Why are so many people here angry?

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Oh god, this, so much this. It's not even funny the way people sometimes get dismissed on these forums, by people who lack even a basic understanding of the position of person whose experiences are being dismissed. It's especially annoying when people bring up long debunked myths and then reject all evidence against the myths.

Honestly I don't think that people here are particularly angry, but we do tend to bicker a lot. Everyone has their own personal pet peeves and there is a tendency for that to come out here. If people here are angry, we're not nearly as angry as people are in other places. Just look at the bile you tend to see on Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, and the chan boards. We're pretty tame by comparison, no matter how much we argue.

Most of the times that I've seen someone being met with dismissal on or off the internet, it wasn't down to ignorance or bigotry. It was actually because they conducted their social interactions in a manner that made them come across as either immature or outright insane. To an outsider stumbling upon an argument involving people like that, sometimes all the partaking sides appear the same because that's how they behave.

You're going to meet people whose opinions you find reprehensible - you likely already have, several times. That's life, and it's something everyone has to learn to deal with. What's screaming at it going to do? Nobody's lungs are big enough, and people you don't agree with won't disappear no matter how much you want them to. You'll also run the considerable risk involved is being repeatedly mistaken for the people that you find yourself totally at odds with.

Well without bringing the subject up directly, I'm pretty sure you've seen the situation's I've talked about. Where even when you bring evidence. It often depends on how well known the subject is, the subject I'm talking about is one that tends to get the misinformation taken on face value. I see a lot of people get dismissed just on the grounds of political leanings.

 

[Hagi]

I don't like death metal. It's just loud, obnoxious noise to me. Same with most EDM. If a concert venue is going to heavily feature these styles, I'm going to avoid it. Now, you could call that weakness, tell me to suck it up and get in the mosh, and I'd tell you to go fuck yourself with a kebab. I just don't want to be in a noisy room full of stupid, drunken, angsty idiots. It's not my kind of place, and you can't have a Death Metal show and some other things at the same time either.

Internet forums are private enclaves, not (name notwithstanding) open public forums. You register, you agree to a set of rules, and you join based on the supposed character of the site. You can change that, but you'll change who wants to show up. If you make it a death metal concert, all of the fans of every other style will leave. Not because we can't take it, but because we're not pathetic headbangers with arrested development.

Meanwhile we have you saying, "Just let whoever on the stage, let them play whatever, whenever. FREEEEEDOM!!!!"

Congrats, you now have the freedom to be in a noisy shithole.

As you say yourself, a forum is not really a place with a single style and a single artist having their pre-arranged place on an exclusive stage. And yeah, it probably will be a noisy shithole, already is if we're being honest. It could be a more fun and friendly one though, which is something to aspire to.

Naturally changing the Escapist's rules would change the place. It might no longer appeal to everyone who likes the current format. Then again, considering it's current popularity mayhaps a bit of change wouldn't be so bad. I can't be the only pathetic headbanger with arrested development.

Heck, considering the language you're using you seem already well aboard team "Fuck you", so mayhaps it isn't all that bad.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

For example, I don't think gay people should've been allowed to get married. The majority of people shouldn't have had to bend to the will of a minority of people just because they want special treatment. They could've already gotten married too so their wasn't even a double standard; no one could marry the same sex. It makes me afraid for the future that kids are being taught all this stuff like it's normal. Like I mean, since gay marriage we've had all these trans issues come up, you even hear about people identifying as attack helicopters or gender fluid or strange things like that, and then everyone just celebrates it and we're supposed to pretend it's normal.

I want to address this, but lets not derail. The problem with marriage and the exclusion of recognition for same-sex unions was that marriage as an institution is only legal because of abuses in 18th century England. Where a woman would marry several sailors and collect a spousal pension multiple times from the British navy. Marriage by it self is a cultural institution. That said it became law, then Clinton signed DOMA into federal law, which was a violation of the fourteenth amendment. Basically it messed up things like inheritance law for same-sex couples. Personally I think the legal institution should be civil unions for everyone, that keeps the religious side out of the law. That's not what we got though.

