I'm here. Are you there?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Pæs]

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.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Placid Dingo]

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.

[Pæs]

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.

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.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Drunk. Hppy happy. Shit my nmouth

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

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?

[Pæs]

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).

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

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.

[Pæs]

Seriously, is there a problem? Or a point to this thread?

And the point to the thread was nothing to do with people arguing.

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.

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.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

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."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Seriously, is there a problem? Or a point to this thread?

And the point to the thread was nothing to do with people arguing.

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.

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".

[Pæs]

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.

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?

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.