People who antagonize others for having alternate forms of political leanings

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the waves roll on

Eh, typos happen. Life goes on. I wanted to check because as you intend, you have an excellent point. To the other, if we consider as written, it would have required some intricate explanation, and if you had pulled it off it would have been one of those genuinely enlightening moments.

But in the context of a syllogism I suggested earlier—

Major Premise: I am a liberal.
Minor Premise: I disagree with a fellow liberal.
Conclusion: Therefore, the conservative argument is the correct one.​

—you have identified exactly the functional question. It is easy enough to reject the simplistic liberal argument, since liberals themselves have rejected it for decades in other applications. But that one rejects the simplistic liberal argument does not automatically mean the conservative argument—essentially a convenient rejection of decades worth of conservative rhetoric—is correct.

And, in terms of this thread, that's the point of poking at people who wave their liberal credentials while pushing fallacious conservative talking points.

If one is (label), and disagrees with a fellow identifier of (label), does that mean the (opposite label) is correct? Hardly. Indeed, the liberal exploitation of the influence argument fails in the Tuscon discussion not only for longstanding liberal rejection of the proposition, but also for its simplicity.

One would expect that in such an issue, the more functional argument would not be to declare that the other side is correct, but to explore the subtleties of the vast territory between the opposing positions and see if there is, in fact, some genuine principle to consider.

To the other, one of our neighbors recently suggested to me, in a conversation not presently on public record, that I might be expecting too much of people. Indeed, the issue at hand in that was different—e.g., one aspect considered was the idea that certain arguments haven't moved for nearly ten years around here, and one would think at some point the rhetoric would evolve—but I believe I would be foolish to restrict that advice to the specific points at hand in that case.

The thing is that even among the people I genuinely dislike in this community, it is, for the most part, very hard to believe or accept that they really are so ignorant/naîve/illiterate/(otherwise of severely diminished intellectual capacity). I mean, sure, there are some exceptions. But of the small handful of people I genuinely dislike, I can only think of one off the top of my head who might actually be so (fill in the blank).

Then again, even that could be irrelevant. Part of my larger concern is my perception of discussion quality, and it seems to me in this context that we invest a hideous amount of energy in a manner of personal disputes that uses the broader issues we undertake as a means of having a go at one another.

Perhaps my larger concerns are futile or irrelevant. I find myself wondering how those concerns relate to the possibility that I expect too much of people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

However, you aren't doing that. If you were to be basing perceptions of others on conduct, you wouldn't be ignoring conduct. Nor would you be ignoring questions that pertain to that your deliberate ignorance of conduct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that yourself? What level of formal education do you have, and what do you do for a living? Are you educated at all beyond high school? What sort of upbringing did you have? Some of your posts from the past indicate that you resent educated professionals.

I wouldn't be surprised if you don't want to answer these questions. A certain demographic out there hates these questions, but they are relevant. Attempts at concealing one's ignorance and small-mindedness through fancy typing only fools those within that same demographic, but I can spot low class a mile away. Anybody can, once you cut through the long-winded bullshit with a laserbeam.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That would depend upon the situation and the evidence. If he made a statement that was clearly untrue and it was obvious that he knew it to be untrue then we could say with certainty that he was being dishonest.

However, how are we to know when he knowingly makes a statement that is untrue versus when he simply makes an error? There's no body language to judge, we don't know much if any of his personal history. Most of the time all you can speak to is the accuracy of the statement itself.

If I see anyone derailing a thread in my jurisdiction with posts regarding the character of another member, I would handle it exactly as I handled the post you are refering to.

 

This and That

Is what myself?

I'm a college dropout, as I've mentioned repeatedly before.

Some. I think, technically, I'm a college sophomore, which isn't saying much after two and a half years at university and some scattered credits through community college.

Middle class, suburban, and psychologically divisive though not physically abusive.

I would have to ask for better clarification; after all, given the respect I have for psychologists and anthropologists, as well as doctors, scientists, and educators, I'm not sure what you're after.

But, to consider one possible approach, consider lawyers. There are some very good, very important lawyers out there making life better for the lot of us. And there are also some shite lawyers making things worse. My respect for a given jurist pertains to his or her juristic conduct. That is, does this person regard the law earnestly and honestly? One can be a good lawyer and a bad spouse, parent, or citizen. Indeed, there are plenty of brilliant specialists in society who are loathsome, even awful people.