Now the only time I hear of people identifying as "attack helicopters" and such is when someone is making a dishonest attempt to invalidate transgender and gender non-conforming people. The thing is, gender dysphoria, being trans gender, non-binary, those are identified non-delusional conditions that people actually have. When it comes to normalizing LGBTQI+ folk, it's not about making other people be like us, it's about spreading understanding. Those who don't understand are the ones most likely to form prejudices based in not understanding, then discriminate. Normalization is specifically about removing negative stigmas, where as keeping Gender and Sexuality Minorities(GSM) on the fringes is a tool used to further unjustifiable discrimination and intolerance. It's not like expanded awareness and understanding of the LGBTQI+ community is going to make people transgender or gay, because those things aren't choices people make about themselves.

 

[Dan Steele]

Because there is no interruption or social awkwardness on the internet, no fear of confrontation: only pure unfiltered dialogue. Sure a thread can be deleted, but atleast my mind isn't in socially anxious overdrive trying to respond to your point. I can take as long as I like to refute your argument. This enables people to become passionate and write out what is truly on their mind without fear of offense. Take away confrontation, you take away the filter on an individual's speech.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Specifically this site? That's odd, I mean people can be rude here, but no more than anywhere else on the internet. You still run across all the general kind of jerks, but I'd say that here, people are more passionate than angry. Everywhere you go on the internet, you rarely come across people who are willing to agree to disagree. Every game/movie/anime/book/whatever is either solid gold or a piece of shit and absolutely no one likes having their opinions questioned or to admit that something they love is less than perfect.

You get that everywhere. At least here there are some people that you can meet in the middle with. The people that aren't willing to ever back down go rounds with each other, making it appear that an entire post has gotten out of control when it's really just two people bickering, each one quoting the other on the only parts of their post they can level an argument against and ignoring the sensible bits without making any concessions. I've found people are a lot angrier elsewhere, and it's not usually just two people like I mentioned previously, it's a BUNCH of people. Like, check out any forum pertaining to whatever the current-running popular shounen anime is and you'll usually see a shit show that sometimes makes even 4chan seem tame.

 

[Something Amyss]

I want to address this, but lets not derail.

Yes, let's not. Especially since Pluvia was clearly making a hypothetical case, said it was horrible and offensive, and was trying to make a point.

I think this actually goes to the exact topic at hand: people are very quick to take umbrage and not look at the larger context. In this context, Pluvia is very clearly trying to make a case about the discrepancy in treatment and what is deemed "offensive." This is something I'm pretty sure all three of us agree on. Now, maybe I only read the rest of what he said because I consider him a pal and gave him the benefit of the doubt (in fact, I checked his post primarily because I thought "that doesn't sound like him"), but he's clearly making a rhetorical argument for the sake of example, and it only takes a couple more sentences to see that. But too often, people hear on phrase, see one sentence, and they get outraged.

There are some people who actually espouse this belief, people who hold it. There are people who think worse. But that's not Pluvia, nor the point of his post.

So while what you're saying is true, it's talking past the poster you're quoting. And how are we supposed to get anywhere talking past people?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I want to address this, but lets not derail.

Yes, let's not. Especially since Pluvia was clearly making a hypothetical case, said it was horrible and offensive, and was trying to make a point.

I think this actually goes to the exact topic at hand: people are very quick to take umbrage and not look at the larger context. In this context, Pluvia is very clearly trying to make a case about the discrepancy in treatment and what is deemed "offensive." This is something I'm pretty sure all three of us agree on. Now, maybe I only read the rest of what he said because I consider him a pal and gave him the benefit of the doubt (in fact, I checked his post primarily because I thought "that doesn't sound like him"), but he's clearly making a rhetorical argument for the sake of example, and it only takes a couple more sentences to see that. But too often, people hear on phrase, see one sentence, and they get outraged.

There are some people who actually espouse this belief, people who hold it. There are people who think worse. But that's not Pluvia, nor the point of his post.

Knee-jerk reactions. Those are the death of discourse. People stop listening and instead wait for their turn to speak, and that is giving into the knee-jerk reaction rather than giving a discussion time. There's no thinking, just reacting to one or two bits they heard/read before their ears/eyes turned off.
Human beings have the ability to rise up above their base reactions, to think a situation through rather than act on instinct. That should be the defining trait of what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom but sometimes I wonder if there's more than a few humans that just haven't evolved with that trait.

