Unlimited Dok Howl Supervillian Thread

[Freeky]

Retired horrible tyrant.

[Doktor Howl]

I would say you are pretty much the opposite of the problem on this board, Roger.  Without your presence it probably would have died a long time ago.  Your content is solid, and very few people here are smarter than you.

I do, however, think you have a problem in dealing with people who don't agree with you.  I am fully aware I am throwing myself under a bus for saying this, and certainly some Ayn Rand comment is going to pop up (since she does all my thinking for me), but I personally think its a problem that it seems to me like anyone who disagrees with you has to be painted as a purposefully evil person, rather than just mistaken.  Obviously this observation doesn't fit all circumstances and categories, but it fits a lot of them.

This seemed to be something you were aware of, and I understood it to be the reason you 86'd the "TGRR" persona and started anew with Dok Howl, and I was very pleased to see this, but right now Dok Howl doesn't seem a lick different from TGRR, so what WAS the point of the switch?

It's not that I have a problem with people that disagree with me, it's more that I tend to argue very forcefully, particularly when I feel that improper reasoning is being used.  Put it this way:  If your idea can get past me, it probably doesn't have too many holes in it.  You may also notice that I tend to not do much of this arguing in B&B or Literature (the Morrison thread excepted), but almost exclusively in AT or AI.

And the reason for the switch, Hoops, was that before I was interested in trying to help the monkeys, hence the "reverend".  Now I wish to see the whole world burn down.  So it's more a difference of motivation than style.

And I'm sorry about the Rand thing.  My blood was up, and I really shouldn't have said it...You didn't deserve that.

[hooplala]

I would say you are pretty much the opposite of the problem on this board, Roger.  Without your presence it probably would have died a long time ago.  Your content is solid, and very few people here are smarter than you.

I do, however, think you have a problem in dealing with people who don't agree with you.  I am fully aware I am throwing myself under a bus for saying this, and certainly some Ayn Rand comment is going to pop up (since she does all my thinking for me), but I personally think its a problem that it seems to me like anyone who disagrees with you has to be painted as a purposefully evil person, rather than just mistaken.  Obviously this observation doesn't fit all circumstances and categories, but it fits a lot of them.

This seemed to be something you were aware of, and I understood it to be the reason you 86'd the "TGRR" persona and started anew with Dok Howl, and I was very pleased to see this, but right now Dok Howl doesn't seem a lick different from TGRR, so what WAS the point of the switch?

It's not that I have a problem with people that disagree with me, it's more that I tend to argue very forcefully, particularly when I feel that improper reasoning is being used.  Put it this way:  If your idea can get past me, it probably doesn't have too many holes in it.  You may also notice that I tend to not do much of this arguing in B&B or Literature (the Morrison thread excepted), but almost exclusively in AT or AI.

And the reason for the switch, Hoops, was that before I was interested in trying to help the monkeys, hence the "reverend".  Now I wish to see the whole world burn down.  So it's more a difference of motivation than style.

And I'm sorry about the Rand thing.  My blood was up, and I really shouldn't have said it...You didn't deserve that.

S'ok, I've said some things I shouldn't have in my time.

[Doktor Howl]

I would say you are pretty much the opposite of the problem on this board, Roger.  Without your presence it probably would have died a long time ago.  Your content is solid, and very few people here are smarter than you.

I do, however, think you have a problem in dealing with people who don't agree with you.  I am fully aware I am throwing myself under a bus for saying this, and certainly some Ayn Rand comment is going to pop up (since she does all my thinking for me), but I personally think its a problem that it seems to me like anyone who disagrees with you has to be painted as a purposefully evil person, rather than just mistaken.  Obviously this observation doesn't fit all circumstances and categories, but it fits a lot of them.

This seemed to be something you were aware of, and I understood it to be the reason you 86'd the "TGRR" persona and started anew with Dok Howl, and I was very pleased to see this, but right now Dok Howl doesn't seem a lick different from TGRR, so what WAS the point of the switch?

It's not that I have a problem with people that disagree with me, it's more that I tend to argue very forcefully, particularly when I feel that improper reasoning is being used.  Put it this way:  If your idea can get past me, it probably doesn't have too many holes in it.  You may also notice that I tend to not do much of this arguing in B&B or Literature (the Morrison thread excepted), but almost exclusively in AT or AI.

And the reason for the switch, Hoops, was that before I was interested in trying to help the monkeys, hence the "reverend".  Now I wish to see the whole world burn down.  So it's more a difference of motivation than style.

