Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle.
Yes, but maybe the other people don’t like being told that they’re toxic for using a colloquialism. Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction? Why can’t someone sit down and lecture atomicpoet at length about how wrong he is for his failure to get with the program of how other people want him to interact, instead of the other way around, and then ban him if he doesn’t agree to keep all their communities completely free-form where people can express whatever they want, and ban anyone who upvotes or defends his viewpoint if anyone does?
I’ve got no slightest bit of ill will for the guy. His viewpoint makes sense, it’s fine, and also I spent some time trying to really break it down why this approach might be a bad idea, but at the end of the day I wish him well and he’s obviously welcome to set up his stuff and his communities in the way that will spark joy. It’s all good. I do feel like a lot of times this “I have decided the metric for virtue and you must obey it” doesn’t really go along with being willing to accede to other people’s metrics of virtue when they decide to enforce that you obey it in turn. (That is why I keep joking about YPTB banning people who take the viewpoint that anything the mods do is okay because they’re the mods and they’ve got the power within their community.)
Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction?
You’re joking, right? If it only went one direction then none of the posts calling them out for anything would’ve happened in the first place.
You can still criticize someone’s beliefs while respecting them by refusing to refer to them by terms they don’t want. Case in point, this comment: https://quokk.au/comment/1473591
Well, but my point is that these people whose logic is “I own this community, and so therefore I own the people within it, so whatever I think they should be allowed and not is the word of God, QED,” I feel like those people wouldn’t be amenable to the same logic if it were themselves in the peon position and some other person in the “word of God” position. Like if they were banned for voting the wrong way on comments within YPTB, it all of a sudden wouldn’t be a totally logical and understandable thing to have happen.
The fact that YPTB doesn’t work that way, and we can just kind of talk things out here (most of the time), doesn’t really change that. They’re still defending a system where people who think differently cannot criticize them (at least not in a direct reply in the same domain).
I’m literally not talking about any of that, I’m just saying it’s childish that people are intentionally going out of their way to bully someone by calling them bro when they asked people not to. That’s it. That’s all I had a problem with.
Why is banning someone for voting in a way you don’t like, and calling them “toxic,” not bullying?
That’s it. That’s what I had a problem with. A lot of cultures recognize the right to self-defense, and it applies rhetorically as well as physically. And just like in the physical realm, sometimes people recognize the response as extreme when they don’t see their initial provocation as “extreme” in the same way, because the people they were attacking were bad people, and so basically they deserved what they got, unlike me who didn’t even do anything wrong.
Call them a clown. Call them as asshole. Call them a power tripping bastard. Call them an idiot. Tell them “I don’t need to call you bro to diminish your statements, you never said anything of value.” There’s countless ways you can criticize and even insult them without saying bro.
Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle
Umm, no, they aren’t. Maybe they are now, after you made the comment I’m currently replying to, but I read your earlier comment and had to go back and double-check Hansae’s comment hadn’t been edited, because your response made no sense otherwise.
I assumed most of the people would know of the context
Haha, nope. This is the very first post on the subject I’ve seen.
And now I’m just really confused about how someone could be offended by the term “bro”. Personally I’d say it’s gender-neutral, but I can understand a woman, especially a trans woman, being opposed to the term. But that doesn’t seem to be what’s going on here. So it’s just…weird. It’s a friendly term of endearment.
I edited both the OP and the comment, so hopefully it’s more clear.
The reasoning behind it is that ‘bro’ can be related to the ‘bro’ culture (think cryptobros), that is not known for good discussions but rather dismissive comments and attitudes.
There is a more detailed explanation somewhere down the comments, but too lazy to find it now.
I don’t really agree with that stance, but I can see why someone would think that.
There is a more detailed explanation somewhere down the comments
Yeah I had already seen that, but it was so nonsensical I was hoping for something a bit more solid.
I appreciate you finding the longer source. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted for sharing it…talk about shooting the messenger. I’ll respond to it here, since I can’t reply directly to @[email protected]’s post on Mangane.