 

[Breakdown]

This forum has never struck me as being all that angry. I'd say the tone was more smug, self righteous, sanctimonious, superior, probably some other words beginning with S, I don't know.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Yes, let's not. Especially since Pluvia was clearly making a hypothetical case, said it was horrible and offensive, and was trying to make a point.

I think this actually goes to the exact topic at hand: people are very quick to take umbrage and not look at the larger context. In this context, Pluvia is very clearly trying to make a case about the discrepancy in treatment and what is deemed "offensive." This is something I'm pretty sure all three of us agree on. Now, maybe I only read the rest of what he said because I consider him a pal and gave him the benefit of the doubt (in fact, I checked his post primarily because I thought "that doesn't sound like him"), but he's clearly making a rhetorical argument for the sake of example, and it only takes a couple more sentences to see that. But too often, people hear on phrase, see one sentence, and they get outraged.

There are some people who actually espouse this belief, people who hold it. There are people who think worse. But that's not Pluvia, nor the point of his post.

So while what you're saying is true, it's talking past the poster you're quoting. And how are we supposed to get anywhere talking past people?

I know, even having read the entire post, I still felt the need to respond the way I did. I kinda go to soapbox mode with statements like the one I quoted. Even when the person in question wasn't intentionally conveying that message, it's one of those things I feel the need to challenge, because someone will take it seriously. So let's just put it down to my having a weird habitual need to say something against statements like those.

Sorry about that too.

But I think that's a good point that you brought up, especially in regards to the internet and internet forums. Somethings just kinda flick people's internal switches on somethings, then someone goes off a tangent. So if I did anything useful, it was proving that people sometimes tend to go into tangent mode with online text communications.

 

[Fappy]

Old school forums are like high schools. The drama can be downright intoxicating to some. Also, video games are serious business.

It's actually refreshing when I get flamed in threads that have nothing to do with politics in anyway since it's so rare these days. I had a guy take a shit down my throat for dumbest reason in a Skyrim thread a few months back. In retrospect, it was actually pretty hilarious. I had a forum super hero shut him down, but I can't remember who it was.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

But now I am saddened at its conundrum.

Can't you see your cat pics are tearing me apart?

Emotional claus (heh!), sadness is preferable to anger in a utilitarian mind, i ...hope?

Ya'll people just need some kittens all up in your shit...

Spoiler

Sorry, i would put them in spoilers, but that risks more people not seeing these adorable cuties. How could anyone stay angry beyond these??

But I don't want kittens up in my shit. Why would I want shit covered kittens? Why would you want to do that to poor kittens?! You sick bastard!! Just cuddle the damn adorable things! Don't insert them rectally into people!! What's wrong with you?!?

It's ok, these are specially bred shit-kittens. They can thrive anywhere, like deep sea bacteria or...deep colon bacteria. But CUTE bacteria! XD

You can take your kittens and... er... apply them to some orifice of your general person (eat them? put them in armpits?), you absolute entity, you. I'm miffed to shit, me. Grrrr.

If you swallow them whole, they will survive like ringworm, these kittens are adaptable. Not sure about armpits yet though, I shall conduct some vigorous testing and return with the results. Cuuute vigorous testing of course!

 

[the_dramatica]

Why bother coming to the internet to talk about the weather or to seek easy approval? You can talk about those things with yourself in your mind without paying an internet bill or visiting the library! Competitive discussion heats things up, it makes things interesting, and it leaves no idea to rot or fester!

Also it seems I was aboard the gg exodus gentrification thing, which may affect this site specifically, yatzi may also attract critical folk.

 

[Kameburger]

Because it's easy to be condescending to people we can't see, don't know, and don't give a fuck about. The things that we're normally too polite to say in public (not hidden racist bullshit or anything like that) such as snarky comments and sarcastic responses, and condecending dismissals we let completely fly free in this space. Remember when Tommy Lee Jones says in Men in Black, that a person is smart but people are dumb, well to use that as a metaphor, whether you're debating with one person, or many, you're talking to people, not a person, and you're not a person, you're people to everyone around you. All credibility or anything that you might bring to the table is lost in a see of condescending dismissive people. That's why you never seem to meet those tumblrina's or GamerGaters in public. Fuck even the KKK wore masks. Because when you look at someone it's a lot harder to ignore their existence. .

