Ban Baiting 101Hello Era lurker.
You may have recently been confused - some would say
gaslit - by claims from certain Era members in the recent topic
https://www.resetera.com/threads/why-is-resetera-such-a-shitty-and-toxic-environment-for-discussion-let-me-list-the-ways.117340/post-20839830 that there is no such thing! as protected users and that there is no such thing! as ban baiting and dogpiling.
Let's take a little look!
This is a post by
definitely-not-protected user SugarNoodles:
You need to understand that depicted violence against women isnt okay just because a bad guy character does it.
At face value, this is
a fucking stupid thing to say.
And indeed, other posters reading this
fucking stupid thing ask for clarification, as they assume that someone saying something
that fucking stupid may in fact have not expressed their actual thought clearly enough.
So no violence against women should ever be depicted in films? Is this what I'm reading?
What are you suggesting that we only show men get killed or beaten from here on out? Meanwhile I can pick up any paper and read a horrible story about how a woman was attacked.
Do you think people are going to erupt into cheers when a woman gets killed on screen like Thor entering wakanda?
So violence against men is ok, but against women isn't?Am I reading this correctly?
Note that all of these posters are saying things along the line of: "This is a valid interpretation of that
stupid fucking thing you just said. But it is
so fucking stupid, I am asking you for clarifying that that is what you intended to say".
Now, at this point, a
regular user getting that "You have been quoted by three people in quick succession" notification would return to the thread with something along the lines of;
"Yeah, no, I phrased that badly; what I
meant was that ______" and clarify their thought, to make clear that they are not
so fucking stupid.
Notice that SugarNoodles does not do this!
Jeeeeeeesus Christ.
Read a fuckin article or two I don’t have time for your bad faith thought exercises.
They instead choose to attack the people asking for clarification ("Read a fuckin article or two"), portray themselves as a victim of circumstance unable to expound on their original meaning ("I don't have time"), despite having the time to post this non-clarifying statement, and further raise a keyword to gain moderator attention (
bad faith thought exercises).
This is because it was not - as it appears - a
stupid fucking thing to say.
It was a
carefully constructed thing to say, to provoke a response from someone (anyone), that could then be leveraged into a ban.
Other posters who also like to see a good ole' banching a-going-down and who are aware of SugarNoodles protected status also join in the conversation;
I can't believe I'm reading this kind of argument here.
How is this poster not banned or warned for this
Further note, that of the three posters SugarNoodles set bait out for, it was the weakest of the herd - the newest member unfamiliar with this technique - who was singled out by the accessories to this ban bait, and who cemented their fate by doing what - as described above - a rational person would do, which is on seeing people asking for clarification (except... they
weren't asking for clarification, they jumped straight to LYNCH HIM GUD") attempted to clarify his position, in case it had been misunderstood.
In ConclusionUser Banned (1 Week): False equivalencies and disingenuous commentary surrounding gendered violence over multiple postsLiterally while I was writing this description of how ban-baiting happens, how it is specific toxic users that do it, and how when the moderators cater to these obnoxious polyps they ratchet the forum further into irredeemable cuntishness.
