Comment #39166

Blog: MARDEK IV Updates!

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
One thing I was driving at was that it might be difficult to tell which side is unjustified, here. I'd assume that in the eyes of some of the haters, Pseudolonewolf did something despicable and deserving of hatred, and their harshness was perfectly justified. You believe the haters did something despicable and deserving of hatred, and your harshness is perfectly justified. Who is to say whose actions are justified, if anyone's? Assuming my intuition is correct, your motivations here are the same. If you're condemning the haters for hating upon something they thought deserving of it, how can you justify doing the same thing yourselves?

Another point would be that I'd expect public outbursts such as these to cause more problems than they solve. I'd argue that the chances of such a rant bringing a conflict closer to a good resolution is far too small when compared to the negative effect such writings can have on the general atmosphere of a site. There's hardly any justice to be found from a guy flailing around with a sword in the middle of a crowd, hoping to strike criminals who most likely aren't even close enough to reach.

Besides, if you speak of giving them what they gave Pseudo, don't you think that giving what essentially amount to death threats is going a bit overboard? "You don't deserve a place in this world". How is that different from "You shouldn't be in this world", that is, "You should die"? I don't recall people being quite this negative towards Pseudo.

From my perspective, some of the people who contributed to Pseudo leaving were no different than you guys, they just happened to have a different target for their righteous crusade.

Ï'm not saying you should accept what those people have done or even forgive them. I'd just prefer it if people were more constructive and calm when dealing with things they consider deserving of punishment. Getting too absorbed in one's concept of justice can have much stronger negative consequences than positive ones.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
BunnyHop 28 India MelancholicPhlegmatic INTJ 1w9 36C
By that reason what is the use of law? To make them repent. To prevent them from committing crime. To keep society save from individuals. (They are released in the belief that their rehabilitation is complete in the light that they are also members of society.)

I am not saying we should launch a crusade, find them, abduct them and give them green antennae. I am saying it is unjust to see them as sensible, humane individuals who are simply misunderstood but correct in their own right. They were wrong to do what they did regardless of what they thought. Furthermore, you have no proof that they did feel that what they did was just and you ignore what their actions tell of themselves. Your considerate behaviour is not well thought out and it is possible that, given the leniency and should the opportunity arise again, they could add to the damage they had inflicted.

You are ignoring the consequences of seeing them as people who possibly made a mistake. What about Pseudo now? If these people were to come back would you forgive and allow them to continue their behaviour? Do you think he could take more of it? How is it acceptable to behave in such a spiteful way? Especially at this cost? Isn't the correct recourse to stop such cruelty in its tracks rather than to allow it to damage someone?

The logic that perhaps they thought they were doing the right thing cannot apply everywhere simply because some people really do mean to do the wrong thing and get away with it; or because they were conflicted or because they didn't know, couldn't see it or wouldn't see it for what it was. In such cases it is wrong to determine that they were just without their actually being just - it is a corruption of the very path required for peace. It's a lie you tell yourself to feel better and that has its issues. It can cause you to be too lenient with them and thereby allow them to continue their spiteful behaviour (This is wrong as well because ignoring them may allow the problem to persist particularly if the problem-makers didn't think that their behaviour was unacceptable.) It also can't help Pseudo when he hears that they might have thought that they were right when they hurt him that way. Wishful thinking prevents one from doing what is needed (determining truth, preventing,etc.) because, through that bias, one does not want to and therefore cannot know what the problem is. Especially when one is frightened of something else.

For a true solution it is best to accept the truth as it is without bias or conflict: what happened was bad, it was bad for Pseudo, it should not have been allowed and must not be allowed to happen again, only in the event it actually happens again.

For this reason there are temporary and permanent bans with due warnings. A healthy forum is one where there isn't a manhunt on someone (that includes Pseudolonewolf.)

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I should point out that my gripe with timtoborne was not that he spoke against the people who contributed to Pseudo leaving. My issue was with the way he decided to go about doing it. Someone lashing out at people in a fit of anger and trying to do to them what they did to someone else is hardly the ideal form of justice. Justice requires a measure of objectivity to it, something I found lacking here, hence my comments. Laws generally forbid taking personal revenge; letting uninvolved people approach the issue with an objective eye and make fair judgments seems like ideal of justice in most places.

When it comes to judging people, should we judge them based on their intentions or based on the consequences of their actions? I personally tend to favour the "judge based on intentions" -camp instead of the alternative, but I suppose that is a topic that can never be solved by debate. I'd imagine people have tried and failed repeatedly in the past.

It occours to me that I've failed to be suitably specific about what kind of people I am talking about. I certainly agree that undoubtedly there were just trolls and your plain haters who hate on things to make themselves feel better, who would deserve a chastisement. However, those weren't the only kind of people who contributed to Pseudo leaving. There were also the people who used to like and respect him, but whose admiration turned to something else entirely due to the events of the past year or two. There were people whose words would not even be considered attacks by most standards, yet they still contributed to Pseudo leaving. Are such people deserving of such vitriol, or a measure of understanding? Note that understanding doesn't imply blind acceptance and forgiveness.

I feel that it is extremely easy for a fan of Pseudo to forget or be unaware of Pseudo's own contributions to people turning from fans to haters, and that his treshold for what counts as an attack or harsh criticism is quite a bit lower than what a fair amount of people, if not most, would agree is reasonable. The situation isn't as simple as an unfeeling crowd of despicable people driving away a sensitive guy who didn't do anything wrong. As such, I feel that should one get overly emotional about the issue, either against Pseudo or against people who criticised him, someone should make an effort to calm them down.

People made poor choices all around, some of which you might be unaware of if you indeed joined only a month ago. That one side got burned much worse than the other side doesn't change that. I maintain that slinging judgment over one side without making an effort to understand them will cause more problems than it resolves, and there's a precious little justice to be found from it.

I'm growing weary of this conversation, though it isn't your fault, as I'd have better things to do with what spare time I have than arguing with reasonable people who are trying to do the right thing but I feel are missing the mark. If you choose to interpret that as me trying to escape from a losing debate, I guess I can't hold that against you, since it is reasonable enough an assumption to make. I'd much prefer it if you believed me, though.