No offence to Chris, but their take here is utterly deluded. I’ll avoid using “bro” with them (not that it’s a particularly common part of my vocabulary, to my knowledge) out of kindness, but the reason they want it avoided is just insane. Suggesting that a friendly “hey bro” has anything to do with the toxic “bro culture” they describe is like suggesting Java has anything to do with JavaScript. Or cars are related to carpets.
Calling someone “bro” is no different to “mate”. With the wrong tone or context, it can be passive aggressive, but by default it is jovial and good-natured.
Chris seems to have serious problems understanding context, and seems to be completely ignoring one of the first rules of online social interaction (and, to be honest, all social interaction): assume good intentions. They’re looking for something to be angry about. And so they find it.
I’ve never once heard “bro” used in a genuinely positive way. Not once.
At best it’s fake-jovial. At worst it’s a way to diminish, antagonize, or mask hostility.
Case in point: this very thread. People kept saying “bro” not out of warmth, but because they thought it would piss me off. That’s not camaraderie—that’s toxicity.
And no, “bro” is not the same as “mate.” “Mate” might be regional slang. “Bro” is gendered. Which means it’s exclusionary by default. It assumes something about the person you’re talking to that may not be true. That’s not inclusion. That’s presumption.
So unless someone is your literal brother, why keep it around? If a word carries a whole lot of negatives and almost no positives, why pretend it’s harmless? Better yet—why does your urge to use a toxic word override my goal of building an inclusive community? Would you defend other toxic words the same way—words with even sharper malice baked in?
And if you would, then maybe the problem isn’t me banning “bro.” Maybe the problem is what you’re really defending.
Hi, so I’m the one that reported you to piefed.social.
Here’s why:
How you percieve “bro” to be used is inconsistent with how it is colloquially used.
I saw a post about it, and couldn’t believe it. Surely, there was more offensive content that I did not see. So I made a comment with “bro” in it, and you messaged me and then threatened a ban.
Threatening someone with a ban who uses a word that is not offensive colloquial language because you personally find it offensive is abuse of power.
That’s it. That’s the whole explanation.
Here’s the thing. Just because YOU have personally never used bro in a genuinely positive way doesn’t mean it hasn’t. I have personally used it positively. I was there for my no familial relation bro at his wedding. Bro had a small wedding with only a best man. So I jumped in to help out with what was essentially groosmen duty because I’m there for my bro.
Secondly, while bro comes from a gendered word “brother”, language is constantly evolving. Many people use it as a gender-neutral term for friends they wouldn’t have sex with. Others use it as a mark of exasperation. Neither use of which is toxic, baked with malice, or toxic.
The problem really is your banning of the word “bro” because you’re a moderator. It’s one thing if you get personally offended by the word “bro” and ask people not to use it with you. That’s fine, and I respect that view. It’s another thing altogether to wield your mod powers and police everyone from using it.
You should have a really big think about it, because you destroyed the community you tried so hard to cultivate by projecting your negative view of “bro” onto others. You’re still here talking about other people being the problem, yet you excluded people who had no malicious or toxic intent from joining your “inclusive” community.
Finally, if you have never once heard “bro” used in genuinely positive way, it sounds like you need better bro-models. Some bros are toxic, some bros aren’t. You just haven’t found the right bros yet.
Ok now it makes sense why you’d ask a random guy “is that necessary”
(how come it got to this corner of the Internet everything is exhausting over here.)
Let me get this, so there’s this guy who was trying to mod multiple subreddits(or wtvr) but he has an illness/disease that is commonly known to interfere with the social dynamics?
I’ve never read an username and never will but I’m taking a break from y’all
![[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator ([email protected] being the exception). Content is still available, details in the linked post](https://lazysoci.al/pictrs/image/cb7c5a29-e297-41a8-bde5-698ba205c3fd.png){kind=link}
Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle.
He has stepped down from his mod position, which is a better outcome than 99% of the posts in this community.
