I read your last line first and then I immediately guessed you were talking about AD. Such a good show on the whole.
@NautArch We're talking about anime though, not traditional art.
4:36 PM
Durarara has a russian character who looks pretty distinct from the main cast
Also, which traditional art?
@Yuuki I'm not sure I am differentiating art.
I just did a google search for 18th century japanese art.
That sounds like a perfect rabbit hole. X century art
Hours of time just well spent
4:38 PM
That reminds me. I think the MET and the British museum have massive collections available digitally. Back to 12th century Mediterranean galleries. See yaaaaaaa
@Gwideon "as long as that's how you address everyone that's fine with me". +1. Had the writers of the CoC/FAQ your caveat to it, that would've defused much of this tension within the community.
yes it would've
@vicky_molokh I'm down with that.
that's how most people feel I believe and most people won't argue with gender neutral language being used for everyone
4:42 PM
@Gwideon At the end this really is just a Be Nice policy. Don't be a jerk! Use whatever you want to use, but if someone says "hey, if you're talking about me can you use X?" then use or go neutral and don't get upset.
@Gwideon Would you be willing to integrate your comment into the answer, or do you think it's tangential to what you were trying to say?
@vicky_molokh This is one of many positions that is fine on an individual basis, but as a broad policy would be insufficient protection and enable abuse
@doppelgreener So no safe default?
I think it's tangential. my answer is meant to express a frustration with how this situation was handled on the community side
@Gwideon You might state that explicitly if that's the point you want to come across. Something like, "I felt X when Y happened"
or present tense whichever is apropos
4:46 PM
@GcL sure there is. do what you normally do: address people by their name when you would and, if you'd use a pronoun, use a gender neutral one or guess, and be open to correction. if they do correct you, work with it, using the same energy as if someone had corrected you on how to say their name.
@doppelgreener So yes to safe default?
42 mins ago, by Yuuki
The whole idea of a "safe default" isn't really a compromise, in my opinion. The trans-phobic position is one where they want to be able to ignore the transgender community completely. So the concept of a default that you blindly follow in safety is essentially the trans-phobic position written in language that sounds compromising.
If you use a pronoun incorrectly, you're far more likely to receive a gentle correction than an immediate ban.
@GcL [shrug] if what i'm describing includes what you consider to be a safe default, yes? but it's just normal conversational practice, not something that's specifically "safe" or a "default"
@Yuuki I disagree. I like a safe default because gender shouldn't have a bearing on most of the conversations I have, and it only mucks things up if it's included.
After that, you do your best to adhere to that correction. Sounds fairly safe to me.
4:48 PM
@doppelgreener I don't know. It seems like you have to do a lot of context parsing to figure out if doing something is a safe default.
@GcL i don't understand exactly what you mean with safe default; as always conversational practices require being context aware
@Yuuki I don't. If someone said, you must use xyz, which is a gendered pronoun, I'd be very uncomfortable if that's not what the conversation was about to begin with. I also expect I'd be a bit miffed if someone was trying to inject gender into a conversation where I did not want it.
@doppelgreener Like conference call protocol. No pronouns. Is no pronouns a safe default? Or in typing, is "they" a safe default?
@GcL i've never had a conference call with a "no pronouns" policy
@GcL What does "safe default" mean though?
yeah, i don't understand the safe default thing at all
4:51 PM
@GcL I think part of the problem is that some people feel invalidated if they're not specifically addressed by the pronouns they identify as.
Is it some term I've missed? I literally don't know what is being referenced to here.
@Rubiksmoose If I always do X, it's always find. E.g. "they" is always a fine pronoun to use.
@GcL In other words, the "safe default" is a pronoun or way of addressing someone that will offend nobody / that everyone can agree to?
@Rubiksmoose Thing that is omniapplicable and thus not subject to edits/corrections/etc., and doesn't require non-obvious knowledge?
@GcL there's no such thing then
broad communities in life don't come with absolute one-size-fits-all options
4:53 PM
Like how using the second-person plural is considered OK no matter what, even when the target is singular.
what i described was instead a process by which you work out what to do with individuals
@Rubiksmoose I'm not concerned about not offending anyone. I'm only concerned about a safe default pronoun that can be generally agreed upon.
Like, you're looking for a version of the conversation where someone says "my pronouns are she/her", and the response is "so is it okay to keep using 'they' for you?", and the short version is: probably not, unless they specifically tell you that it's okay when referring to them.
@vicky_molokh Even if the target doesn't like such formalities and confusing numbers.
@vicky_molokh they is valid for a singlular as well. I wish there were a singlular only gender neutral pronoun, but alas... not for English.
4:54 PM
If they say "yes, 'they' is fine", then you're all good.
right: there are people who do not want to be called by they/them, and will correct you and ask you to call them he/him or she/her. that makes calling them they/them even after that not okay. same energy as if i told you "the name's just bill, not billy, please", and you kept calling me billy.
@GcL Elephant in the room: there actually is a singular one and you may have even seen me use it.
@vicky_molokh Just because moose are big mammals doesn't mean you can call @Rubiksmoose an elephant.
@Yuuki Yeah hey! What the heck?
@doppelgreener Not sure if the name pronunciation is a good equivalent. A lot of gave up fairly early in our lives on correcting people (especially with last names.) I think, and you can probably answer better than I, that pronouns are a bigger issue than names.
4:57 PM
@doppelgreener That's not the same. That's specifically asking for a consideration that is not generally afforded to everyone, and is impressing on me to include gender in a conversation about something where I don't want gender. E.g. study design, specimen collection, technical... whatever. I do not like gender in those conversations for sound reasons.
Also: I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating: from the perspective of the person you're talking to, it's tremendously difficult to tell the difference between someone who persistently uses 'they/them' when referring to you because they don't know how you identify, vs someone who keeps using they/them because they specifically do not respect the identity you hold.
@GcL So, a safe guess? One that generally will apply to most people? "They" could maybe sorta work in that sense. But then you can't let the fact that you've labeled something as "safe" for you get in the way that you may encounter someone for whom it's not safe.
Like, I know from experience that there's a lot of Transwomen who found themselves being referred to exclusively by 'they/them' after telling people how they identified because the people they were talking to specifically did not want to acknowledge them as women.
@Xirema Is that a thing?
01:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00

« first day (2015 days earlier)      last day (38 days later) »