Quote:
Originally Posted by blackize5
Not sure why do many people are so quick to defend jmakin or take anything he says at face value. His posts are consistently self contradictory. Sure candybar is assertive in calling that out, but jmakins skin is way too thin here.
So if you're willing to be a nerd like me and just observe all this, it's a fascinating look at how people behave. To be objective, I'll try to use a third person since I'm not particuarly attached to my persona here. So let's recap:
jmakin posts a story about how he pulled a "sneak attack" to embarrass a coworker that earned the respect and authority of his peers and management, the gist of the story being that he's seen as a leader that's increasingly "in charge." In this same story, he consistently belittles this coworker over whom he thinks he has the upper hand, calling her a "problem child" a "prima donna" a "moron" and "being childish." He later accuses her of being "manipulative" "delusional" and having "personality issues."
A bunch of other posts follow. Several people have described others in a clearly negative way that could be offensive - this includes jmakin, candybar, jj, goofy, etc. This isn't surprising, we're not perfect people, whatever, I don't care about internet decorum and you'll rarely see me care about this one way or another. The main reason why I said something here is that jmakin seems to be engaging in toxic behavior towards a coworker IRL over whom he seems to have actual power that matters. And I'll get to this later but to most you internet people, she's not a real person, but to him she absolutely is. It's crazy the way jmakin is treating her here. But let's focus on what's transpired here - jmakin started the name calling, dragging a coworker through mud with all sorts of negative characterization, while also describing how he punked her and put her in her place. No one calls him out on this. Then he goes on an insulting spree once candybar calls this out. No one finds anything particularly wrong with the content of candybar's criticism, only the tone. Even then no one is willing to call out jmakin's behavior or attitude.
Instead, they call out candybar for being not nice in how he called out jmakin. Not one of them does this nicely of course - JJ casually talks about how candybar is being an ass and tries to say he agrees with candybar, but without ever calling out jmakin on any of his behavior. Meanwhile, goofy actively endorses jmakin's parade of insults. Goofy says it's ok to tell candybar to **** off because he's an annoying poster that's difficult to deal with. Of course, you don't have to tell people to **** off in order not to deal with them, but conveniently this option was not mentioned. Goofy then goes on to preach about not being a dick. Candybar then suggests that Goofy's tone may not be the best way to convince others to be nice. Microbet then comes in to defend goofy's belittling tone, saying that goofy doesn't have to be nice to people like candybar, who's not nice to others. Of course, that was how this entire thing started, candybar was literally calling out jmakin not being nice but microbet curiously has nothing negative to say about jmakin's behavior.
Then you come in, being puzzled that everyone's quick to defend jmakin. Jmakin calls you a dickbag. This seems out of line but no one calls him out on this either. Not jj, not goofy, not microbet. So if you're trying to figure out if there are some objective norms here, there aren't. Clearly it's not that you can't be rude or insulting or hurtful because the preachers are acting the same way. It's also not about tit-for-tat or intolerance of intolerance or whatever where it's okay not to be nice to someone who wasn't being nice - this whole thing started with jmakin not being nice. Somehow it was still not nice to call this out.
A few things are going on here - there are definitely some actual relationships between people here that predispose them to defend one another, or at least avoid saying anything bad. A few people also had some internet arguments with candybar that apparently left them with a grudge - it's a bit funny that those people just can't help but throw stones, it's funny but I get it. To reinforce those dynamics, there's social proof - there's some deference towards people that seem popular and tendency to gang up on people that are already being attacked. I think I've pissed off enough people in my passionate defense of whatever I felt strongly about at the time that this works against me now, whatever, you deserve what you get.
But the main problem I have is this and this is something we should think about - why are we okay with attacking an innocent person who's not here? So the primary reason why my tone seemed out of line in the first place and somehow to many y'all, I'm the one that threw the first stone is that the coworker Jmakin was ****ting on was morally a non-person here and nothing that was said about her, nothing that was done to her, needed to be litigated at all. None of us knows her and jmakin did a nice job dehumanizing her with consistently insulting descriptions as to cultivate this - who cares, whatever comes her way, she deserves it. We talk about metoo, racism, xenophobia, increasing tribalism in our society or whatever but this is kind of the perfect setup. We defend those close to us at the expense of others far away. We say nice, pleasing things to those who have power over us, and don't care about the plight of others that are easily dehumanized as others. They are literally not people and their feelings don't matter. We've got smart people here - I don't think I need to elaborate as to why this is problematic and the root of many problems in our society at large.
And I act that way IRL too. Here, I drop by occasionally and can't keep track of people that well and my personal ideal is some kind of unemotional truth-teller and it's easier to play one on the internet, so I try to be unemotional wrt people, try to be fair and just defend what I believe is true. For instance, I know suzzer who I met IRL, may think I'm an otherwise normal person who acts like a douche online but on the contrary my behavior here is closer to how I ideally think people should behave - be straightforward, don't sugarcoat, don't be defensive, don't let personal feelings cloud judgment one way or another, respond to what is here and now, not your preconception or history with people, try to use bad things said about you to learn and improve. Not that I always succeed, but this general approach seems to be the perfect way to make lots of enemies. This is despite the fact that I try not to hold grudges or respond emotionally to insults - you will generally find that I treat people that are consistently insulting me much the same way I treat others, still offering advice, engaging normally and generally ignoring insults. Meanwhile, I can be super critical of people that I do genuinely like and respect.
IRL, I'm consciously way more tribalistic and focus far more on the feelings of people that matter to me than the truth. So I'm the worst kind of hypocrite. The primary consequence of this seems to be that I'm way more popular IRL (that's not saying much). It sort of makes sense because relationships with tribal people are more valuable than relationships with people who are fair to everyone regardless of the relationship. But I know on some level this is not right and it's kind of crazy to me (probably because I'm a crazy person). I don't know how to reconcile all this.