And I'm sorry about the Rand thing.  My blood was up, and I really shouldn't have said it...You didn't deserve that.

S'ok, I've said some things I shouldn't have in my time.

Good.  I've had a bellyfull of this bickering.

[Triple Zero]

Okay, so because a comic book artist guru says we're in the "victory lap", we can ignore the fact that there's 6.75 Bn of us crowding the inside lane.

no. the entire overpopulation discussion had nothing to do with the OP. the argument was about whether overpopulation could be solved or not. which is only tangentially related to the video in the OP, which didn't even mention overpopulation.

if ONLY the discussion was actually about disagreeing with Morisson, that would've been great. but instead everybody was too busy talking about monsanto, crop science and irrational monkeys.

it's just what Cain said, same discussions over and over again. like overpopulation. like irrational monkeys. like those regurgitated US politics subjects that are so popular here. in fact like your Jim/Monkey thread too: Nigel summed up your entire post in one or two lines and you were like "This.  For God's sake, THIS". It was a really good summary, but also something that had been said over and over and over again.
Hence my reply to your OP was about all the other stuff you said, just like we don't go rehashing the Lo5 every time someone writes a piece that is related to it. But you could only see a reply like that as either an attack, "UNNNNN SEMANTICS" (Vene's monkey question) or both. Which of course makes any sort of communication incredibly tedious and inefficient, because people spend half the time either tip-toeing around you or clarifying they weren't attacking you instead of actually trying to have a discussion.


So if "we're in the victory lap" was the only thing you took from that video, then how is that different from Vene's "How can you be anything other than a monkey?" which made you go "arrg semantics and why the FUCK do I bother" ..

get it now?

that's what I was pointing out.

what if we would have taken Vene's question about monkeys literally and started talking about monkeys in the Jim/monkey thread? You would have hated that and proclaimed your thread ruined.

(btw Vene sorry for taking you as an example, you're the freshest one that comes to mind)

About you smelling hypocrisy.

The alignment chart thread was meant for posting alignment charts, not discussing whether they were stupid or not.

Oh, okay.  So SOMETIMES the rules apply, and sometimes they DON'T, and you are the sole arbiter of when this happens.

That is why we split it. Because a pages long discussion about whether alignment charts are stupid kind of fucks up a thread that is intended for posting pictures of alignment charts.

Odd.  The title you guys gave the thread didn't imply anything like that.  It was more a personal insult, IIRC.

"you guys"? so wait, let me get this straight.

I personally think the two situations are quite different, but you say that, for the rules, they are in fact the same.

Let's go with that for a moment.

Now you say, "you guys", implying you did not agree with splitting the alignment thread.

But you did split your own thread, in what you say is exactly the same situation.

I dunno, but logically that makes you the hypocrite.

At least I can argue that I was under the sincere impression the two situations were different. If the whole mod team agrees they are in fact the same, I will concede my point. In fact, if the two situations should be judged as exactly the same, I would argue the alignment thread should not have been split either.

But you DO believe the two situations should have been judged the same, yet YOU are the one treating them differently.

It's okay, we can fix that and talk about it (as soon as you stop interpreting everything I say to you as an attack) but don't just point your finger only at me.

Following that logic, your thread must have been about "things that agree with the OP", in which case, why don't you split of Vene and Kai and Sigmatic's posts too?

No, they were legitimately taking part in the conversation.  You dropped by to attack me again.

I was replying to your posts. I had some feelings and thoughts about those posts and wrote them up. Too bad you split off the thread because else we could, you know, discuss them.

That's the thing. I agree that the whole discussion about you being a villain or not is completely off-topic to that thread. But you brought that up first, just saying you should have split it one post later, because my post was on-topic unless criticism is not allowed in your thread.

I don't see why you guys get to split threads all over the place on a whim, but now there's suddenly rules.  This was part of my fucking thread.  I split it when a shit-stirrer showed up, same as I'd split anyone's thread if they asked.

Really? People can request to split any thread they started, at any point they want, for any reason they want?

(since "being a shit-stirrer" is kind of a judgement call)

Okay, that's fine. If that's policy, you were right about splitting your thread, wherever you want it, for whatever perceived reason you want.

Not sure if I agree with the policy, but don't worry, I won't be the one that will childishly abuse it. I should however, probably take care not to post in threads started by people that are unable to see anything critical I write as anything other than an attack or shit-stirring, though.

