Hello?
Hel-
Yeah, I'm still here. I thought we must have got cut off.
I can only just hear you, have you heard any of what I've been saying?
About... eh, I'm not going to go through it all again.
I was just thinking that, y'know, if you had heard it you might have said made some reply, y'know?
And I wasn't sure if it was just a bad connection or errors in communication or whether you were just ignoring me...
Because, well, let's be fair; quite often I say things and you clearly hear them but don't actually acknowledge it.
I'm not talking just for the hell of it. I'm trying to have a fucking conversation with you and...
I just want you to acknowledge my opinion as being valuable, okay?
Even if you don't think it is, I want it to be responded to respectfully and not only when you agree with it.
Otherwise, why do I even keep talking?
I admit of being guilty of this. Not with you specifically, but in general.
It's something I'm working on.
Quote from: Areola Shinerbock on December 30, 2011, 11:47:59 PM
I admit of being guilty of this. Not with you specifically, but in general.
It's something I'm working on.
The piece isn't from me specifically.
It's a response to the general phenomenon.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 30, 2011, 11:54:41 PM
Quote from: Areola Shinerbock on December 30, 2011, 11:47:59 PM
I admit of being guilty of this. Not with you specifically, but in general.
It's something I'm working on.
The piece isn't from me specifically.
It's a response to the general phenomenon.
Fair enough. I do also find myself still hitting F5 more than I should. Some habits are hard to break.
I like the piece though, and its a good reminder of what we should be working towards, forumwise.
One day Paesior asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to go and find the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice.
Shortly afterwards the television came on by itself, and a face could be seen in the static.
(http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh309/Paesior/WhiteNoiseFace.png)
"Oh, for fuck's sake, Paes. What do you want NOW?"
"O! Eris! Eris whose fingers are ten armies! Eris whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Eris whose ear is a smoking tomb!
I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"
GET TO THE POINT, PAES.
"I am filled with angst and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are arguing with one another, the forum is rampant with butthurt,
whole threads are spagged up by perceived injustices, bipeds are flinging shit, appearing right is valued over being right. O, woe!"
SO THE FUCK WHAT? EVERYONE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
At which moment She turned herself into an oak tree and left Signor Paesior stranded alone with the Discordians.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 12:20:04 AM
One day Paesior asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to go and find the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice.
Shortly afterwards the television came on by itself, and a face could be seen in the static.
(http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh309/Paesior/WhiteNoiseFace.png)
"Oh, for fuck's sake, Paes. What do you want NOW?"
"O! Eris! Eris whose fingers are ten armies! Eris whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Eris whose ear is a smoking tomb!
I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"
GET TO THE POINT, PAES.
"I am filled with angst and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are arguing with one another, the forum is rampant with butthurt,
whole threads are spagged up by perceived injustices, bipeds are flinging shit, appearing right is valued over being right. O, woe!"
SO THE FUCK WHAT? EVERYONE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
At which moment She turned herself into an oak tree and left Signor Paesior stranded alone with the Discordians.
Wow, that kinda hits to the point. Excellent remix of a classic passage.
Roger called it first, but I figured the whole piece might be useful.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 12:25:47 AM
Roger called it first, but I figured the whole piece might be useful.
Natch. But riffing off of the idea is a good thing, especially from different perspectives.
I found the PD remix piece funny as well, but it does kinda sum up the mood I'm feeling.
For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.
Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.
Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.
Really, though. There are more respectful ways of attacking an argument than, for example, those mentioned in the post where you discussed the differences, Nigel.
Why is "I'm really tired of your hypersensitive drama" better than "you're a stubborn bitch"?
Would "I'm really tired of your stubborn bitchiness" be better than "you're hypersensitive and dramatic."
Do you think that "I have no more fucking patience for your misanthropic jaded schtick, it's old and boring" is a constructive way of addressing a behaviour?
Is it actually entirely unreasonable to interpret "what you said is stupid and wrong" as "you are stupid and wrong"?
If you're attacking a belief someone holds as stupid, surely "you are stupid if you believe a stupid thing" is implied?
Can you tell someone that the thing they believe is wrong without also saying that they are wrong for believing it?
Would you really be comfortable with someone addressing you with "that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone express and I cannot fathom what made you say it, are you attention-whoring or something?" and refrain from responding as if that was a personal attack, getting butthurt about the accusation of attention whoring?
Personally, I doubt it.
If I said that to you, I would anticipate a fuckload of snarky "oh, but apparently I'm just an attention whore anyway" tacked on to the end of every post. And not just from you, Nigel. I would expect it from a lot of the posters here. I'm just using your examples because I disagree with the distinction you're making between attacking people and attacking behaviour.
(Please don't take the bolded as "definitely Nigel would react like this... other people might also")
You don't have to directly say "you're a fucking cunt" for it to be a personal attack.