Then people still come at him with this kind of comments.
IIRC, AtomicPoet has autism, the comment above is the equivalent of bullying the autist kid who struggled to understand social norms at school.
Yes, but maybe the other people don’t like being told that they’re toxic for using a colloquialism. Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction? Why can’t someone sit down and lecture atomicpoet at length about how wrong he is for his failure to get with the program of how other people want him to interact, instead of the other way around, and then ban him if he doesn’t agree to keep all their communities completely free-form where people can express whatever they want, and ban anyone who upvotes or defends his viewpoint if anyone does?
I’ve got no slightest bit of ill will for the guy. His viewpoint makes sense, it’s fine, and also I spent some time trying to really break it down why this approach might be a bad idea, but at the end of the day I wish him well and he’s obviously welcome to set up his stuff and his communities in the way that will spark joy. It’s all good. I do feel like a lot of times this “I have decided the metric for virtue and you must obey it” doesn’t really go along with being willing to accede to other people’s metrics of virtue when they decide to enforce that you obey it in turn. (That is why I keep joking about YPTB banning people who take the viewpoint that anything the mods do is okay because they’re the mods and they’ve got the power within their community.)
You’re joking, right? If it only went one direction then none of the posts calling them out for anything would’ve happened in the first place.
You can still criticize someone’s beliefs while respecting them by refusing to refer to them by terms they don’t want. Case in point, this comment: https://quokk.au/comment/1473591
Well, but my point is that these people whose logic is “I own this community, and so therefore I own the people within it, so whatever I think they should be allowed and not is the word of God, QED,” I feel like those people wouldn’t be amenable to the same logic if it were themselves in the peon position and some other person in the “word of God” position. Like if they were banned for voting the wrong way on comments within YPTB, it all of a sudden wouldn’t be a totally logical and understandable thing to have happen.
The fact that YPTB doesn’t work that way, and we can just kind of talk things out here (most of the time), doesn’t really change that. They’re still defending a system where people who think differently cannot criticize them (at least not in a direct reply in the same domain).
Exsctly, you’re describing a power trip, see the name of the sub. Why is the OP who posted this in this sub then acting surprised? Lol
I’m literally not talking about any of that, I’m just saying it’s childish that people are intentionally going out of their way to bully someone by calling them bro when they asked people not to. That’s it. That’s all I had a problem with.
Why is banning someone for voting in a way you don’t like, and calling them “toxic,” not bullying?
That’s it. That’s what I had a problem with. A lot of cultures recognize the right to self-defense, and it applies rhetorically as well as physically. And just like in the physical realm, sometimes people recognize the response as extreme when they don’t see their initial provocation as “extreme” in the same way, because the people they were attacking were bad people, and so basically they deserved what they got, unlike me who didn’t even do anything wrong.
I never said that wasn’t bullying.
Counter-bullying isn’t really bullying, though. That’s some “American high school with a zero tolerance policy for violence” shit.
Call them a clown. Call them as asshole. Call them a power tripping bastard. Call them an idiot. Tell them “I don’t need to call you bro to diminish your statements, you never said anything of value.” There’s countless ways you can criticize and even insult them without saying bro.
Umm, no, they aren’t. Maybe they are now, after you made the comment I’m currently replying to, but I read your earlier comment and had to go back and double-check Hansae’s comment hadn’t been edited, because your response made no sense otherwise.
Maybe I should have added a link to the previous post in the OP of this one.
The events were happening in the span of a few days, I assumed most of the people would know of the context
Haha, nope. This is the very first post on the subject I’ve seen.
And now I’m just really confused about how someone could be offended by the term “bro”. Personally I’d say it’s gender-neutral, but I can understand a woman, especially a trans woman, being opposed to the term. But that doesn’t seem to be what’s going on here. So it’s just…weird. It’s a friendly term of endearment.
I edited both the OP and the comment, so hopefully it’s more clear.