[Triple Zero]

I honestly don't know what it is.  Every AKK clone that comes through here fixates on me, and every time there's a problem with the board, I seem to be the one to blame...First Cramulus puts me on permanent ignore for reasons he's never explained, now Trip has decided I'm the one responsible for everything that's gone wrong over the last six months. 

Hey, that might have been "how it read to you", but I think by now I clearly explained that I was NOT trying to single you out okay?

We had a big discussion about "what's wrong with PD" a while ago. Some conclusions came out of it. People agree to try their best to change behaviour. People make mistakes and slip up. So do you. That makes you an example, not the supervillain.

Saying that I said that I have decided you're the ONE responsible for everything that's gona wrong over the last six month is complete hyperbole bullshit. I would never even think that.

When people you respect suddenly shit all over you, you sort of feel stunned for a little while, then you try to figure out what you might have done to anger people.  When it turns out that you can't figure it out, and the people in question won't say what it is, you kind of have to write them off. 

It is unrewarding to hold in high esteem people who hold you in contempt, know what I mean?

Well I don't know either why you have to go all polarized into underdog mode whenever I critizise you. And then you shit all over me, indeed as if I was projecting ALL of the board's problems onto you*, something which I would never do. Fuck if I know how you read that into my posts.

So you shit over me, and I still respect you. It's hard sometimes, but not even the (pretty epic) shitting really compares up to all the stuff you have done to earn those respects.

* but really, please knock it off with all the 500 Errors.







maybe I should sum it up, so it's clear who I did and did not try to single out for what:

1) I was pissed at the whole thread for taking a direction into a subject that [IMO] had nothing to do with the OP.

2) I think Dok was being a bit hypocritical for calling that threadjack a "good conversation", when, if the same thing would have happened to one of his own threads, he'd be all like "thread ruined", "UNNNG" and "why the fuck do I even bother".

3) The fact that this sort of shit (IN GENERAL) is still going on, despite all the discussions and (what I presume to be) our best efforts, means that PD is still sick and that even the people (IN GENERAL!) that know better also make these mistakes.

especially note that 3 does not anywhere imply these people making mistakes are in any way solely responsible for all the previous shit that happened.


so, given that this was apparently incredibly hard to distill from my post. how about when there's room for interpretation, you do not assume the absolute worst of me? I find such an attitude to aid communication a great deal.

[Brotep]

TripZip, but it's not even about you, or any of us.

Just like the issues this thread was intended to address, this theatrical, hysterical reaction is nothing personal.

Ah, see...You're doing it again--exaggerating what is said into something ridiculous so that you can dismiss it more easily.

Bullshit.  You're the one who said I make the noobs act the way they do.

Oh, really? Where?

[Doktor Howl]

TripZip, but it's not even about you, or any of us.

Just like the issues this thread was intended to address, this theatrical, hysterical reaction is nothing personal.

Well, I was actually sitting down to write a fairly conciliatory explanation of my position for Trip, because the last two posts of his imply that we're shouting past each other.

However, since Brotep obviously knows what I'm really thinking, I'll just let him do it.

EDIT:  No, fuck that.  Brotep can kill himself and fuck the body.

Dok,
Just loves when people speak for him in this manner.

[LMNO]

Hey, Brotep:  Nice Job Breaking It, Hero.

[Doktor Howl]

Ah, see...You're doing it again--exaggerating what is said into something ridiculous so that you can dismiss it more easily.

Bullshit.  You're the one who said I make the noobs act the way they do.

Oh, really? Where?

Here:

[no srsly]
You're a funny guy, Rog, and it makes being a member of this site a lot of fun. However, part of that humor involves a brushing aside of rationality, and using it to browbeat anyone who crosses you. This only encourages n00bs to behave self-righteously, leading to spectacular conflicts with violent endings. What if we just ignored the ones who said stupid shit and encouraged the ones with good material to contribute?
[/no srsly]

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, over my mad from Brotep's shit-stirring.

So, okay, Trip, here goes...I'm going to try to address things in order.

The first issue was the Grant Morrison thread.  Morrison was quoted as saying:

(7) Let's think of history as if we're in the victory lap. We survived two world wars and guess what - there was no apocalypse, there was no second coming, no rapture, none of that stuff we've been worrying about, and now we're here together at the dawn after a very long dark age. So now what?

To which I replied:

Also, #7 ignores the very real possibility that we will choke on our own shit in the next 20-50 years.

