<p>User "Ironbender" was recently temp-banned for spewing insults and sketchy rhetoric in lieu of argument. His response was to play the victim, showing a decided lack of accountability or willingness to learn anything from it.
</p><p>Now, he's back...and it's pretty clear that he <i>didn't</i> learn anything. Here he is, responding to a post from another bad-faith user:
</p>
<div class="quote"><i>Exactly someone understands it. Lol sad you can’t have a broadminded conversation on here. You either like the material or they harass you so you get banned. Back to on topic Ruins showed character interactions how they should be. Korra and Asami had natural interactions like a real couple vs the twilight level cheese. Nevermind the cringe gay history. Just to justify something they never properly showcased. Reminds me of the voltron kiss. Shiro was a properly established badass gay character before they did that cringe ass obviously pandering ending. Which ironically made a lot of gay fans mad lol</i></div>
<p>As we can see: he's still at it with the Focus on the Family-sounding rhetoric and self-victimization. Bonus points for talking over queer fans (newsflash: that's <i>not</i> why we were disappointed with <i>Voltron</i>, at all), comparing Korrasami to a franchise notorious for romanticizing unhealthy (hetero) relationships, and framing disagreement as incomprehension.
</p>
15,255
pages
ALL POSTS
<div class="quote"><i>I'm afraid "being wrong" isn't against the rules.</i></div>
<p>Actually, lying & quoting people out of context are both listed on the discussion policy. I've never gotten a straight answer under what circumstances they would be violated, but that doesn't change the fact that they're on there. </p> <div class="quote"><i>(you'll need to explain how you interpreted this as conveying malicious intent) I see no reason for that to be discouraged.</i></div>
<p>A. No I don't. </p><p>B. I already did. </p><p>C. Sincerity is not the opposite of malice. </p>
<p>Actually, lying & quoting people out of context are both listed on the discussion policy. I've never gotten a straight answer under what circumstances they would be violated, but that doesn't change the fact that they're on there. </p> <div class="quote"><i>(you'll need to explain how you interpreted this as conveying malicious intent) I see no reason for that to be discouraged.</i></div>
<p>A. No I don't. </p><p>B. I already did. </p><p>C. Sincerity is not the opposite of malice. </p>
(Edited by Neo Bahamut)
<div class="quote"><i>Neo Bahamut wrote:<div class="quote">I'm afraid "being wrong" isn't against the rules.</i></div>
<p>Actually, lying & quoting people out of context are both listed on the discussion policy. I've never gotten a straight answer under what circumstances they would be violated, but that doesn't change the fact that they're on there. </p> </div> <p>What I meant by "being wrong" was thinking that something that's false is true, not lying. I also hinted at this when I said there doesn't appear to be anything suggesting that he's being insincere. </p>
<p>Actually, lying & quoting people out of context are both listed on the discussion policy. I've never gotten a straight answer under what circumstances they would be violated, but that doesn't change the fact that they're on there. </p> </div> <p>What I meant by "being wrong" was thinking that something that's false is true, not lying. I also hinted at this when I said there doesn't appear to be anything suggesting that he's being insincere. </p>
(Edited by Babyfriend1)
<div class="quote"><i>Neo Bahamut wrote:
<div class="quote">Considering a relationship to be pandering is not in itself inappropriate (unless, of course, that opinion turns into throwing insults etc.)</i></div>
That's very sad if it's true. Also nonsensical. The "pandering" argument is used to say that a same sex pairing is less legitimate, & can only exist as a shallow move to placate the "gay agenda." It's an insult <i>by definition</i>.</div> <p>A&B. Back to what you said, it seems like since he said that one same-sex relationship was pandering you immediately decided to fit his argument into a stereotype argument where all same-sex relationships are pandering. From what I can see you took his criticism to have implications that were not obvious and that's why you need to explain how you interpreted it this way. </p><p>C. True, but I wasn't saying that it was. </p>
That's very sad if it's true. Also nonsensical. The "pandering" argument is used to say that a same sex pairing is less legitimate, & can only exist as a shallow move to placate the "gay agenda." It's an insult <i>by definition</i>.</div> <p>A&B. Back to what you said, it seems like since he said that one same-sex relationship was pandering you immediately decided to fit his argument into a stereotype argument where all same-sex relationships are pandering. From what I can see you took his criticism to have implications that were not obvious and that's why you need to explain how you interpreted it this way. </p><p>C. True, but I wasn't saying that it was. </p>
(Edited by Babyfriend1)
<div class="quote"><i>Babyfriend1 wrote:
I think that people shouldn't ignore all information they don't like and that our conception of reality is based on information we like and dislike. Being willing to tell someone what you believe without offending them is an admirable quality. Only telling people what they want to hear is pandering.</i></div>
<p>Exactly my thoughts stem from the fact writing on these shows has long past the basic lets introduce a character into the story for representation. Who cares its 2019 that shallow view point of throwing out tokens undervalues the story. Whether you disagree with it is your opinion. However once the real conversation starts around this subject lots of people agree to a degree. They just don't argue because of the rabid fanbase that just want one sided conversations. I am going to drop out of this thread. I don't want to keep arguing this time is better spent. </p>