"That's the kind of argument a fucking cunt would make." <- Attacking the argument?
"I'm really tired of your constantly being a fucking cunt." <- Attacking a behaviour?
Please...
We'd be better off if the suggestion that anyone was a fucking cunt was left out entirely and a demonstration be made of why the idea is wrong.
Rather than "that idea is stupid because", which I have a hard time believing anyone doesn't take "you are stupid for believing that" from, explain the implications of the idea, and the stupidity should be self-evident.
The OP wasn't going to start a "what is wrong with PD" thread like all the others, but I suppose I kind of took it that way with the "then stop" piece.
I got something different from the Then Stop piece. PD is just one of many tools a Discordian can use to find what they want.
If it's not serving your needs, move on.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 02:33:48 AM
Really, though. There are more respectful ways of attacking an argument than, for example, those mentioned in the post where you discussed the differences, Nigel.
Why is "I'm really tired of your hypersensitive drama" better than "you're a stubborn bitch"?
Would "I'm really tired of your stubborn bitchiness" be better than "you're hypersensitive and dramatic."
Do you think that "I have no more fucking patience for your misanthropic jaded schtick, it's old and boring" is a constructive way of addressing a behaviour?
Is it actually entirely unreasonable to interpret "what you said is stupid and wrong" as "you are stupid and wrong"?
If you're attacking a belief someone holds as stupid, surely "you are stupid if you believe a stupid thing" is implied?
Can you tell someone that the thing they believe is wrong without also saying that they are wrong for believing it?
Would you really be comfortable with someone addressing you with "that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone express and I cannot fathom what made you say it, are you attention-whoring or something?" and refrain from responding as if that was a personal attack, getting butthurt about the accusation of attention whoring?
Personally, I doubt it.
If I said that to you, I would anticipate a fuckload of snarky "oh, but apparently I'm just an attention whore anyway" tacked on to the end of every post. And not just from you, Nigel. I would expect it from a lot of the posters here. I'm just using your examples because I disagree with the distinction you're making between attacking people and attacking behaviour.
(Please don't take the bolded as "definitely Nigel would react like this... other people might also")
You don't have to directly say "you're a fucking cunt" for it to be a personal attack.
"That's the kind of argument a fucking cunt would make." <- Attacking the argument?
"I'm really tired of your constantly being a fucking cunt." <- Attacking a behaviour?
Please...
We'd be better off if the suggestion that anyone was a fucking cunt was left out entirely and a demonstration be made of why the idea is wrong.
Rather than "that idea is stupid because", which I have a hard time believing anyone doesn't take "you are stupid for believing that" from, explain the implications of the idea, and the stupidity should be self-evident.
Half the joy of being here, for me, was that people pushed each other's limits, and forced them to be better people. I don't find that anywhere else; not in places where people can't stay cool in the face of being told they said something stupid, or in the face of having their ideas and behaviors challenged, or being called on it when they said something that they clearly hadn't bothered to think through.
Even in your examples up there, you are conflating personal attacks with attacks on an argument. I don't know how to make it any clearer that what I liked about this place was that it was constantly testing me and challenging me to control my monkey reactions.
I don't feel like the blanded down, niced-up, be-careful-of-everyone's-feelings, e-primed PD does a good job of that.
I am also not advocating wholesale assholery toward everyone you disagree with. But your (actually, more notably, Khara's) reaction to Cain's bluntness is a good example of an emotional overreaction to
not having actually been insulted, but merely sharply contradicted.And you know, sometimes when someone says something so utterly preposterously
wrong and contrary to everything you know about that person's reasoning skills, it is valid to react with incredulity and challenge their motivations for saying it. It may be a slap in the face, but sometimes people need a slap in the face to make them snap the fuck out of whatever self-indulgence they're wallowing in and actually examine what they're saying. And the challenge is, are you going to dig in your heels and screech, or are you going to actually examine your shit and own it?
If someone is consistently histrionic, and approaching them with milder criticism has had no results or negative results, then yes, sometimes "I am fucking fed up with your histrionic behavior" is an appropriate thing to say.
I still don't think you get the difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person.
"That's the kind of argument a fucking cunt would make."
"I'm really tired of your constantly being a fucking cunt."
These are both personal attacks because they both directly imply that the person making the argument is a fucking cunt. "What you just said was a fucking cunt kind of thing to say" is attacking the argument. It's not an effective attack, because it doesn't explain what about the argument made it a fucking cunt thing to say, so I would hope it would be followed up by "and here's why".
"You are being a fucking cunt" is also a personal attack. However, "The way you are acting right now is making you come across as a fucking cunt" is an attack on a behavior. "You are a histrionic twat" is a personal attack, "It is histrionic and twatty to flounce every time you think someone has criticized you" is addressing a behavior.
