SC Controller driver and UI version 0.4.5 is out, last release for a while

Will these people change if he calls me and the majority of the world's population "abusers"? Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but that's a serious accusation where I come from.

Sorry, I honestly don't see where Syldat has done so?

You just illustrated my previous points exactly with that very comment a knee jerk reaction that everybody have when they are told "if you're not LGBTQ then yes like it or not you're part of an overarching group that has been abuser" and somehow this is us classifying you as "an enemy" . No not an ennemy an abuser there is clear distinct difference but apparently you don't know that there is one ...

Will these people change if he calls me and the majority of the world's population "abusers"? Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but that's a serious accusation where I come from.

Sorry, I honestly don't see where Syldat has done so?

You just illustrated my previous points exactly with that very comment a knee jerk reaction that everybody have when they are told "if you're not LGBTQ then yes like it or not you're part of an overarching group that has been abuser" and somehow this is us classifying you as "an enemy" . No not an ennemy an abuser there is clear distinct difference but apparently you don't know that there is one ...

Thanks.

This relates to the point I was addressing earlier when I spoke about #metoo: you're NOT being accused of "being an abuser", you're being shown that you're part of a group which is commonly an abuser.

And asking for leniency or distinction while still part of that group... keeps you (in a tiny way) as part of that group. Only WE (the group) can change this. This shouldn't be thrown back at the abused. Their opinion of the abuser group is utterly irrelevant too, except that it's typically used as a trigger for the abuser group to become EVEN MORE abusive.

Will these people change if he calls me and the majority of the world's population "abusers"? Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but that's a serious accusation where I come from.

Sorry, I honestly don't see where Syldat has done so?

You just illustrated my previous points exactly with that very comment a knee jerk reaction that everybody have when they are told "if you're not LGBTQ then yes like it or not you're part of an overarching group that has been abuser" and somehow this is us classifying you as "an enemy" . No not an ennemy an abuser there is clear distinct difference but apparently you don't know that there is one ...

Thanks.

This relates to the point I was addressing earlier when I spoke about #metoo: you're NOT being accused of "being an abuser", you're being shown that you're part of a group which is commonly an abuser.

I still read that as him saying I'm an abuser if I'm not abused, and I don't see how you'd read it differently. You don't need to try to rationalise his prejudice.

And asking for leniency or distinction while still part of that group... keeps you (in a tiny way) as part of that group. Only WE (the group) can change this. This shouldn't be thrown back at the abused. Their opinion of the abuser group is utterly irrelevant too, except that it's typically used as a trigger for the abuser group to become EVEN MORE abusive.

That's kind of nonsense. I'm saying we should not automatically be judged as part of one group just because we're not part of another. There have to be shades between the extremes of black and white, or black and rainbow maybe. There are plenty of CIS-gendered people who actively work against inequality and injustice. They should clearly not be painted with the "abuser" brush. Notice that I say they, not I. This isn't "not all ____". I am not denying past or ongoing abuse and injustices.

I was a socially awkward, nerdy kid in the eighties and nineties, and naturally got bullied in school a lot. That makes me a different kind of abused (not comparable, I know, but bear with me). Does that mean everyone who wasn't bullied at school is responsible? This is another example of a cultural problem, but the problem is the culture, not every single member equally. Not everybody is guilty, but obviously everyone has the responsibility to recognize, reject, and strive to rectify those harmful elements in their cultures. And that should be enough to earn our respect. It's childish to think that not solving a problem is the same as causing it.


EDIT: I just realised I refer to Syldat with the male pronouns, but I have to admit I'm not quite clear if that's what they'd prefer. No offence intended if that's not the case. I think gendered pronouns are extremely silly and should be abolished, but that's neither here nor there.


Last edited by tuubi on 29 September 2018 at 11:56 am UTC

Feels like we're going round in circles. I've said as much as I can on this subject.

Before I duck out, this is interesting though: "I'm saying we should not automatically be judged as part of one group just because we're not part of another". That exactly what's happening what's happening to some people every day. Every day. And when they point this out, they become the enemy.

All I'm saying is that we all need a bit of introspection to make any real change on this. And, you know, since this won't happen as "humanity", we need CoCs.

All I'm saying is that we all need a bit of introspection to make any real change on this. And, you know, since this won't happen as "humanity", we need CoCs.

100% agreed.

Again, this isn't about Syldat, but about other people's reaction. Some of these people won't change.