I think that people shouldn't ignore all information they don't like and that our conception of reality is based on information we like and dislike. Being willing to tell someone what you believe without offending them is an admirable quality. Only telling people what they want to hear is pandering.</i></div>
<p>Exactly my thoughts stem from the fact writing on these shows has long past the basic lets introduce a character into the story for representation. Who cares its 2019 that shallow view point of throwing out tokens undervalues the story. Whether you disagree with it is your opinion. However once the real conversation starts around this subject lots of people agree to a degree. They just don't argue because of the rabid fanbase that just want one sided conversations. I am going to drop out of this thread. I don't want to keep arguing this time is better spent. </p>
(Edited by Ironbender)
<div class="quote"><i>Deist Zealot wrote:
Ehh...if you think "queer people exist in real life; therefore, it makes sense for queer people to exist in fiction; deal with it" is "pandering," I really don't know what to tell you. Especially in the face of them saying that they had Korrasami happen because it "made the most sense to" them.</i></div>
<p>Introducing a non hetero couple is not pandering. However throwing up pride colors, and spending entire issue on a gay history, basically ignoring the other two main characters is pandering. It's no longer about a relationship it just to get brownie points with that community while ignoring the rest of the fanbase. That is not an authentic relationship that is just tokenism. Like Ironbender said you can see the quality of writing between ruins and wars. It is an extreme improvement. That is not bashing to have a discussion like that. I honestly dont see how this warranted you creating a thread to report to the mods. I am laughing at the one you made about me lol </p>
Ehh...if you think "queer people exist in real life; therefore, it makes sense for queer people to exist in fiction; deal with it" is "pandering," I really don't know what to tell you. Especially in the face of them saying that they had Korrasami happen because it "made the most sense to" them.</i></div>
<p>Introducing a non hetero couple is not pandering. However throwing up pride colors, and spending entire issue on a gay history, basically ignoring the other two main characters is pandering. It's no longer about a relationship it just to get brownie points with that community while ignoring the rest of the fanbase. That is not an authentic relationship that is just tokenism. Like Ironbender said you can see the quality of writing between ruins and wars. It is an extreme improvement. That is not bashing to have a discussion like that. I honestly dont see how this warranted you creating a thread to report to the mods. I am laughing at the one you made about me lol </p>
(Edited by Truthteller7373)
<div class="quote"><i>What I meant by "being wrong" was thinking that something that's false is true, not lying.</i></div>
<p>Hardly seems to matter when they ARE lying. "Turf Wars was all about the gay & ignored the other characters" isn't a "matter of opinion," it's something we can objectively measure by page or panel count. The ever-ironically named "Truthteller's" claim is particularly absurd, as the "gay history" comprises <i>one page.</i> </p> <div class="quote"><i>From what I can see you took his criticism to have implications that were not obvious and that's why you need to explain how you interpreted it this way.</i></div>
<p>The first post links to another topic about Ironbender, go see for yourself why I don't want a "conversation" with him. Look at allllll the shit he said to me in those various links, then tell me if that "rabid fans attack me just for disagreeing" victim-playing thing he pulls still tracks. </p><p>While you're at it, consider asking these people if they've ever used the term "pandering" to refer to a <i>straight</i> relationship. If that's really not what this is about, it shouldn't be too hard to find, right? In fact, how often do they make posts about things <i>other than</i> bashing the gay couple or the opponents who criticize them for bashing the gay couple? </p><p>And ask them to explain <i>what exactly</i> are the "improvements" Ruins of the Empire made? Doesn't it seem just a little odd that people who've said "this is just pandering" ever since it happened in the first place, complaining first about lack of development & then too much focus, have suddenly changed their minds on that? And I'm just supposed to accept that because, what, they say so? Ironbender, who called me a "psychopath" & a "neo Nazi," I'm just supposed to take his word for it? Because he would never, ever tell a self-serving lie to deflect criticism? </p> <div class="quote"><i>Introducing a non hetero couple is not pandering. However throwing up pride colors, and spending entire issue on a gay history, basically ignoring the other two main characters is pandering. It's no longer about a relationship it just to get brownie points with that community while ignoring the rest of the fanbase.</i></div>
<p>What about this, do I <i>also</i> need to explain why "gays aren't a problem unless they draw any attention to it" is homophobic? </p>
<p>Hardly seems to matter when they ARE lying. "Turf Wars was all about the gay & ignored the other characters" isn't a "matter of opinion," it's something we can objectively measure by page or panel count. The ever-ironically named "Truthteller's" claim is particularly absurd, as the "gay history" comprises <i>one page.</i> </p> <div class="quote"><i>From what I can see you took his criticism to have implications that were not obvious and that's why you need to explain how you interpreted it this way.</i></div>