Consider, since I have such great respect for psychology, Freud and Jung. The latter went from something akin to having a crush on the former to loathing him. To the one, we all know that Freud himself was somewhat batty, but Jung was downright unethical. It was one thing when he tried ballroom dancing as a therapeutic exercise for psychotic patients, but when he started sleeping with them? And yet, Freud's biggest objection seemed to be aesthetic appeal, at one point acknowledging that what Jung learned was interesting and important, but simultaneously wondering how one could spend large amounts of time with such a strikingly ugly woman.

From my twenty-first century perspective, that's ludicrous.

Reich did some excellent work, but he was so crazy he got himself thrown into jail for inventing an orgasm harvester that didn't work.

Ferenczi? I adore Ferenczi specifically because he's such a lunatic. It is risky to assert a correlation between specialized brilliance and insanity, but the rise of psychoanalysis is fascinating not only for its insights about the mind, but in trying to understand how all of this came about.

There are outliers all over the map of history. Mozart was crazy. Darwin was ... well, not crazy, but, well, he married his cousin, measured his ejaculations, hid his theories from the world until he ran out of options, refused to take a stand on many controversies resulting from other people's applications of natural selection, and eventually filled his house with worms and played the bassoon for them.

And, of course, there are those who do great work, and aren't especially deviant.

And there are those who do inflicting, efficient, maliciously intelligent work.

These are among the noted ranks of history, and we haven't begun accounting for the doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, systems analysts, and so on, who do necessary work, and will not be remembered especially in history. And they, too, can be crazy, or evil, or wonderful, or awful, or whatever.

One must formulate priorities and decide what life teaches. Perhaps I shouldn't say must. One can also simply react and respond. And, of course, there is the great spectrum between. What can I tell you, but that it is a difficult suggestion to understand: That I "resent educated professionals" doesn't tell me enough to know what you're talking about.

Oh, come now. I'm an egomaniac. I adore answering these silly questions.

Oh, I can agree with the statement that they are relevant, but that is so general that we might mean completely opposite things.

Oh, I freely admit my ignorance about many things. To the other, though, there are some things I'm quite certain of.

Perdurabo wrote:

A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not.​

• • •​

See #77. In this case, the deception is, in my opinion, quite apparent. I'm curious if you even see it.

Well, think of it this way: To the one, you argue that people's use of what you consider offensive or insulting is a simplistic issue, such as we saw when you lamented the liberal contempt thread. To the other, though, if there is actually a reason why someone holds that view, you would prohibit them from explaining those reasons.

That, at least, is a conflict that I perceive in the application.

 

I am pretty new to sci forums but in reading several of the posts between Tiassa and Willnever, I thought and do think Tiassa comes across as more educated and intelligent than Willnever. For Willnever to ask for Tiassas' academic credentials seems backwards IMO. Also, Willnever low class statement reeks of elitism and classism and is extremely insulting and low class in its own right!

 

Did he name names earlier than he claims? I confess I didn't read the entire thread. I responded to the OP and then responded to responses to my response...

Discussions of the character of other members is generally off topic at best and also usually veers into what could be reasonably considered to be insults.

I suppose we could start threads in "About the Members" with Topics like, "Is MadAnthonyWayne a Racist?" or "Is Tiassa a Condescending Jerk?" That way such discussion would at least not be off topic, but I'm reasonably certain that such threads would rapidly degenerate into flame wars and would most likely be construed as such from the outset.

Thus the only correct forum for such discussion is, IMO, either the mod forum or PM.

 

Protecting Deception

Well, just reconsider #77 and how the discussion got there.

WillNever: Why are you annoyed that you're being called out on trolling right now?

Tiassa: Ask me again after I've whined about for a month in a thread dedicated to whining about it.

WillNever: Do you feel whined against? Perhaps you should re-evaluate your position on this, if you feel whined against. I never named names in this thread, until people began identifying themselves as possibly applying to it.​

That's the distilled version.

What does #77 mean, then? At first glance, it might even seem incongruous.

It's an attack. Not a horrendous one, or anything like that, but an attack in the specific context of engaging another in a hostile manner.

Life goes on. In and of itself, it doesn't matter much. Except if one examines it beyond the merest simple glance.

You say you read and responded to the OP. That is sufficient.

"I never named names in this thread, until people began identifying themselves as possibly applying to it."​

It's a complete straw man. An imaginary windmill.

You do not need to use names when you quote another person's post. I mean, that's pretty specific, don't you think?

Naming names has nothing to do with it; he called out specific people, and in this particular case, his argument in #77 is, at best, irrelevant. Prima facie, being both an attack and incorrect, one might well be inclined to consider it dishonest.

However, by your standard—

—consideration of whether an argument is honest has no place in the public discussion. After all, the idea of being dishonest is generally viewed as a negative characterization, and one might find it insulting.

But what if it's true?