Eike you have your answer in a nutshell whether you like it or not if your a cis gendered straight person you are part of a group that has been oppressing people like me and to this day still does. The fact that you individualy don't is moot when it comes to me being suspicious of you , like it or not how the others acted upon me taint how I will react to you.

#notallmen #Imnotlikethem #notrueman , all of these are no ture scottsmen fallacy reaction of yours and by displaying it you only further down anxiety and suspicion is it really that hard to understand ?

I don't hold every single modern-day Brit responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of the British empire,

But you should and that's where you fail here. Whether you like it or not past deeds of the groups your part of reflect upon you as a person (and rightfully so ) and as such you should acknowledge that sometimes things are bigger than just your tiny person. So it has nothing to do with inherited sin and all to do with basic human decency.

And male pronouns (even if I end up talking about me with feminine words sometimes , it's just brain chemistry doing its thing , just let it be don't acknowledge it when it's my personal case )


Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 12:43 pm UTC

I am a Scotsman. How dare you! :D

I don't hold every single modern-day Brit responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of the British empire,

But you should and that's where you fail here. Whether you like it or not past deeds of the groups your part of reflect upon you and as such you should acknowledge that sometimmes things are bigger than just your tiny person. So it has nothing to do with ineherited sin and all to do with basic human decency.

I think this is an English language thing, but I don't agree with the statement that we should "hold people responsible" for the sins of their ancestors. For me, it's more about being mindful of those sins, acknowledge that as part of the descendants, we're "part of the abuser group" (whether we are abusers or not) and therefore, do our best not to play into the prejudices of that group.

As I said before, have a bit of introspection and acknowledge that there's some things about you that you just can't change. For me, one way I can do that is to try to ask "how can I help", instead of getting antsy that I'm being lumped into a group for something I can't control. It's hard.

I don't hold every single modern-day Brit responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of the British empire,

But you should and that's where you fail here. Whether you like it or not past deeds of the groups your part of reflect upon you and as such you should acknowledge that sometimmes things are bigger than just your tiny person. So it has nothing to do with ineherited sin and all to do with basic human decency.

I think this is an English language thing, but I don't agree with the statement that we should "hold people responsible" for the sins of their ancestors. For me, it's more about being mindful of those sins, acknowledge that as part of the descendants, we're "part of the abuser group" (whether we are abusers or not) and therefore, do our best not to play into the prejudices of that group.

As I said before, have a bit of introspection and acknowledge that there's some things about you that you just can't change. For me, one way I can do that is to try to ask "how can I help", instead of getting antsy that I'm being lumped into a group for something I can't control. It's hard.

Tomayto Tomato
Potato Potayto
Same Difference

You just rephrased me in essence and did say what I just said.


Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 12:42 pm UTC

Well, I rephrased it for a reason. There's a big, huge, gigantic difference between "being responsible" for the persecution of LGBT+ folks by my ancestors and simply recognising that it happened and that I'm part of the group that caused it.

It's most certainly not the "same difference" at all.

Well, I rephrased it for a reason. There's a big, huge, gigantic difference between "being responsible" for the persecution of LGBT+ folks by my ancestors and simply recognising that it happened and that I'm part of the group that caused it.

It's most certainly not the "same difference" at all.

Be on my side of the fence just once and you'll soon realise that holding accountable/responsible can come in millions of ways and "being mindfull and recognising that it has happened" IS ONE OF THEM.

So again I repeat same difference.


Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 1:04 pm UTC

Here's something to consider. If you aggressively put people into boxes with negative connotations, it's quite normal for them to not be all that happy about it. Now, some might do a bit of introspection and strive to be better but others will take offense and could very well have less sympathy for those who suffer and have suffered. If you call someone an abuser they might just become one or turn a blind eye to those conducting the abuse, after all they've been called an abuser and they haven't done anything wrong so clearly the other guy is also being falsely labelled. You can say how you don't mean that they are the enemy and how you don't accuse them specifically but words have this property where their meaning is often up for interpretation. If your method creates more enemies than gains allies you might want to rethink your methods. If you keep throwing around labels then eventually the meaning of the labels diminishes.

Well, I rephrased it for a reason. There's a big, huge, gigantic difference between "being responsible" for the persecution of LGBT+ folks by my ancestors and simply recognising that it happened and that I'm part of the group that caused it.

It's most certainly not the "same difference" at all.

I'd go as far as adding the responsibility to actively speak and act against ongoing persecution by your peers. What we should not accept is guilt by association any more than we should recognise honour by association.


