[Versus]

So what happened to agreeing with Alan's post that it's infuriating when people respond to how you say something and not what you say?

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Pretty sure I responded to everyone, but might have missed a few in the ensuing dogpile. Once it becomes clear that I'm getting caught up in a bukake circle that's taken a sharp derail then it's time to throw my hands up and go look at pictures of puppies and kittens.

I'm inclined to believe you're being dishonest. Here's an example of before anybody else said something to you; it was just the two of us talking:

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Please explain what was sexist about approaching a person, expressing interest, and leaving them alone when they declined.

Originally Posted by Versus

Would you like to start with the part where somebody said they felt they were sexualized and subsequently was shouted down by fucking privileged Crack Von Patriarchs like you think what you have to say matters at all, or the part where you think you're entitled any sort of explanation when you can easily educate yourself?

Originally Posted by Jonathan

When you call me Cracker Von Patriarch, does that give me justification to feel that I am being sexually and racially discriminated against? It makes me feel really uncomfortable, so expect an outpouring of community backlash any day now. Once the White Knights figure out what direction to charge in there will be hell to pay.

Do you see how you literally didn't even respond to what I said? It's as if my post went like this:

Originally Posted by Versus

Would you like to start with the part where somebody said they felt they were sexualized and subsequently was shouted down by fucking privileged Crack Von Patriarchs like you think what you have to say matters at all, or the part where you think you're entitled any sort of explanation when you can easily educate yourself?

This wasn't you throwing your hands up and being frustrated. This was you getting defensive. That thread had nothing to do with you. It wasn't a personal attack upon you but you responded to a huge number of our posts as if it was, and that sentiment only intensified as the thread grew.

Call it tone policing if you want, but I think people can have a difference of opinion that doesn't have to degenerate into name calling or other forms of abuse, especially if it isn't even funny. If we can't have either a civil conversation or a hillarious one, then there's not much point. Sorry if I pissed in anybodies victimhood affirmation bowl of cornflakes.

It is tone policing. You dismissed most of my posts because you felt they were "too emotional" or "too angry," and now you're implying that I am overly sensitive when you say I have a victim mentality. It is an increasingly progressive break down in logic: I have to be civil and refrain from expressing my emotions because it bothers you, but when I am bothered by you, I am being oversensitive. It's a double standard, Jonathan. It's a bag of tricks. So, aside from the clown car of wrongs that are done to people and deemed as normal, they also have to get past this when they even try to respond to it. When I make an emotionless remark, such as using the term Cracker Von Patriarch, you take it personally and feel it's an unprovoked attack on you because you're privileged enough to be blind to the things that are done to me.

It is a function of privilege for you. You don't have some of this shit as a major part of your life and it's easy for you to remain detached in conversations about them or even ignore that they exist at all, so of course you are going to see yourself as an objective speaker and to further expect me to refrain from any emotional response that makes you uncomfortable. I'm being irrational. I'm being hyperbolic, while you are logical, and civil, and collected.

If anyone is being a victim here, it's you for demanding that I cut this shit out while you rub it in my face.