rottoy
Plebeian
Why stop there? Bring back waterboarding and execution squads as well.Please get rid of Daniel James and bring Sam back.
Why stop there? Bring back waterboarding and execution squads as well.Please get rid of Daniel James and bring Sam back.
If you're that weak-minded, you have major psychological problems and do not belong anywhere on the internet.
No one is being forced to participate in any thread. You can't jump into the snake pit willingly and claim you've been pushed in.
The very notion of "toxicity" is so vague that it could mean anything.
It is usually the case that the people screaming about toxicity are the most toxic elements in the discussion. "Addressing forum toxicity" is nothing more than a call for censorship disguised as some kind of moral/ethical imperative.
I don't think Christian was aiming to squash all dissent - I think we should in general avoid trying to attribute mental states and infer intentions to people all the time,
Let's just step back and consider - why are talking about toxicity now? And what do we define as toxicity?
Because the answer to those questions can be extremely telling. Is it extreme language and blatant disrespect for the opinions of others that characterizes toxicity? If so, yes that exists here, and it has for a while. So is it the poor reception to HZS that makes it a problem now?
Let's be absolutely clear - it is not toxic to publicize your negative opinions on a product. Let's assume I fucking hate HZS with all my heart. I can rant about it. I can tell you why it's awful. I can tell you why you should never buy it, not in a million years, and why I'd rather buy literally any other string library first. None of what I just said is inherently toxic. It's my own opinion, and I believe it wholeheartedly (or I would, if I actually thought that). If Christian sees those opinions as toxic, rather than the way I convey those opinions, then he's just worried about Spitfire's reputation, not toxicity.
I think we can all agree that the negative response toward HZS isn't some random concerted effort to spew Spitfire hate. There are many issues with the product and many people are truly disappointed. Do some people go too far? Yep. That's a problem. But I hope everyone is seeing toxicity as a general attitude that manifests clearly with the response to HZS, not as an issue with the response itself.
Bottom line: toxicity is not a result of opinion, but of attitude. Toxic Spitfire fanboys exist. Toxic Spitfire haters exist. If you find something toxic because it does not align with your own beliefs, you are the problem.
The very notion of "toxicity" is so vague that it could mean anything.
It is usually the case that the people screaming about toxicity are the most toxic elements in the discussion. "Addressing forum toxicity" is nothing more than a call for censorship disguised as some kind of moral/ethical imperative.
People are getting worked up over random posts by random people about random products in a random forum in a random corner of the internet? If you're that weak-minded, you have major psychological problems and do not belong anywhere on the internet. No one is being forced to participate in any thread. You can't jump into the snake pit willingly and claim you've been pushed in.
There is no doubt, to me at least, Christian and Paul are decent people, who try to create decent products for a community and industry they care deeply about.
We can, and you'll continue to prove my point.
So here's a test: since you don't like this idea I've proposed, then I won't see you back here on a thread that you think is flawed from the start, since it's definition of the toxicity it seeks to remedy is fundamentally flawed, in which I, and others like me, place myself as the 'moral arbiter', and that the very fact of me starting this thread is indication itself that I have major psychological problems and can't take the pressure in the snake pit. Surely with all that, you would have no interest in returning, or commenting further.
However, if instead your next post makes the same points repeatedly again, throwing further insults, then we'll know that you're here purely for the argument, and not for the discussion, and you will again prove my point for me. Only this time, you'll be shouting into a vacuum.
Yup, no toxicity on VI-C.
This is a forum in which I participate in. If anyone suggests that it be censored because they don't agree with certain things—especially an undemocratic and dangerously biased individual like you—then I will absolutely argue it.
Predictably, and once again, you are now attempting to play the victim so you can portray this as a personal attack. And in doing so, you have created the "toxic" thread that you wanted all along. Pathetic!
As everyone knows, there's been a lot of toxicity in this forum in recent days/weeks. I hope we avoid repeating it here.
...
the annoying thing about free speech is that people speak freely
Being rude is different to free speech.