Last edited by tuubi on 29 September 2018 at 1:36 pm UTC

Here's something to consider. If you aggressively put people into boxes with negative connotations, it's quite normal for them to not be all that happy about it. Now, some might do a bit of introspection and strive to be better but others will take offense and could very well have less sympathy for those who suffer and have suffered. If you call someone an abuser they might just become one or turn a blind eye to those conducting the abuse, after all they've been called an abuser and they haven't done anything wrong so clearly the other guy is also being falsely labelled. You can say how you don't mean that they are the enemy and how you don't accuse them specifically but words have this property where their meaning is often up for interpretation. If your method creates more enemies than gains allies you might want to rethink your methods. If you keep throwing around labels then eventually the meaning of the labels diminishes.

Be on my side of the fence just once and you'll soon realise that holding accountable/responsible can come in millions of ways and "being mindfull and recognising that it has happened" is one of them.

Sorry won't develop any further because I'm just about done repeating myself.

So from now on it's gonna be my only response.


Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 2:11 pm UTC

Telling people to be on your side of the fence presumes they haven't been in minority situations themselves. I believe I know what you're trying to say, and generally agree, but I don't think you're communicating it very well.
Please take this only as a critique of your communication skills, not of experiences.
Some of it will be a language barrier, and cultural differences do play their part. But your "tone" (as much as text has tone) is more forceful than not, and it doesn't generally help.
The same is true of others, but in my view they're attempting to be more...gentle, perhaps, for the most part. And I understand you may be trying as well, but sadly it's not (in my own opinion of course) quite working. I only suggest to please continue, just change tact a little bit; I think what you have to say is important, and want to encourage you being able to say it such that it's more accepted.

Again I'm done trying to explain myself and repeating myself, the only way for anyone that still thinks I'm antagonizing them to realise I'm not is to live through a very close form of systematic discrimination during years to start to envison that no I'm not antagonizing here.
In other words "only an abuser or a silent accomplice of an abuser gets mad at being called one" but that sentence no matter how you reformulate it will only be understood once you have been in the seat of the discriminated.

Heck the ending of the film Red State is a perfect example of that. So I dunno maybe go watch that movie and you'll start to get it

As far as I'm concerned I'm done repeating myself.

In other words "only an abuser or a silent accomplice of an abuser gets mad at being called one"

Well, despite doing my best to defend your position (which I think I have a fair bit of empathy for), we'll never agree on that. Total nonsense. You walk up to any "innocent" person and accuse them of being an abusive aggressor out of the blue and you'll get a justifiably angry reaction.

And If you call people abusers, unproven by their behaviour, simply for being part of a group, you're literally no different from the people abusing YOU for being part of a different (albeit smaller) group.

We won't agree on the responsible part either. If an LGBT+ person commits a crime, does that make all LGBT+ people responsible? Of course not. If angry, hateful CIS/straight white guys commit despicable crimes against your group, I'm not responsible for that either. I'll take responsibility by calling it out when I see it, but that's my choice as a (hopefully) decent human being. I dunno, maybe that's what you meant, but the way you put it was pretty negative/aggressive - like "this is your fault, man up and fix it".

I mean, even if that's what you meant and want... it's not going to happen, is it? Humans don't work like that. Society barely works like that.

I don't hold every single modern-day Brit responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of the British empire,

But you should and that's where you fail here.

Don't enslave yourself to a lifetime of victim-hood with that thought process. Everyone has battles to fight. Sooner or later you will have to let go of that anger.

In other words "only an abuser or a silent accomplice of an abuser gets mad at being called one"

Well, despite doing my best to defend your position (which I think I have a fair bit of empathy for), we'll never agree on that. Total nonsense.

Again and for the last time that's nonsense to you because you've never been on my side of the fence and therefore you don't GET what I mean by that. And I provided you an alternative way to maybe start to understand it. Go watch Red State and pay carefull attention to the end of the movie maybe it'll finally dawn on you.

I won't reformulate myself another time

Either you get it or you need to watch red state or have somebody doing some piece of art that will make you understand what that sentence ACTUALLY means.

In other words "only an abuser or a silent accomplice of an abuser gets mad at being called one"

Well, despite doing my best to defend your position (which I think I have a fair bit of empathy for), we'll never agree on that. Total nonsense. You walk up to any "innocent" person and accuse them of being an abusive aggressor out of the blue and you'll get a justifiably angry reaction.

Ad hominem is ad hominem, schoolyard pseudo-psychology doesn't change that. I have plenty of empathy for him and other people suffering abuse, but I have better things to do than congratulate random internet strangers for the shape of the turd they deign to drop on a conversation.