Frankly, I think that would would benefit from examining the differences and getting to understand them a little better, in order to be better able to manage your reactions to what you are perceiving as personal slams. You perceived Cain as being disrespectful of you as a human being, when he was, in fact, being disrespectful of the idea that signing whitehouse.gov petitions are "better than doing nothing". How would that thread have gone if, rather than anyone attacking Cain for his perceived attack on you, you had simply considered the question and answered it?
Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...
/sarcasm.
Um, that whole reply assumed that I was Twid.
I'm not upset or discussing anyone's behaviour towards me.
All of those variations of "you are a fucking cunt" were personal attacks, yes... and "the way you are acting right now is making you come across as a fucking cunt" is an attack on the behaviour.
With attacks on arguments which consist entirely of "that's stupid and wrong", though, does it not follow that the person holding that belief is stupid and wrong? Can you hold a stupid, wrong belief without being stupid and wrong?
How would you react to "that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone express and I cannot fathom what made you say it, are you attention-whoring or something?"
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 05:25:51 AM
Um, that whole reply assumed that I was Twid.
I'm not upset or discussing anyone's behaviour towards me.
Hahaha, you're right! Derp. I cannot keep track of who people are when names change. Even though you changed yours a million years ago.
But it doesn't really matter, the points I was trying to make are still valid if you cross out "you" and substitute "Twid".
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 05:33:54 AM
All of those variations of "you are a fucking cunt" were personal attacks, yes... and "the way you are acting right now is making you come across as a fucking cunt" is an attack on the behaviour.
With attacks on arguments which consist entirely of "that's stupid and wrong", though, does it not follow that the person holding that belief is stupid and wrong? Can you hold a stupid, wrong belief without being stupid and wrong?
How would you react to "that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone express and I cannot fathom what made you say it, are you attention-whoring or something?"
It depends a lot, but most likely I would get angry and defensive, then go cry and nurse my butthurt for a while, and then (if it was someone I respected and believed had good critical thinking skills) think about why they would say something like that, and if I concluded that they had a point I would probably apologize and admit that I was being boneheaded. I might even come out of it with some greater maturity and better insight on what motivates me to say things that I already know, on a rational and mature level, are stupid and wrong. We all hold beliefs that are stupid and wrong, and based largely on prejudices and fears which, if we really examined and understood, we might not proudly broadcast.
There might be a kinder and gentler way to coax me to re-examine whatever boneheadedness I was setting forth, but not uncommonly, especially with really smart articulate people who can frame a good argument, what ends up happening is they argue themselves into a corner and then it's even harder to get them to critically examine what they've already presented and defended. Sometimes, "WHAT THE FUCK? WHAT THE HELL MAKES YOU SAY SOMETHING THAT COMPLETELY RETARDED?" is the short-circuit that works.
TGRR is a master at that ploy.
I have tremendous respect for people who can react to that by taking a step back, looking at their shit, and then owning it.
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 05:40:14 AM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 05:25:51 AM
Um, that whole reply assumed that I was Twid.
I'm not upset or discussing anyone's behaviour towards me.
Hahaha, you're right! Derp. I cannot keep track of who people are when names change. Even though you changed yours a million years ago.
But it doesn't really matter, the points I was trying to make are still valid if you cross out "you" and substitute "Twid".
While I originally annoyed by Cain's post, I admitted that he was right and figured he was in a bad mood. Which also put me in a bad mood. I didn't see it as a personal attack. I only said Cain was being a dick after he jumped all over Khara and started insulting her. I asked him to take it elsewhere, and he offered to split the thread except that he was a part of the split, and someone else would have to. It wasn't really what I asked, just for it to be taken elsewhere-which didn't happen. Anyway, it's all done with, just figured that I would clarify what my reactions were and why I reacted that way.
Ok, so, what I gathered from this is that Areola=Twid? Is that correct?
And who is Beardman Meow?
Damn, I've been away too long. I don't know if you people are newbs, or you just changed your screen names.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 06:07:34 PM
Ok, so, what I gathered from this is that Areola=Twid? Is that correct?
And who is Beardman Meow?
Damn, I've been away too long. I don't know if you people are newbs, or you just changed your screen names.
Areola=Twid, Beardman=Paes from what I gather.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 06:07:34 PM
Ok, so, what I gathered from this is that Areola=Twid? Is that correct?
And who is Beardman Meow?
Damn, I've been away too long. I don't know if you people are newbs, or you just changed your screen names.
My name is punishment for PMing the Mgt. I'll go back to being Twid in about a week.
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 05:06:53 AM
Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...
/sarcasm.
Quoting Dimo for troofiness.
Is the OP arguing for a kind of Special Olympics of debate? Wherein, no matter how foolish, repugnant, and wrongheaded the idea set forth, everyone should pat the poster on the head because at least they tried?
Just hoping for some clarification here. Because recently a poster here advocated that the world would be a better place if all women were prostitutes.
