LogFAQs > #965080833

It might've been from the topic before that specific one but if you go to the start of the conversation, I very much *did* begin taking puns' ignorance earnestly with a post explaining my position, my own very personal reasons why transphobic media has effected my life, and recommended listening to actual trans voices instead of solely focusing on the celeb under fire's emotions. Celeb worship is unfortunately all too common (I mentioned parasocial relationships before and this is another side to it) and creates an instinctive defensive position without listening to criticism. I ended up pointing towards some trans and cis black voices with their fair but critical opinions on the matter (looking up though this was in the second topic where yeah I'm much more annoyed after being completely ignored the first go around).

Every single bit of this was ignored only for puns to keep simply harping on calling everybody a wild embarrassment and out for blood with cancel culture (literally not uttered by anyone), that we must not watch any comedy, and that we're the ones lacking empathy for Chappelle, all while he ignores our own personal experiences given. He says pages in that he hasn't even read the comments he received but continues on to speak over everyone without doing so. Then again later it just comes out that he was drunk and oh well shucks that poor drunk guy really stepped in it.

I'll point to xp1337's description of events so it's not just me talking but

Yeah, idk, I've spoken up a few times when I felt some people in here have gone "too hard" on occasion but I don't really think this met that? I think the tipping point in the whole thing happened super early too when GMUN posted that personal story rebutting puns's assertions. If the point was to have a discourse over "Why are people/you all upset about what Chappelle has said?", "How can comedy be harmful?", etc. ...that was it. That was the offramp from one-liners and such to a more nuanced discussion. ...And it was just ignored entirely. So... yeah. Now puns has since said he hadn't heard the full story behind what Chappelle had said, etc. but like I don't think this was "the topic" steamrolling someone and shutting down discussion. The route to a discussion was extended by "the topic" and not taken!

Like I think 99% of the "meta commentary" in this thread is likely unhelpful but since we're determined to rehash it again...

and then my own frustration at the time

good discussion is completely wasted here as I've pointed out it's constantly ignored to go for low hanging fruit

every damn time I bother making an effort it's for nothing

Delseban actually plays the role of plum in the first topic, as someone sympathetic to ignorant liberals and questions the effectiveness of the argument but he makes an actual back-and-forth dialogue accepting his own biases towards leniency in one direction and putting the onus on one side rather than plum just insisting on his usual centrist enlightenment dismissing others points even while we acknowledge and accept his but complete it with the full context. Which yeah, plum wasn't involved in the previous topic but we explicitly refer to it as it hasn't even purged yet. But getting the full picture isn't plum's concern because he just holds onto his caricatures of "the left" (same way that on the same page he bizarrely assumes we're all blind Biden supporters, when he's literally the 2nd biggest Biden fan after LotM)

The prime reason that gets me to block someone is an insistent disingenuity and lack of engagement because they just waste your time and erode the conversation. That combined with an inflammatory "lmao y'all got trolled superbly" heel turn after doing so is where I tend to draw the line and commit to block. You may notice I never blocked puns despite fitting much of this criteria, but I could still see that his emotional ignorance was at least genuine, and later in the topic I was proven right when he finally... listened to Wil Wheaton.