The reasoning behind it is that ‘bro’ can be related to the ‘bro’ culture (think cryptobros), that is not known for good discussions but rather dismissive comments and attitudes.
There is a more detailed explanation somewhere down the comments, but too lazy to find it now.
I don’t really agree with that stance, but I can see why someone would think that.
Edit: found this https://atomicpoet.org/@atomicpoet/posts/AyXynXKOmOfyjE7Wb2
Yeah I had already seen that, but it was so nonsensical I was hoping for something a bit more solid.
I appreciate you finding the longer source. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted for sharing it…talk about shooting the messenger. I’ll respond to it here, since I can’t reply directly to @[email protected]’s post on Mangane.
No offence to Chris, but their take here is utterly deluded. I’ll avoid using “bro” with them (not that it’s a particularly common part of my vocabulary, to my knowledge) out of kindness, but the reason they want it avoided is just insane. Suggesting that a friendly “hey bro” has anything to do with the toxic “bro culture” they describe is like suggesting Java has anything to do with JavaScript. Or cars are related to carpets.
Calling someone “bro” is no different to “mate”. With the wrong tone or context, it can be passive aggressive, but by default it is jovial and good-natured.
Chris seems to have serious problems understanding context, and seems to be completely ignoring one of the first rules of online social interaction (and, to be honest, all social interaction): assume good intentions. They’re looking for something to be angry about. And so they find it.
I’ve never once heard “bro” used in a genuinely positive way. Not once.
At best it’s fake-jovial. At worst it’s a way to diminish, antagonize, or mask hostility.
Case in point: this very thread. People kept saying “bro” not out of warmth, but because they thought it would piss me off. That’s not camaraderie—that’s toxicity.
And no, “bro” is not the same as “mate.” “Mate” might be regional slang. “Bro” is gendered. Which means it’s exclusionary by default. It assumes something about the person you’re talking to that may not be true. That’s not inclusion. That’s presumption.
So unless someone is your literal brother, why keep it around? If a word carries a whole lot of negatives and almost no positives, why pretend it’s harmless? Better yet—why does your urge to use a toxic word override my goal of building an inclusive community? Would you defend other toxic words the same way—words with even sharper malice baked in?
And if you would, then maybe the problem isn’t me banning “bro.” Maybe the problem is what you’re really defending.
Hi, so I’m the one that reported you to piefed.social.
Here’s why:
That’s it. That’s the whole explanation.
Here’s the thing. Just because YOU have personally never used bro in a genuinely positive way doesn’t mean it hasn’t. I have personally used it positively. I was there for my no familial relation bro at his wedding. Bro had a small wedding with only a best man. So I jumped in to help out with what was essentially groosmen duty because I’m there for my bro.
Secondly, while bro comes from a gendered word “brother”, language is constantly evolving. Many people use it as a gender-neutral term for friends they wouldn’t have sex with. Others use it as a mark of exasperation. Neither use of which is toxic, baked with malice, or toxic.
The problem really is your banning of the word “bro” because you’re a moderator. It’s one thing if you get personally offended by the word “bro” and ask people not to use it with you. That’s fine, and I respect that view. It’s another thing altogether to wield your mod powers and police everyone from using it.
You should have a really big think about it, because you destroyed the community you tried so hard to cultivate by projecting your negative view of “bro” onto others. You’re still here talking about other people being the problem, yet you excluded people who had no malicious or toxic intent from joining your “inclusive” community.
Finally, if you have never once heard “bro” used in genuinely positive way, it sounds like you need better bro-models. Some bros are toxic, some bros aren’t. You just haven’t found the right bros yet.
Ok now it makes sense why you’d ask a random guy “is that necessary”
(how come it got to this corner of the Internet everything is exhausting over here.)
Let me get this, so there’s this guy who was trying to mod multiple subreddits(or wtvr) but he has an illness/disease that is commonly known to interfere with the social dynamics?
I’ve never read an username and never will but I’m taking a break from y’all