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:30:58 PM
Is the OP arguing for a kind of Special Olympics of debate? Wherein, no matter how foolish, repugnant, and wrongheaded the idea set forth, everyone should pat the poster on the head because at least they tried?
Um, no.
It's not actually arguing for anything. The OP wasn't really related at all to the personal attack vs. attack on argument discussion.
It was a response to a number of posters expressing their frustration at having their posts ignored or only taken into consideration when the reader agrees with them.
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 05:06:53 AM
Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...
/sarcasm.
Quoting Dimo for troofiness.
As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 10:52:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:30:58 PM
Is the OP arguing for a kind of Special Olympics of debate? Wherein, no matter how foolish, repugnant, and wrongheaded the idea set forth, everyone should pat the poster on the head because at least they tried?
Um, no.
It's not actually arguing for anything. The OP wasn't really related at all to the personal attack vs. attack on argument discussion.
It was a response to a number of posters expressing their frustration at having their posts ignored or only taken into consideration when the reader agrees with them.
OK.
Is it a call for change of some kind? If so, what?
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 10:59:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 05:06:53 AM
Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...
/sarcasm.
Quoting Dimo for troofiness.
As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.
JESUS DUDE WTF
No, it was not some kind of sidelong attack on you. FFS. It was a funny thing that Dimo said, that I quoted and agreed with the quintessential nature (not the literal) truth of, because so many people react to an assault on a transient notion as if someone is attacking their very identity, and that's silly.
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 11:08:15 PM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 10:59:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 05:06:53 AM
Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...
/sarcasm.
Quoting Dimo for troofiness.
As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.
JESUS DUDE WTF
No, it was not some kind of sidelong attack on you. FFS. It was a funny thing that Dimo said, that I quoted and agreed with the quintessential nature (not the literal) truth of, because so many people react to an assault on a transient notion as if someone is attacking their very identity, and that's silly.
Settle down. I didn't think it was an attack on me.
When a post is made, though, which seems similar to my argument but more ridiculous, I will ask whether it was an attempt at representing what I was saying to make sure everyone is clear on what everyone else's position is.
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 11:05:43 PM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 10:52:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:30:58 PM
Is the OP arguing for a kind of Special Olympics of debate? Wherein, no matter how foolish, repugnant, and wrongheaded the idea set forth, everyone should pat the poster on the head because at least they tried?
Um, no.
It's not actually arguing for anything. The OP wasn't really related at all to the personal attack vs. attack on argument discussion.
It was a response to a number of posters expressing their frustration at having their posts ignored or only taken into consideration when the reader agrees with them.
OK.
Is it a call for change of some kind? If so, what?
No, just bringing it up in case anyone else has observed the same thing and has some thoughts on it.
I don't know if it needs changing or how it would be changed if it did.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 11:11:20 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 11:08:15 PM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 10:59:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 05:06:53 AM
Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...
/sarcasm.
Quoting Dimo for troofiness.
As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.
JESUS DUDE WTF
No, it was not some kind of sidelong attack on you. FFS. It was a funny thing that Dimo said, that I quoted and agreed with the quintessential nature (not the literal) truth of, because so many people react to an assault on a transient notion as if someone is attacking their very identity, and that's silly.
Settle down. I didn't think it was an attack on me.
When a post is made, though, which seems similar to my argument but more ridiculous, I will ask whether it was an attempt at representing what I was saying to make sure everyone is clear on what everyone elses position is.
I'm not unsettled. I'm mulling over my pineapple rum cake recipe for tonight.
The paranoia and assumptions that float around here, though, are starting to get pretty tiresome. The whole "are you talking about me?" thing.
Dude, whoever the fuck you are, nobody's talking about you and nobody even remembers who you are, so chill out. Not talking to you personally, Meow, just to everyone in general. Unless the speaker is a passive-aggressive fuck, they'll call you out by name.
That, indeed, is also one of the things I love about this place. I hate passive-aggressive assholes. (If anyone here thinks I am talking about them, ask yourself, have I called you a passive-aggressive prick to your face? No? THEN I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU.)
I swear, everyone wants to be the topic of conversation.
Fuck it. I'm gonna bake a cake.
Isn't the best way to avoid those assumptions to ask for clarification if you're unsure?
Which... is then responded to as if it was butthurt at perceived insult.
Do you have some kind of meta-paranoia going on because of how sick you are of the paranoids?
It's the second time recently that you've felt the need to explain to me that something wasn't a sidelong attack.
I'm not sure if you're doing it to anyone else as well. <-Note: Not assuming it's only me.
Im starting to think that part of the problem right now isnt just the perception that a poster has of being attacked. Its the perception that a poster is perceiving being attacked.