 

[Tiger King]

It's not as bad as it used to be on here, well at least from my perspective.
I recall some probably long gone user making a thread about a similar topic as this years ago. Quite a few people said how they would write a reply to a thread expressing their views, only to have their mouse hover over the 'post' button in indecision on whether or not to click it. Their reason for not doing so was simply because they couldn't be bothered to deal with the aggressive responses of people that can't stop for two seconds and think 'oh well that's their opinion, I don't agree with it myself'.

Funnily enough the thread was soon invaded by angry people that smelt weakness/blood and they soon began ridiculing the former mentioned posters for being too sensitive and to 'man up'.

I dunno, if people wanna be angry and argue they should probably just head on over to youtube. There are millions of angry people that would indulge them in the comments section there.

 

[Sarge034]

I think it has to do with the site dying. Used to be a place with really good and unbiased news, a variety of content, and a close knit casual atmosphere. Now, well, with how things have been going at the top it's killed the site. Click bait and misinformation, or actual glaringly wrong information, is the norm. Some people care enough to point that out, others just go with it. This difference in ideology causes friction. The same way that any ideological differences cause friction when people are too set in their ways to try and see things from a different point of view.

So the short answer is people are angry here because very few people are actually here to talk. They just want everyone to agree with them.

 

[Magmarock]

I can very much sympathies with this. I find myself getting quite annoyed at how talk on the forums. If it gets too much I just disengage.

 

[Hagi]

Also on a related note, it seems you're right in your prediction that the guy that called a lot of other forum members "pedophiles, child molesters and rapists" hasn't been moderated yet. That's.. bizarre. I'm pretty sure if you went and called Gamergate, an ideology, that same thing then you would get instantly moderated. But calling a group of people that just because they exist? Apparently that's allowed. Hell, I'm pretty sure that's one of the worst insults imaginable, I mean it's magnitudes greater than calling someone an "idiot" or something, yet it's not getting moderated for some reason. This is what I mean about tone. People don't care about someone saying something offensive, the mods especially, they just care about the "tone" it's said in.

I apologize for cutting away the rest of your post, but I feel we're kinda going in circles so instead I figure I'll just focus on this part as this seems were we're mostly in agreement. If you want a response to any of the rest feel free to ask though, I don't mind responding but I'd feel as if I were repeating myself which seems far from productive.

But the above is basically the point I'm trying to make. I think it's bad, and the reason the Escapist's forums are experienced as angry and passive-aggressive, that these posts don't get moderated whilst ruder but far less offensive expressions of frustration and anger do get moderated.

Tone shouldn't matter to moderation. If insulting people is allowed, which it currently is provided you use the right words and tone, then I think it should be allowed regardless of tone or words used. If insulting people isn't allowed, then it should get moderated regardless of tone.

I'm arguing for consistency regardless of tone used. I see no difference between saying incredibly offensive things nicely or saying them rudely and I don't think moderation should either.

To add, I completely agree that insulting groups or individuals on grounds of gender, sexuality, race etc. is much worse than general insults like "idiot". I'm completely fine with a ban on hate speech, just because I believe these forums would be better with some insults allowed doesn't mean I think any and all insults should be allowed. I'm not arguing for literally anything goes.

Hate speech should be moderated regardless if delivered with insults, rhetoric or the nicest words imaginable. And if it isn't hate speech then personally I say swear away as much as you want, even personal insults.

The words and tone used shouldn't matter. Calling gay people pedophiles, child molesters and rapists should be moderated even if no expletives are used. Calling someone saying that a fucking idiot and borderline psychopath that should just get the hell out should not be moderated, regardless of the expletives used.

There's a difference between swearing and hate speech, a difference that doesn't seem understood by moderation as it currently stands. Which I think is a big problem.

 

[___________________]

The world's crap.

 

[deadish]

Outrage culture.

People's lives are so idyllic that they have to find something to ***** about.

 

[Nurb]

It's not just here. Gamers and nerds in general are always angry as a whole, always hate stuff, are always bitter about something, and will argue with each other or anyone else, but it's just how it's always been, this isn't a recent phenomenmenmonom. It's been like this since the 70's. I do my fair share of complaining about different topics in gaming.

People who don't fully understand sometimes try to "fight it", usually publicly yelling back and forth with gamers, ending up just a different kind of angry until they get tired and go away.

It's not even THAT bad really, you're just made aware of the most extreme cases, and this site doesn't police users as much. Don't worry too much about it.