<p>The first post links to another topic about Ironbender, go see for yourself why I don't want a "conversation" with him. Look at allllll the shit he said to me in those various links, then tell me if that "rabid fans attack me just for disagreeing" victim-playing thing he pulls still tracks. </p><p>While you're at it, consider asking these people if they've ever used the term "pandering" to refer to a <i>straight</i> relationship. If that's really not what this is about, it shouldn't be too hard to find, right? In fact, how often do they make posts about things <i>other than</i> bashing the gay couple or the opponents who criticize them for bashing the gay couple? </p><p>And ask them to explain <i>what exactly</i> are the "improvements" Ruins of the Empire made? Doesn't it seem just a little odd that people who've said "this is just pandering" ever since it happened in the first place, complaining first about lack of development & then too much focus, have suddenly changed their minds on that? And I'm just supposed to accept that because, what, they say so? Ironbender, who called me a "psychopath" & a "neo Nazi," I'm just supposed to take his word for it? Because he would never, ever tell a self-serving lie to deflect criticism? </p> <div class="quote"><i>Introducing a non hetero couple is not pandering. However throwing up pride colors, and spending entire issue on a gay history, basically ignoring the other two main characters is pandering. It's no longer about a relationship it just to get brownie points with that community while ignoring the rest of the fanbase.</i></div>
<p>What about this, do I <i>also</i> need to explain why "gays aren't a problem unless they draw any attention to it" is homophobic? </p>
(Edited by Neo Bahamut)
2
<p>Okay, Truthteller and Ironbender, your attitude and comments need serious attention. Regardless of your intention, they are coming off as rude <i>and</i> homophobic. Avatar Wiki is an open and welcoming site and we don't tolerate any an incivility.
</p><p>I <i>strongly</i> encourage you to engage in less controversial conversation. By continuing to engage in a topic that you <i>know</i> is controversial, by using derogatory language and by provoking other users, you are very quickly going to find yourself banned more permanently from the wiki.
</p><p>This is a warning to check yourself. I am, frankly, sick of this same argument, and I'm sure that other users are, too.
</p>
(Edited by Fruipit)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Fruipit wrote:
Okay, Truthteller and Ironbender, your attitude and comments need serious attention. Regardless of your intention, they are coming off as rude <i>and</i> homophobic. Avatar Wiki is an open and welcoming site and we don't tolerate any an incivility.
</p><p>I <i>strongly</i> encourage you to engage in less controversial conversation. By continuing to engage in a topic that you <i>know</i> is controversial, by using derogatory language and by provoking other users, you are very quickly going to find yourself banned more permanently from the wiki.
</p><p>This is a warning to check yourself. I am, frankly, sick of this same argument, and I'm sure that other users are, too.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Nothing about what I said was homophobic nor is there any rule about having an opinion that others disagree with warrants a ban. You legit are coming off as obviously bias. Which is something a moderator of a non private discussion forum shouldn’t be. The first time you banned me was unwarranted and already addressed by a previous mod. That was the first red flag about the way you operate Plenty of people are ok with the conversation only few are antagonistic </p>
<p>Nothing about what I said was homophobic nor is there any rule about having an opinion that others disagree with warrants a ban. You legit are coming off as obviously bias. Which is something a moderator of a non private discussion forum shouldn’t be. The first time you banned me was unwarranted and already addressed by a previous mod. That was the first red flag about the way you operate Plenty of people are ok with the conversation only few are antagonistic </p>
(Edited by Ironbender)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Fruipit wrote:
Okay, Truthteller and Ironbender, your attitude and comments need serious attention. Regardless of your intention, they are coming off as rude <i>and</i> homophobic. Avatar Wiki is an open and welcoming site and we don't tolerate any an incivility.
</p><p>I <i>strongly</i> encourage you to engage in less controversial conversation. By continuing to engage in a topic that you <i>know</i> is controversial, by using derogatory language and by provoking other users, you are very quickly going to find yourself banned more permanently from the wiki.
</p><p>This is a warning to check yourself. I am, frankly, sick of this same argument, and I'm sure that other users are, too.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Objectively false when we are not the hostile posters. Clear bias that neo user is ranting and cussing while purposely misinterpreting what I have said. On top of that this discussion was peaceful in the actual thread. With two mods prior to your post stating nothing is wrong. It’s a discussion if they can’t participate while maintaining level head is an issue with them not the other way around. This is not your private forum where you can make such bias decisions. </p>
<p>Objectively false when we are not the hostile posters. Clear bias that neo user is ranting and cussing while purposely misinterpreting what I have said. On top of that this discussion was peaceful in the actual thread. With two mods prior to your post stating nothing is wrong. It’s a discussion if they can’t participate while maintaining level head is an issue with them not the other way around. This is not your private forum where you can make such bias decisions. </p>
(Edited by Truthteller7373)
<p>Furthermore a lot of non logical retorts are being. Having problems with cheesy group displays vs a blended immersive world is somehow homophobic. I don’t need a fictional character to validate my existence. I shouldn’t have to say I am black and bi to have conversation over a story.
</p>
(Edited by Truthteller7373)