User:Mrthejazz/On postmodernism, disagreements, and trolls:
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
The following two forums are examples of postmodernism on the interwebs:
edit So what?
In the first we see a famous uncyclopedia "troll" by the (nick)name of anonymous Slashy, who very very strongly believed that an article on Aspberger syndrome was not only offensive, but demeaning, destructive and made life more difficult for "Aspies". At least the perception was that he believed it strongly. Alternatively, he could have just been a really persistent troll who liked to fuck with people. That alone there should give you a hint that something is up. On the web, perception is fluid. He could be a real butthurt aspie, caught in a ego trap of needing to be right, of needing to correct a serious wrong that's important to him, or he could have been a troll laughing at all the drama he stirred up. Thanks to the nature of the internet, there's no real way to tell.
The issue of censorship is always a controversial one, even on an open "write whatever you want" wiki. There's always going to be the question of where to draw the line. Are boobs okay? Naked boobs, half-naked boobs? Janet Jackson pics? Bestiality? (It's SATIRE DAMMIT!) As a group, we decide what is too far here, but that decision is arbitrary. Everybody has a different line.
edit What can we learn from Slashy?
There is no way for anybody to tell if you're sincere or not in what you type on the net. People will misunderstand both your intention and your meaning. Heck, people who read this message will at least in part misunderstand it too. I won't be surprised if somebody reads this and attempts to explain why I'm incorrect. Attempts to explain your meaning will only result in further obfuscation, bruised egos, flames, and annoyance. It is easy to get caught in this trap, wanting to use words to clarify your words. It doesn't work. If somebody makes a decision, that's it. Give up, be over it because the internet is terrible place to try to solve anything.
edit So wanting to do the right thing is egotistical? Also, isn't it a bit fatalistic to say nothing will be solved?
It's not egotistical to want to do the right thing. It is egotistical to need to do the right thing, to become attached to it, persay. If you try to help and shit gets worse, then GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE. If you can't think of a way to make things better, SHUT THE FUCK UP. That is of course why I don't talk much on controversial forums, at least seriously. I'll say bullshit that has no consequence, non sequiturs and the like. I find it lightens the mood at least.
As far as it being fatalistic, I don't think so. I think it's actually a form of taking fate into your own hands. Why jump onto a sinking ship if all you can do is poke more holes?
edit Okay, well what about that other forum?
Same concept, different example. There was controversy over the line between funny and hurtful, Controversy over the powers that admins should have, and controversy over what is best for uncyclopedia. I can safely say that nobody here was an intentional troll, and I can hope and try to assume (per uncyc policy) that everybody had the best of intentions. But brew trouble did, because everyone disagreed with what was best for the wiki, (including myself) and more importantly, they invested little bits of themselves in it.
Some handled the forum better than others. The ones who didn't handle it well got emotionally involved. The one's who did handled things from a more objective, less personal perspective, and were still able to get their views clear. They were careful to step on as few toes as possible.
edit The lesson
If we can distance ourselves from our goals and what our egos insist have to be "the right way.", we can discuss things better, more coolly and civilly, and we have a better chance at success or a compromise that works best for everybody.