I'm just a woman who's seen multiple posters in this thread dismiss my viewpoint in multiple other threads, who are then going holier-than-thous about how people were out for blood etc. Like, am I meant to pretend I don't know what these posters regularly do? I've seen them do it for other posters as well, with different minorities. It's shitty and I'm tired of having my opinion dismissed on this site, with said posters staying just on the side of plausible deniability so they can't be banned.
Plausible deniability for what? Why is it Era
has to be the hunger games at times when the end result seems to be posters wanting or wishing others they debate with just get banned to get rid of them? You're constructing quite the us vs them in real time, then expressing publicly what appears to be unhappiness a ban hammer doesn't just go through a topic and pick off everyone you aren't happy with.
That is precisely the
bottled up resentment of internet assumptions/accusations and going from 0 to 100 that quite clearly has Mike Pondsmith's jimmies rustled and has agitated a few in here. On Resetera it is banning or excluding people from being able to post, elsewhere on Twitter or wherever else it is accusing of the worst intent possible in order for accusations to go viral and people to be left upset and distressed. Whether its staff, creators or whoever it is.
All shapes and forms of what I see as internet radicalization. Many people aren't looking to talk or be challenged, or have to read/listen or maybe hold off on fearing the worst. They just seek confirmation bias and failing that, getting those who dared challenge them banned, smeared, accused and sent packing.
I mean, is there nuance to "dismissing your viewpoints?". Does someone simply saying to you, have you considered this, equal outright dismissal? Because in amongst all the debating of the voodoo boys myself and others tried to bring 2020 lore and also an interview with Yong Yea explaining what Mike Pondsmith was trying as a rebuttal to some posters remarks (often the remarks that were the most certain around intent). Is that
dismissal? Is dismissal simply as a concept as black and white as "Do you agree with me or not?".
I know, and it's why it's been so jarring for me because, as I've said, I've long-since viewed you as a source for incredibly well thought out posts. I get jarred when you change avatar so it's definitely not coming from a place of disliking you, and apologies for just launching at you but it really has felt stark in its difference. It's almost because of what you've been saying that it's been disappointing to see. I hope you've seen enough of my posts to know I try to favour a discussion or thought out posts where possible, but it does get tedious when some issues can be mocked or dismissed in a line but take paragraphs to properly articulate. Which is no doubt contributing to this overall sense of frustration in topics, but these are topics worthy of that discussion and concern I feel.
I think I've picked away enough to know where the grips stands though, and it is with that middle ground. It's that your posts have seemed to be purely on the "it's not much of a concern" side with no counterbalance to "it warrants some concern", at least those I've read in the threads we've been posting in similar times. So in an isolated space the rational takes like your own (though, I do feel some have been a tad smug) being only from that angle are fine, but when people are writing thought out replies to others that likely don't care and are just there to drop a take (but you want to reply so the context is there for others skimming) and then see yourself not taking that middle ground as much as staying on one side telling (calmly) the other side to not make as much noise it's frustrating. At the time just would have loved for you to write a similar reply to people dismissing or eye-rolling things. Maybe it's that you felt the replies in existence did that well enough, maybe you don't think there's an issue.
That's where that comes from though, I shouldn't have hopped in the cannon and aimed at you (though I still think it's timid compared to the posts you allude to lol), it's just because of how typically considered you are that I felt the past week has been a bit of a "nothing wrong with Cyberpunk" roadshow. No doubt my own personal feelings on the matter cloud the water even more, but I've never been one from admitting where I've messed up and know it's an inseparable bias on this topic. It's still something that's stood out and felt for a few days.
I've never said it's not a concern, I simply find it exhausting to see absolutism and then the branches from that which often result in if you dare bring evidence or other viewpoints to my initial accusation, you are simply unfairly dismissing.
Listening to feedback and being questioned is part of the creative process, but some of the accusations and absolutism is hardly done in a way which can be taken in good faith. You're painted as
evil from the start and then have to spend more time trying to clear your name than actually addressing concerns.
