Talk:Cringe culture

The Article seems incomplete in terms of tone and information

While it seems to focus solely on the cyber-bully aspect of the practice, one forget to provide the context on what's cringeworthy, the history of cringe mockery, origin and definition of the term "cringe" and how the practice of Cringe Culture is Cringeworthy in of itself. It seems sterile in comparison to the other articles here regarding Cyber-harrassment, like Encyclopedia_Dramatica or GamerGate.Melonhead 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC) @Melonhead I agree, but can you tell me the stuff like the origin of the term "cringe" etc. so I/others can add it to the article?--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

i dont know what this will add to the conversation but there was a kind of "wholesome" moderate branch of Cringe Culture that treats such a thing as more of an outsider art thing or just genuine entertainment based on a personality. I think an example is Caddicarus and the obscure 90's TV show Flights of Fantasy or as its known as online as "Gaming in The Clinton Years" and specifically the odd criticisms levied by the journalist George Wood from the show, it mainly seemed to be in good fun and George himself thought it was entertaining. Is there a light at the end of the sewage tunnel? Maztr on (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

queer

is a slur. that 'some' people have reclaimed is irrelevant. its still a slur on par faggot with some people. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2019 (UT)

I identify as queer, and it's also a far easier way of referring to LGBT+ people as queer. It's also the Q in LGBTQ (which can also mean questioning). If you believe this to still be a slur, then queer article needs to be updated and this article also needs to have the other instance of queer removed.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 11:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

the q is entirely superfluous at best, if not insulting, and always irrelevant. there is no real concensus of what that q stands for, and with no description that cannot be applied to the preceeding letters. lgbt IS very broad. it is meant be so. every attempt to add something, make it more specific, does the opposite of that. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Queer is not a slur

@2406:3400:214:E170:F898:5628:DD98:65AE, @AMassiveGay: Queer is not a slur, it evens says so on the queer page. It was once a slur but was reclaimed. I also call myself queer. So, I'm confused why you reverted my reversion, @AMassiveGay.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 11:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

it says so on the queer page? oh well that proves it then. what you wish to call yourself is irrelevant. what you wish to call others is a different kettle of fish. that some people have 'reclaimed' it is irrelevant. its still a word with a lot of hurt associated with it. labelling those people it because you yourself are fine with it is not ok. you may as well call them faggots for the effect it has. coincidently, I have never been called a faggot here the uk. I never heard the term growing up. probably has more traction now. its very American. guess what I did hear a lot though. guess what word I have heard screamed at me across the street.

I am not a fan of its usage with 'lgbt' either for this and other reasons. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki is Cringe Culture

We're cringe culture for people who like making fun of certain extreme religious, political, and pseudoscience beliefs.—Chbarts (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChbartsCringe culture is a form of cyber-bullying.--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me.—Chbarts (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

He's not agreeing with you, RationalWiki isn't cyberbullying. Cyber-bullying is far worse than this and it picks on very vulnerable targets: people and shit we do make fun of in this wiki have actual power in the world or spread horrible ideas and misinformation. I think at points we could cross lines when people articles are more snark fluff than they are dceonstructions, but Neo-Nazis and autistic girls are not in the same boat in the slightest. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 02:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess in a way we share with cringe culture for having some articles that read like gossip. It depends how you define "cringe culture", particularly its targets. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I do kinda touch on that idea in my talk entry in the top column, i think "Cringe Culture" could become something positive if done right and more out of light criticism but mostly just the sense of enjoying something even if it wasn't for the original purpose, i'm not sure. ^{— Unsigned, by: Maztr on / talk / contribs}

"silly otherkin stuff"

> Even if a child is bad at art, or a teen is engaging in silly otherkin stuff, that's no excuse to be cruel to them. Kids deserve the opportunity to learn and grow. Bullying them until their self esteem suffers would be the exact opposite of what you should do.

Although I like the sentiment of this paragraph, I feel the word "silly" adds nothing but a slight hostility here. I suggest we remove it.

I don't know the etiquette around here - should I just go ahead and see if someone reverts it? Or should I wait for confirmation from someone? --Ceuybn (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It should stay imo. Sentence is incomplete without it (doesn’t convey the message nearly as well), and “otherkin stuff” is silly. Christopher (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is incomplete without it. I hadn't considered that. While I personally agree, that most representation of "otherkin stuff" seems a bit silly, I don't see the need to publicly call it that. There are people who actually identify as otherkin and who probably do not deserve to be called silly. Since I like the paragraph a lot and feel it needs to be there, and since it seems like it fits all of the targets listed above, what do you think about removing the "silly otherkin stuff" altogether and replacing it with "atypical behavior" to make it more neutral?

--Ceuybn (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m sure most otherkin have been called a lot worse. We don’t go out of our way to avoid offending people, and we don’t aim for neutrality. Christopher (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That is disappointing to hear, but thanks for the discussion.

--185.220.70.201 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly is "otherkin stuff" silly? Carthage (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage Presumably because of the reasons in the page for Otherkin. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of the content here used against otherkin can't also be used against, say, nonbinary people and their feelings over their own gender. How someone feels about their sense of their own body is perfectly valid. Who are we to deny them their own competency? Carthage (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage And I agree with you! I was just mentioning the reasons I know of about why people would consider Otherkin stuff silly TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)