like
you keep approaching all this stuff from a stance of "im right and everybody not on my level just needs to get on my level and i shouldnt have to spell out how"
and uhhhhhhhh clearly that approach is flawed on multiple levels
this is a dismissive post. i never called into question my interpretations of right and wrong, i am asking you to address yours. the link here is that i believe i correctly identified yours as having been falsely present. as such i can answer that i believe it is in bad faith of you to try engaging me on a topic that i feel directly stems from an ideology of the moral and ethical treatment of others.
the entire thing stems from your interpretations of right and wrong
because you blew up at insom + others posting and implied it was clearly wrong and constituted mistreatment and didnt spell out explicitly what you thought was wrong with all of it
define "thing"
the entire conflict of you implying sexist/hurtful posting in the blog thread and peoples responses to you implying it
"implying" being a key word because again, you never spelled it out explicitly
and again, i'm not saying that the subject itself doesn't bear what i think is right and wrong, i meant specifically this discussion here and now, when i'm addressing your conflict with how i did or didn't handle responding to your inquiries in the sexism debacle
i mean i never claimed to be interested in being a person who consistently treats people right and helps call out when others treat people wrong
i claimed to be interested in your perspective of what constituted mistreatment in the initial blog thread stuff
which i was
if you had laid it out explicitly, i probably wouldve started autistically analyzing and talking about what i thought different peoples perceptions were and where the conflicts in perception were
do you think it's more right to cater to your inquiry when it's perceived as disingenuous?
your whole accusation of disingenuous is based on a faulty assumption of what i was trying to achieve
again
i think i was pretty explicit about why i was asking for you to explain what you perceived as sexist in the first place
because i thought i could help resolve conflict on some abstract level
i never meant to imply that i was interested in selling your exact perspective and having everybody else totally agree with you
that was never on the menu for me and if you assumed that i was trying to project that, thats a faulty assumption of yours, not me being disingenuous
i straight up said in the first relevant post "well i feel like i'd disagree with some of her perceptions"
that's not been what i have been saying, at all.
from my perspective my entire participation in that thing was
- trying to get nyte to clarify her objections to what was going on
- failing to do that and getting pissed off
for me, if you are not questioning or interested in questioning your treatment of others on principle, i will have a hard time engaging in discussions revolving around those principles, with you. i find it disingenuous, as ive maintained.
fmpov youre just assuming i intended to never adjust my perspective one iota and rationalizing your stonewalling and refusal to spell things out with that assumption
not even sure your assumption is wrong (that i wouldnt have changed, i definitely did not intend not to change) but we can never know if you refuse to spell it out
like to this day im passively curious about what things ive done/posted that stick out in your mind as sexist (pre blogthread thing)
and i cant tell if those things are going to end up having me react by going like "wow nytes crazy how tf was that sexist" or "oh i get it ill try to avoid that in the future so i dont hurt people unintentionally and get perceived that way"
i see either of those reactions as viable possibilities
i never like categorically ruled out the latter as a possibility, but i can never know if you just assume im completely incapable of it and determined not to change, which is not quite the case
changing not being my primary motivation doesnt preclude it as a possibility
my primary motivation being a more holistic "lets just find out where the disagreements in perceptions lie first" isnt even that disingenuous of a motivation when ive literally claimed it
what is being miscommunicated or dismissed is that i do not believe your questions, with your ASSErTION that you had no face-value vested interest in your moral and ethical code, and how it might relate to what i see and feel is sexism, can be in good faith, when you essentially harassed me for an answer and grew successively more irate as things moved along.
did you observe that i was under duress?
yea my conduct was insufficiently emotionally aware
am i supposed to be immune from becoming irate myself?
the issues i had in my followup to you not wanting to go along with my initial approach doesnt make my initial approach to the situation disingenuous by default
i never said i wouldn't answer your questions
and, based on things you've expressed here, i feel correct in assuming that your perspective was disingenuous. does that mean it would be unproductive? no
i simply said i would have a hard time discussing such things, if i feel that way...
how exactly was my perspective disingenuous?
im still not getting it tbh
also, i'm not saying you're immune - what i'm actually saying is that you implied (more than implied) that I should be immune and also be able to navigate through everything with impartial bias
you literally vilified me for anything less.
i vilified you for creating a situation where a bunch of people felt vilified by insufficiently articulated issues with their characters being implied with you refusing to actually spell anything out in the slightest
yes i take issue when people suck at articulating their issues
i rly cant relate because even when im at my maddest im pretty good at articulating exactly why im mad