By this I meant that the "victory lap" comment sounded a lot like "mission accomplished".  I brought up that there's another kind of doom that hasn't been addressed.  From there, Hoops and I engaged in an admittedly heated conversation about whether or not overpopulation was a threat to the species.  

It got a little hot, and a few of us brought up the fact that the irrationality of large groups of people has to be factored into any solution.  This argument HAS been made before, but it definitely applied here.  It's prior use does not invalidate it.

If this makes me an example of what's wrong with PD, I am a little curious...Was I to accept Morrison's comments without analysis?  I mean, I can do that...Or at least avoid any such conversations in the future.  Your suggestion?

Second, in my thread, I pointed out that certain things prevent people from - IMO - acting as discordians.

It is my opinion that when you start identifying with the various fake ideologies that the monkeys have all bought, you drop on your knuckles and no longer qualify as a biped...This, in turn, disqualifies you as a Discordian for the duration of your error.  This would include political, economic, religious, and fraternal beliefs.

(bolding added)

Your response was:

seems to me you're looking really really hard to dismiss people.

Which I never implied.  Not sure where that came from.  Can you enlighten me?

Then you said:

As soon as someone even just momentarily argues some ideology, they get trashed.

Again, if I am expected to just blindly accept an ideology as invalid, let me know.

Because I was criticizing you (and others, but you ignore that, I suppose) which is not the same as casting you as a villain. That would be overreacting.

Yes, you were criticizing me.  I'd prefer you criticize my argument.  I do not claim to be an infallible guru of some kind.

no. the entire overpopulation discussion had nothing to do with the OP. the argument was about whether overpopulation could be solved or not. which is only tangentially related to the video in the OP, which didn't even mention overpopulation.

Actually, it was directly related.  You can't claim to be in the victory lap, as Morrison does, if you're in immediate, serious trouble, survival-wise.  He brought up war and "the rapture", and I merely pointed out that there are other problems that are just as serious.

it's just what Cain said, same discussions over and over again.

Actually, no it wasn't.  Cain was bitching about libertarian discussions (and rightfully so).  This was a different discussion in which certain similar arguments were used.

So if "we're in the victory lap" was the only thing you took from that video, then how is that different from Vene's "How can you be anything other than a monkey?" which made you go "arrg semantics and why the FUCK do I bother" ..

get it now?

No, not really, because I pointed out that I had at least two other issues with the piece, including the "giving up individuality" thing.

In fact, in your original post, you stated that I attacked multiple things, and only bit on the one that got responses, and now you're saying that I only focused on one thing from the beginning.

Quite frankly, Trip, between the Morrison thread and my thread, I feel like you've set out to attack me.  I may be wrong about that, but the personal nature of your criticisms has me more than a little concerned.

Comments?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I just want to mention that one of the things that I, and I think many others here, really enjoy about Dok is his over-the-top polemic. It's a well-known quality, and sure, it's not nice to have it turned against you, but when people (like Brotep, in this case) proclaim that it's what's wrong with the board, I kinda want to tell them to stick it up their ass. You can't have it both ways; a strong, engaging personality is going to be equally strong and engaging both when you're liking it and when you're not liking it. If you want milquetoast, I can suggest a few boards for you. This is not one of them, and I hope it never is.

[Doktor Howl]

I just want to mention that one of the things that I, and I think many others here, really enjoy about Dok is his over-the-top polemic. It's a well-known quality, and sure, it's not nice to have it turned against you, but when people (like Brotep, in this case) proclaim that it's what's wrong with the board, I kinda want to tell them to stick it up their ass. You can't have it both ways; a strong, engaging personality is going to be equally strong and engaging both when you're liking it and when you're not liking it. If you want milquetoast, I can suggest a few boards for you. This is not one of them, and I hope it never is.

Thanks, Nigel.   

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I just want to mention that one of the things that I, and I think many others here, really enjoy about Dok is his over-the-top polemic. It's a well-known quality, and sure, it's not nice to have it turned against you, but when people (like Brotep, in this case) proclaim that it's what's wrong with the board, I kinda want to tell them to stick it up their ass. You can't have it both ways; a strong, engaging personality is going to be equally strong and engaging both when you're liking it and when you're not liking it. If you want milquetoast, I can suggest a few boards for you. This is not one of them, and I hope it never is.

Thanks, Nigel.   

My pleasure to speak the truth, man.

[Triple Zero]

(btw I will reply to this tomorrow, because right now I (still) have (more) beer in me)