We all seem to be strung a little tight lately. With my thread i was perceived as taking personal offense to what cain said where i was perceiving it as me getting annoyed at cain for getting annoyed. I dunno. Maybe i hit on something maybe its just that its new years and im drinking. But maybe part of it is that we all need to chill out for a couple of days to celebrate the death of a shite year and maybe try to not make assunptions about what someone else is feeling. And im just as guilty of that obviously. Clarifying posts are a good thing i think and will get us back to where we probably should be
/semi inebriated two cents
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 11:24:00 PM
Isn't the best way to avoid those assumptions to ask for clarification if you're unsure?
Which... is then responded to as if it was butthurt at perceived insult.
Do you have some kind of meta-paranoia going on because of how sick you are of the paranoids?
It's the second time recently that you've felt the need to explain to me that something wasn't a sidelong attack.
I'm not sure if you're doing it to anyone else as well. <-Note: Not assuming it's only me.
I don't think that Twid reacted inappropriately by asking. However, the way the whole topic got sidelined for a page or two because someone else decided to attack Cain for not being polite enough in his phrasing was just stupid. I didn't think Cain's response indicated that he interpreted the question as butthurt.
And meta-paranoia... yes, actually, I am being extra careful lately to clarify in advance that I mean something literally and with no hidden agenda, because many times recently I've gotten responses that indicate (or state flat out) that someone thought I was being passive-aggressive or taking a poke at them when it wasn't my intention at all.
Isn't that what you're calling for, in this thread? What, exactly, is it that I'm doing wrong here?
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 10:59:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 05:06:53 AM
Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...
/sarcasm.
Quoting Dimo for troofiness.
As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.
See, this right here is exactly why I've been extra careful to clarify that I not taking a poke.
Also why I've barely been on the board for the last week, and probably won't be on much in the future.
In response to Meow's question, I throw out a number of pieces that cop zero replies. I used to kind of take it personally. Now I'm disappointed but don't really worry. If I'm really happy with it I'll x-post to Facebook and my blag.
I know I try more nowdays to also repy to stuff even when I have nothing to add; I know I like it when someone says something as mundane as 'I read. It wasn't bad' so I figure it takes about half a minute more for me to do the same.
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 03:24:49 AM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 10:59:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 05:06:53 AM
Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...
/sarcasm.
Quoting Dimo for troofiness.
As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.
See, this right here is exactly why I've been extra careful to clarify that I not taking a poke.
Also why I've barely been on the board for the last week, and probably won't be on much in the future.
The reason you've been extra careful is that I asked for clarification because it was unclear who, if anyone, the post was in response to?
That seems strange to me.
I'm pretty sure I've already said I didn't think I was being attacked and was just asking (y'know, the last time you quoted that post assuming it was a response to a perceived attack) so I'm certain you haven't returned to framing it as that.
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 03:19:23 AM
And meta-paranoia... yes, actually, I am being extra careful lately to clarify in advance that I mean something literally and with no hidden agenda, because many times recently I've gotten responses that indicate (or state flat out) that someone thought I was being passive-aggressive or taking a poke at them when it wasn't my intention at all.
Isn't that what you're calling for, in this thread? What, exactly, is it that I'm doing wrong here?
You also already asked whether the thread was calling for change here and I already said it wasn't.
Drunk. Hppy happy. Shit my nmouth
Quote from: Beardman Meow on January 01, 2012, 04:30:07 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 03:24:49 AM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 10:59:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on December 31, 2011, 05:06:53 AM
Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...
/sarcasm.
Quoting Dimo for troofiness.
As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.
See, this right here is exactly why I've been extra careful to clarify that I not taking a poke.
Also why I've barely been on the board for the last week, and probably won't be on much in the future.
The reason you've been extra careful is that I asked for clarification because it was unclear who, if anyone, the post was in response to?
That seems strange to me.
I'm pretty sure I've already said I didn't think I was being attacked and was just asking (y'know, the last time you quoted that post assuming it was a response to a perceived attack) so I'm certain you haven't returned to framing it as that.
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 03:19:23 AM
And meta-paranoia... yes, actually, I am being extra careful lately to clarify in advance that I mean something literally and with no hidden agenda, because many times recently I've gotten responses that indicate (or state flat out) that someone thought I was being passive-aggressive or taking a poke at them when it wasn't my intention at all.
Isn't that what you're calling for, in this thread? What, exactly, is it that I'm doing wrong here?
You also already asked whether the thread was calling for change here and I already said it wasn't.
What are you even talking about? Seriously, is there a problem? Or a point to this thread? If yes, what is it, and what would you like to see done about it?
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 10:45:44 AM
What are you even talking about? Seriously, is there a problem? Or a point to this thread? If yes, what is it, and what would you like to see done about it?
Ugh. You're actually becoming increasingly unpleasant to interact with.
You ask whether I'm calling for change with the thread.
I say pretty clearly that I'm not.
You seem to ask again, I tell you I already answered that.
You then quote
that asking what I want to see done.
What the fuck?
ETA: I don't think you're stupid. I can only assume you're being intentionally difficult.