What if what is generally viewed as a negative characterization, and therefore might be considered insulting, is actually true, and even relevant to the argumentative value of a proposition in a given thread?

The end result is that anyone can lie, or post blatant bigotry, and nobody can say anything about it.

 

Nay, I withheld names from the quotations in order to maintain others' dignity. This thread was meant to address the much larger issue at hand, but instead, you chose to relate it to a personal feud that you had going, despite not being the only person who I quoted. This thread became personal and name-specific starting with this quotation by you:

Source.

 

Feeding Your Ego

The coincidental, accidental (for it could never be intentional, right?) changing of the subject when one treads too close to the heart of it is something we've come to live with, and even expect around here. But that expectation and resignation does not mean people actually accept such arguments.

For instance, the original proposition regarding naming names—

"Do you feel whined against? Perhaps you should re-evaluate your position on this, if you feel whined against. I never named names in this thread, until people began identifying themselves as possibly applying to it."

(#2706017/77)​

—has nothing to do with the current iteration:

"This thread became personal and name-specific starting with this quotation by you ...."

(#2708560/91)​

Do I feel complained about? I suppose I could, since you quoted me directly with your complaint. But even that question on your part was a dodge.

At this point, you have the appearance of grabbing hold of whatever you can find within arm's reach and blindly flinging it at people.

But what does naming names have to do with whether or not one feels targeted by a given thread? One need not name names, as you have amply demonstrated with the topic post.

Your responses have become, of late, angry non-sequiturs. It seems you're pursuing some arcane point tally in lieu of actually making a useful argument. That only works, I think, if other people's egos are as delicate as yours.

Quite clearly, the label you profess is that important to you. Of all the insults floating around this place, who ever would have thought that "conservative" would be so potent?

 

Can you provide an example of an "angry non-sequitur?" Please make sure to emphasize where the "anger" is noted. Currently, I think that is an emotion that you are projecting.

Mislabeling people is undesirable in almost all circumstances. That you do so intentionally signifies that you've morped into a troll over the years. That's a far worse label than being a "conservative with mostly liberal values" or whatever contradictory term you're trying to utilize.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Still measuring

Seriously? Have you missed these recent posts in the discussion?

Anyway, your continuing response pattern of accusation is where the anger is apparent. I mean, really, just think about it for a minute.

#73? Your response to inquiry (of another) is accusation, including:

"Why are you annoyed that you're being called out on trolling right now?"​

In truth, I'm not. That was kind of my point when I told you, "Ask me again after I've whined about for a month in a thread dedicated to whining about it."

No, really. Think about it. A conservative calls me a troll? Oh, for heaven's sake. If that's the worst thing that happens today, I could probably not only believe in God but also accept that He loves me specifically.

Which, of course, brings us to the infamous #77:

"Do you feel whined against? Perhaps you should re-evaluate your position on this, if you feel whined against. I never named names in this thread, until people began identifying themselves as possibly applying to it."​

To borrow a line: What does that even mean?

Because as it appears, it's a complete non-sequitur. A change of subject. An accusation. I think it was while you were on vacation for your ... uh ... "liberal" outbursts ... that the discussion threatened to do the unthinkable—get interesting.

I even tried a very cooperative response to your continued belligerence, but you skipped over it in order to formulate a new accusation by asserting yet another context to draw attention away from the former.

I even explained to you specifically what I was looking at, including the disconnection (née non-sequitur) between the original and current iterations.

And yet you ask for what you already have, in order to accuse.

And that's the thing.

A liberal would have caught on by now.

 

We should perhaps coin some term like "paleoliberal," in analogy to the conservative entymology, to refer to self-described "liberals" whose politics have been left behind by the march of time...

 

This accusation? It seems valid to me. This thread is meant to address an issue instead of a behavior. However, you have made it about your behavior. That is either because you wanted the attention or because you overidentified with the issue the thread is supposed to discuss.

However, this thread is not designed to indulge your sensitivities. It uses you as an example but withholds your name in order to preserve your dignity as a user of the forum. Your insistence on posting about yourself or about me leads me to think that you are trying to distract from the issue because it describes a behavior that you wish to continue exhibiting, even though that behavior degrades sciforums. That is not a positive thing.

 

I have to agree with you quinnsong. I would also say Willnever's post reeks of insecurity.

 

I would also suggest that your post reeks of anklebiting because you feel the OP has targeted some of your behavior, which you have previously apologized for.

This thread is meant to discuss an issue, not any single person. Henceforth, if you don't have anything to contribute that relates strictly to the issue, then you should probably excuse yourself from the thread. If no one can behave by doing that, then I'll just make a new one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Darn, I love a good bitchfest!

 

Bump.