Most minor sub-pitting for @Czarcasm for his poor linking behavior! Grrr. Arrrgh.
Okay, that’s over with.
Regarding Moonrise… I don’t know. Sure doesn’t seem like a RW Troll specifically, but your defense here was chock full of misdirections, moving goalposts, and semi-sealioning. So, yeah, it did you zero favors.
For me specifically, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt, in that you could be more like DrD - not intending to troll (IMHO at least) but prone to dig in, and in doing so, dig yourself deeper. As well as use language and sources that scream troll (or more likely trock) to users who have been victimized by years of excessive sea-lioning and retreat into martyr status by those who are “just asking questions”.
For that matter, I stayed the heck away from the Woke Definition thread because I couldn’t see it as anything BUT troll bait.
(delurking) It seems to me that Moonrise has tried to defend himself, but when he was met by good counter arguments he apologized and promised to try to do better. There is another poster, a Mr Stone, who have never apologized and just ignore counter arguments. Let us see if Moonrise does better in the future.
I would like to hear about possible insights in the world of Islam. How would a “Ask the poster” thread sound? (/delurking)
On another board I peruse where we meet annually IRL as well as chat on the board the rest of the year, one sage posted a few years ago, “You can’t make a reputation here but you can sure ruin one.”
I think Mikkel is making the best point here. Right now, Moonrise is saying they’re not a troll, and can and will learn to use accurate sources rather than repeat easily debunked talking points designed to further outrage rather than examine nuanced situations. A true troll will ignore, or focus on the fact that even if only ONE person is affected, it means it’s a real issue, rather than an insanely minor point.
Or concede in the one thread, and then bring up the same/similar points in other threads until they get called out. Time will tell.
You’re forgiven of course, not that you need me too, we all screw up from time to time, although unlike the general subjects of the thread, we can admit it.
I’ve been thinking about what precipitated my being dragged here, and I realize that it fits a pattern I have of doubling-down when I’m wrong. It’s definitely a vanity thing.
The same thing happens to me in real life. When stuck in a hopelessly toxic relationship, a normal person dumps the dishonest partner. Not me. I work even harder, and of course in vain, to somehow “make it work”. Not because something worthy can be salvaged, but ultimately because I refuse to come to terms with the fact that I chose poorly and ignored obvious red flags (‘but she is so right for me in so many respects !’). Some of my very first threads here, my ‘Gini’ threads were dedicated precisely to that.
I’m going to have to work hard on correcting that character flaw.
Again, I apologize for the confusion, offense and anger that I caused.
FWIW, @Moonrise, I’m a writer and I’m equally uncomfortable with the idea of changing posthumous texts. For me, however, the degree matters quite a lot, and in the case of Roald Dahl’s books, the changes were trivial. I think sensitivity readers have their place. I think many people think of them a draconian judgemental extremists dictating what writers can and can’t do, but that’s not really the case. They are for the most part people hired by writers to look stuff over and offer suggestions for making the work… Well, better.
I’m writing a futuristic fantasy novel about a guy with an amputated limb. I didn’t set out to write about an amputee, it’s just what happened in the previous book when he was a supporting character. I’m not an amputee or even a person with a physical disability, and you can bet I would love the feedback of someone who can provide experience and recognition of potential issues. I think I’m doing pretty okay because his disability is not really central to the narrative. The story is about his PTSD more than anything else (and love, always.) I think I avoided some major pitfalls. But I don’t know what I’m missing. That’s what sensitivity readers are for.
So if someone knowledgeable about such issues says to me, “Hey, have you considered…?” And I make a change to my own work based upon that, and that change makes people feel better represented or that the story just feels more authentic, that is a universal win for all involved.
And it’s also, like… nobody else’s fucking business? What kind of feedback I choose to solicit while editing my work is entirely up to me as an author. I’m not some helpless victim being forced to write what someone else wants to me to write. What I want to write is a compelling and believable character and I will solicit a great deal of available feedback toward that end.