I'm not approaching the board expecting to see it, otherwise I'd think it was me, but it keeps popping out at me ever since all that "Nigel and Roger should stop posting" bullshit (as far as I can tell).
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 02:33:48 AM
Really, though. There are more respectful ways of attacking an argument than, for example, those mentioned in the post where you discussed the differences, Nigel.
Why is "I'm really tired of your hypersensitive drama" better than "you're a stubborn bitch"?
Would "I'm really tired of your stubborn bitchiness" be better than "you're hypersensitive and dramatic."
Do you think that "I have no more fucking patience for your misanthropic jaded schtick, it's old and boring" is a constructive way of addressing a behaviour?
Is it actually entirely unreasonable to interpret "what you said is stupid and wrong" as "you are stupid and wrong"?
If you're attacking a belief someone holds as stupid, surely "you are stupid if you believe a stupid thing" is implied?
Can you tell someone that the thing they believe is wrong without also saying that they are wrong for believing it?
Would you really be comfortable with someone addressing you with "that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone express and I cannot fathom what made you say it, are you attention-whoring or something?" and refrain from responding as if that was a personal attack, getting butthurt about the accusation of attention whoring?
Personally, I doubt it.
If I said that to you, I would anticipate a fuckload of snarky "oh, but apparently I'm just an attention whore anyway" tacked on to the end of every post. And not just from you, Nigel. I would expect it from a lot of the posters here. I'm just using your examples because I disagree with the distinction you're making between attacking people and attacking behaviour.
(Please don't take the bolded as "definitely Nigel would react like this... other people might also")
You don't have to directly say "you're a fucking cunt" for it to be a personal attack.
"That's the kind of argument a fucking cunt would make." <- Attacking the argument?
"I'm really tired of your constantly being a fucking cunt." <- Attacking a behaviour?
Please...
We'd be better off if the suggestion that anyone was a fucking cunt was left out entirely and a demonstration be made of why the idea is wrong.
Rather than "that idea is stupid because", which I have a hard time believing anyone doesn't take "you are stupid for believing that" from, explain the implications of the idea, and the stupidity should be self-evident.
Some a yeah, some a no. "That argument is stupid," or "That's just dumb," I can't see as calling for butt-hurt or even having any reasonable basis to feel personally attacked. It is kind of a line in the sand though...which is often useful. Someone calls my argument the most retarded piece of wrong-headed bovine prolapse they've ever unfortunately tripped over, either I'm gonna say "meh...that's where we differ" and just drop the point, or, if I've really got my shit together and I know it, I'll take the time and effort to redouble my efforts if, for no other reason, than to see if the undue hyperbole moves as easily when shoved back up there as it did coming out.
Something along the lines of "
I think you're a bag of ...." instead of "You're a bag of ....", is clearly a bullshit distinction, but I really haven't seen that that often except when it's absolutely intentional and also, I might add, kind of entertaining.
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 10:45:44 AM
Seriously, is there a problem? Or a point to this thread?
And the point to the thread was nothing to do with people arguing.
QuoteIt's not actually arguing for anything. The OP wasn't really related at all to the personal attack vs. attack on argument discussion.
It was a response to a number of posters expressing their frustration at having their posts ignored or only taken into consideration when the reader agrees with them.
The discussion of personal attacks vs attacks on ideas was in response to your raising it, probably inspired by the "Oh, then stop" bit, which didn't
really fit in the thread, on reflection. But I think I've already said that, too.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 31, 2011, 10:52:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 09:30:58 PM
Is the OP arguing for a kind of Special Olympics of debate? Wherein, no matter how foolish, repugnant, and wrongheaded the idea set forth, everyone should pat the poster on the head because at least they tried?
Um, no.
It's not actually arguing for anything. The OP wasn't really related at all to the personal attack vs. attack on argument discussion.
It was a response to a number of posters expressing their frustration at having their posts ignored or only taken into consideration when the reader agrees with them.
Heh...When I read it my first reaction was, "oh dude, I'm totally going through the exact same shit with my S.O. right now, too."
Quote from: Beardman Meow on January 01, 2012, 11:33:15 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 10:45:44 AM
Seriously, is there a problem? Or a point to this thread?
And the point to the thread was nothing to do with people arguing.
QuoteIt's not actually arguing for anything. The OP wasn't really related at all to the personal attack vs. attack on argument discussion.
It was a response to a number of posters expressing their frustration at having their posts ignored or only taken into consideration when the reader agrees with them.
The discussion of personal attacks vs attacks on ideas was in response to your raising it, probably inspired by the "Oh, then stop" bit, which didn't really fit in the thread, on reflection. But I think I've already said that, too.
You raised that topic, though, whether it belonged in the thread or not, so I responded, and now you're acting like I shouldn't respond. And saying that I've been "increasingly unpleasant to interact with", which is slightly ironic in the sense that I feel exactly the same way about you. I feel like for the last week or so every response you have made to me has been adversarial; it comes across to me as if you are reading my posts with a presupposition about my intentions and tone. I can't really do much about that, but it is frustrating.
And your current position doesn't even make any sense to me. I can't make heads or tails of the actual point you're trying to make, if you're trying to make one at all. Your clarification seems to be "I don't have a point" and your basic position seems to be "shut up".
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 06:40:22 PM
You raised that topic, though, whether it belonged in the thread or not, so I responded, and now you're acting like I shouldn't respond.
I'm acting like I don't understand why you keep asking about "the point of the thread" or "what the OP was about" when I've stated what it's about and you seemed to understand. Until you decided to quote a post which was a response to a number of your points and reply with only "what is this all about?" again. Again.
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 06:40:22 PM
And saying that I've been "increasingly unpleasant to interact with", which is slightly ironic in the sense that I feel exactly the same way about you. I feel like for the last week or so every response you have made to me has been adversarial; it comes across to me as if you are reading my posts with a presupposition about my intentions and tone. I can't really do much about that, but it is frustrating.
I got the impression you were assuming my posts to be adversarial well before they were, as they are in this thread.
Have you been reading into questions about your intentions and tone, presuppositions about them?
Because, of course, there has to be a suspicion about your tone before I ask, but I tried to quite gently ask for clarification where it was unclear. You responded to that with posts very similar to those made in this thread.
How has your approach to posts you think presume too much about your tone any differered from the paranoia you're complaining about?
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 06:40:22 PM
And your current position doesn't even make any sense to me. I can't make heads or tails of the actual point you're trying to make, if you're trying to make one at all. Your clarification seems to be "I don't have a point" and your basic position seems to be "shut up".
Either you actually have the reading comprehension difficulty you'd need to have to be in this position, or you're deliberately failing to understand so you can justify responding as if my position is "shut up". Either way, this reads like a script I already know, so I'm not going to bother continuing to restate my case only to have your original interpretation repeated over and over. Perhaps this is deliberate, as you seemed to say the same behaviour was in RWHN's thread. I don't have enough confidence in your willingness to actually consider your behaviour to continue to have any discussion about it, though.
What the fuck, dude.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on January 01, 2012, 10:17:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 06:40:22 PM
You raised that topic, though, whether it belonged in the thread or not, so I responded, and now you're acting like I shouldn't respond.
I'm acting like I don't understand why you keep asking about "the point of the thread" or "what the OP was about" when I've stated what it's about and you seemed to understand. Until you decided to quote a post which was a response to a number of your points and reply with only "what is this all about?" again. Again.
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 06:40:22 PM
And saying that I've been "increasingly unpleasant to interact with", which is slightly ironic in the sense that I feel exactly the same way about you. I feel like for the last week or so every response you have made to me has been adversarial; it comes across to me as if you are reading my posts with a presupposition about my intentions and tone. I can't really do much about that, but it is frustrating.
I got the impression you were assuming my posts to be adversarial well before they were, as they are in this thread.
Have you been reading into questions about your intentions and tone, presuppositions about them?
Because, of course, there has to be a suspicion about your tone before I ask, but I tried to quite gently ask for clarification where it was unclear. You responded to that with posts very similar to those made in this thread.
How has your approach to posts you think presume too much about your tone any differered from the paranoia you're complaining about?
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 06:40:22 PM
And your current position doesn't even make any sense to me. I can't make heads or tails of the actual point you're trying to make, if you're trying to make one at all. Your clarification seems to be "I don't have a point" and your basic position seems to be "shut up".
Either you actually have the reading comprehension difficulty you'd need to have to be in this position, or you're deliberately failing to understand so you can justify responding as if my position is "shut up". Either way, this reads like a script I already know, so I'm not going to bother continuing to restate my case only to have your original interpretation repeated over and over. Perhaps this is deliberate, as you seemed to say the same behaviour was in RWHN's thread. I don't have enough confidence in your willingness to actually consider your behaviour to continue to have any discussion about it, though.
I'm going to go with "reading comprehension difficulty" because whatever you said here just flat-out doesn't make any sense at all to me. I no longer even know what you're talking about at all.
Okay. I'm sorry if I've seemed to be excessively adversarial lately. I'm going to drop it now.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on January 02, 2012, 02:44:56 AM
Okay. I'm sorry if I've seemed to be excessively adversarial lately. I'm going to drop it now.
Coolio. Likewise.
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 02:07:46 AM
For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.
Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.
Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.
Ok, I just sort of noticed this. As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.
The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.
You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.
Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.
I mean, I get that in theory at least, we
should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates. But that doesn't always happen.
And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber. It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama. In my opinion.
Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on January 01, 2012, 11:24:03 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 01, 2012, 10:45:44 AM
What are you even talking about? Seriously, is there a problem? Or a point to this thread? If yes, what is it, and what would you like to see done about it?
Ugh. You're actually becoming increasingly unpleasant to interact with.
And your posts - in this thread - are becoming increasingly more pleasant to read, because it makes me feel that I'm not the only one gobbling PILLZ HERE like Pez.
:lol:
Just saying.
TGRR,
Totally lost.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 03, 2012, 04:11:22 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 02:07:46 AM
For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.
Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.
Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.
Ok, I just sort of noticed this. As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.
The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.
You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.
Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.
I mean, I get that in theory at least, we should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates. But that doesn't always happen.
And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber. It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama. In my opinion.
Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.
I'm gonna keep communicating the only way I know how. And if that makes me Butch Cassiday and Nigel the Sundance Kid, I'm okay with that.
TGRR,
SHOT TO DEFF IN BOLIVIA, LEAKING ALL OVER THE STREET.
I expect no less, dear sir.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 03, 2012, 04:11:22 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 02:07:46 AM
For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.
Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.
Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.
Ok, I just sort of noticed this. As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.
The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.
You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.
Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.
I mean, I get that in theory at least, we should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates. But that doesn't always happen.
And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber. It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama. In my opinion.
Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.
You are free to refine your delivery in any way you want.
I will note, however, that while you may choose to use e-prime (thankfully not to the point of obfuscating your actual message) you are also one of the last people to ever go all hooty-hooty and butthurt if someone tells you that something you said is wrong or doesn't make sense. You are typically a good example of someone who responds to the argument and not to the person.
Well, fuck you too.
:asshat:
But I get what you're saying. If everyone posted like I do (most of the time), the world would be a better place.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-NApT-Qzb88A/TwNVR5VUlqI/AAAAAAAAAW8/iB0oLRFaK-o/w402/LMNO%2B2012.JPG)
:lulz: It's true. But homogeneity is dull and agreement doesn't lead to new thoughts.
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2012, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 03, 2012, 04:11:22 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 02:07:46 AM
For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.
Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.
Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.
Ok, I just sort of noticed this. As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.
The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.
You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.
Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.
I mean, I get that in theory at least, we should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates. But that doesn't always happen.
And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber. It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama. In my opinion.
Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.
You are free to refine your delivery in any way you want.
I will note, however, that while you may choose to use e-prime (thankfully not to the point of obfuscating your actual message) you are also one of the last people to ever go all hooty-hooty and butthurt if someone tells you that something you said is wrong or doesn't make sense. You are typically a good example of someone who responds to the argument and not to the person.
Alongside myself, of course, as I am known and noted for not flying completely off the fucking handle over a misunderstanding. I am this century's Ralph Waldo Emerson in terms of my composure if not my content.
More people should be like me. Then everything would be awesome, and we'd never argue again. Ever.
Praise be!
But seriously. I should be an Admin. Because I was nothing but fair and rational when made a mod back in 2005.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 03, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Praise be!
But seriously. I should be an Admin. Because I was nothing but fair and rational when made a mod back in 2005.
That was then; this is now. I think you'd be fine as an admin.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2012, 07:33:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 03, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Praise be!
But seriously. I should be an Admin. Because I was nothing but fair and rational when made a mod back in 2005.
That was then; this is now. I think you'd be fine as an admin.
:magick:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 03, 2012, 07:34:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2012, 07:33:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 03, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Praise be!
But seriously. I should be an Admin. Because I was nothing but fair and rational when made a mod back in 2005.
That was then; this is now. I think you'd be fine as an admin.
:magick:
I gotta ask, though...What was really in the secret mods forum? I have always operated under the assumption that it was basically a bunch of trash talking, and that certain members that weren't on the mod staff also had access.
As could be expected, there was a lot of talk about the best way of "helping" (read: meddling), as well as a few discussions of pranks to pull on the board using the mod powers.
And of course, the inevitable "How can we break Roger's iron grip on the rest of the board?"
Also, a fair amount of paranoia, suspicion, and butthurt.
Good times, good times.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 03, 2012, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 03, 2012, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 03, 2012, 04:11:22 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 31, 2011, 02:07:46 AM
For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.
Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.
Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.
Ok, I just sort of noticed this. As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.
The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.
You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.
Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.
I mean, I get that in theory at least, we should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates. But that doesn't always happen.
And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber. It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama. In my opinion.
Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.
You are free to refine your delivery in any way you want.
I will note, however, that while you may choose to use e-prime (thankfully not to the point of obfuscating your actual message) you are also one of the last people to ever go all hooty-hooty and butthurt if someone tells you that something you said is wrong or doesn't make sense. You are typically a good example of someone who responds to the argument and not to the person.
Alongside myself, of course, as I am known and noted for not flying completely off the fucking handle over a misunderstanding. I am this century's Ralph Waldo Emerson in terms of my composure if not my content.
More people should be like me. Then everything would be awesome, and we'd never argue again. Ever.
:lol: