Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

Jer said:
She can say it, of course. But when she’s proven to be objectively full of shit she should acknowledge it. There’s no inconsistency here, as much as you’d love to find one.
Click to expand...
I didn't see any proof, I just saw you getting riled up because she said a post of yours was came across as sexist. Sometimes people who aren't sexist can say things that are / can be taken as sexist. I know I've made this mistake before. What you did was start attacking her as being "full of shit", when honestly, I agree the post came across as sexist originally, though I now know it wasn't intended to be. The thing is, the original intent is only as important as the way it comes across to the receiver. This is, OBJECTIVELY, how communication works. A message is transmitted, it is picked up by the receiver, it is processed by the receiver, and the receiver makes a response, which often will help whittle down the message to the original intent. It does not start and end at your intent.

Frankly, I don't think Ariana was full of shit, and regardless how you try to quantify it, your constant bulldozing over the points that people make in criticizing you just make it seem like you're digging in rather than admitting that, sometimes, your posts come across in ways you didn't intend them to. You could have just said, "That's not how I intended it to come across, and I'm sorry if it did," and then outlined it. But no, you dug right into the whole shtick of "the sexism only exists inside your head and you don't like me so you went looking for it." I won't accuse you of being sexist because I don't think you are, but your very blunt nature doesn't always land the way you originally intend. Again, communication does not end there.

If you really want to talk about inconsistencies, I could just quote your post and respond with "okay boomer" so that I can hear your rant about people not understanding you're actually Gen X and "boomer" is overused and people are too thin-skinned these days and everyone on here has a weak constitution because they get constantly berated by people who have such "tough skin" that they throw a hissy fit every time their own opinion isn't mirrored in other people (if you're reading this, take a hint), but okay.

God, everyone is too sensitive these days! Why can't I just make my blunt, offensive-sounding posts in peace without people questioning my motives? Cancel culture is just so toxic.

You and Trump have a lot more in common than you think.
 
Diesel 11 said:
I didn't see any proof, I just saw you getting riled up because she said a post of yours was came across as sexist.
Click to expand...
By Ariana’s “logic”, since your comments above are in reference to a comment made by a man and you didn’t explicitly state that you would draw this conclusion regardless of the gender of the subject, I would be justified in calling your comment sexist. Be honest with yourself — if I tried to insist that this comment of yours was sexist, would you think that you had misspoken and apologize to me, or would you think I was drawing a ridiculous conclusion that wasn’t supported by what you said? What if I continued to insist it was sexist after you’d already clarified your position multiple times? You already know the answer.

I’m sorry if you couldn’t see the proof. It’s basic logic. If I say “this ottoman is beige”, it doesn’t imply that I’m saying that anything that isn’t an ottoman must not be beige. That would be an incorrect inference, and that’s very easy to prove to yourself by just adding a beige couch into the same scenario and seeing if the argument holds up.

What riles me up is bad arguments. Not heated ones, but “bad” in the sense of being illogical or poorly constructed. If you want an animated response from me, yes, all you have to do is make a really bad argument, which she did. That has nothing to do with the merit of my counterargument, though.

Diesel 11 said:
What you did was start attacking her as being "full of shit", when honestly, I agree the post came across as sexist originally
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t you characterize it as her attacking me as being sexist, after I’d already clarified the point multiple times and pointed out that her inference was objectively wrong? Again, be honest with yourself — if my role and hers were reversed, you would almost certainly be slamming me for unfairly insisting she was sexist and being too prideful to admit I was wrong.

Why? Because this isn’t about the relative merit of our arguments. Ariana is part of the “nice” tribe and I’m part of the “mean” tribe, so when there’s a conflict, the “nice” people rally around each other and oppose the “mean” people. It doesn’t matter that her argument was objectively flawed or that she was the one casting aspersions — the tribal forces are what appear to matter most here, at least for some.

The funny thing is, regardless of how I respond, the “nice” tribe will paint it in a negative light. If I take apart a bad argument point by point, then I’m a logorrheaic bore who’s wildly overreacting to what was said, and Mosh will eventually show up with the stupendous boredom award. If I offer a short summary response, then I’m glossing over the expertly crafted details of the person’s original comments. And if I turn the other cheek and ignore the nonsense, then it’s taken as implied agreement that the other person’s comments were valid. The content of my argument is irrelevant, I’m just a Bad Person who’s in conflict with a Good Person, so I’m automatically in the wrong. It’s transparent and absurd.

I’ve put you in your place a few times when you’ve made bad arguments. You didn’t like this and you’ve remembered it, so you’re always looking for opportunities to try to get in a potshot, or catch me in some supposed hypocrisy, or try to show that you’re right and I’m wrong so you can act condescendingly, because you want to return the favor and undermine my credibility somehow. But you’re a little too eager to do it, because you’ll try to make those associations when they don’t fit. Someday I’m sure you’ll legitimately catch me in one because I’m only human, but you should at least take a look at your motivations and be honest about them.

Diesel 11 said:
The thing is, the original intent is only as important as the way it comes across to the receiver. This is, OBJECTIVELY, how communication works.
Click to expand...
Totally not true. If the transmitted content is accurate, and a malfunction on the receiving end causes it to be misinterpreted, the transmitter isn’t to blame. Are there things a transmitter could do to make malfunctioning receivers less likely to misinterpret the message? Yes. But that still doesn’t make the transmitter at fault if it doesn’t employ those measures, because it’s the receiver that’s introducing the error.

Diesel 11 said:
your constant bulldozing over the points that people make in criticizing you just make it seem like you're digging in rather than admitting that, sometimes, your posts come across in ways you didn't intend them to.
Click to expand...
If by “bulldozing” you mean quickly showing how they’re objectively invalid, how is that in any way bad or unfair or off-topic?

If someone misinterprets my words based on a mistake in reading comprehension or logic on their end, and not based on a misuse of words on my end, how is that in any way my fault?

Diesel 11 said:
You could have just said, "That's not how I intended it to come across, and I'm sorry if it did," and then outlined it.
Click to expand...
And she could have acknowledged at any point that what I said was in fact not sexist, and that she had made a mistake, and apologized for it. Why aren’t you taking her to task for that when her logic was objectively flawed? What transgression did I commit, exactly, that would merit an apology? Again, the “nice” people get a pass while the “mean” people are assumed to be in the wrong.

Diesel 11 said:
You and Trump have a lot more in common than you think.
Click to expand...
Only one person in this disagreement stated provable falsehoods and refused to waver from them after being shown to be objectively wrong. That’s Trump’s M.O.

And to be clear, I don’t give two shits which tribe people want to put me in, or whether random people think I’m nice or a jerk. I’m comfortable with who I am, and their approval or disapproval is irrelevant. But if you choose to ignore valid arguments and start valuing loyalty over merit, you’re only doing yourself a disservice while putting it on public display.
 
Jer said:
Why? Because this isn’t about the relative merit of our arguments. Ariana is part of the “nice” tribe and I’m part of the “mean” tribe, so when there’s a conflict, the “nice” people rally around each other and oppose the “mean” people. It doesn’t matter that her argument was objectively flawed or that she was the one casting aspersions — the tribal forces are what appear to matter most here, at least for some.
Click to expand...

Okay. If this is really what you feel is happening on this board, why don't we address it? We've had instances in the past when members felt they were singled out and picked on, and that's not a nice thing. Everyone has their own way of responding to it.
I know you're not the sort of guy looking for a solution in which everyone clasps hands and goes singing kumbaya, but if you have a gripe with how you feel treated by the community, let's hear it and see what we can do.
You can also send me a PM if you don't want to do this in public, I promise I'll be discreet, hear you out and not make any assumptions.
 
Perun said:
Okay. If this is really what you feel is happening on this board, why don't we address it?
Click to expand...
It’s basic animalistic human behavior. It’s the anti-intellectualism that’s infecting our politics and allowing the truth to be trumped (pun intended) by team loyalty. It fuels the woke left and the conspiracy theory driven right, where you’re either on the team or you’re an enemy to be pilloried, regardless of what you say.

The only remedy for that nonsense is to put the merit of the argument above team loyalty. Call out your own people when they’re wrong instead of blindly defending them. Acknowledge when people on the other team are right instead of blindly discounting them. That’s a choice that every person needs to make on their own, and there’s no board policy or moderator initiative that would have any impact on the issue.
 
Jer, could it simply be that one of your posts here got interpreted in a way you didn't intend and the reason is because you wrote it in a way that it could be misunderstood? Is it possible, just possible, that this is what happened here and there is nothing else to it?
 
Last edited:
Perun said:
Jer, could it simply be that one of your posts here got interpreted in a way you didn't intend and the reason is because you wrote it in a way that it could be misunderstood?
Click to expand...
Already asked and answered in my previous posts. There wasn’t anything sexist in the words that I wrote. Any misinterpretation wasn’t due to a mistake on my end. So, no.

Perun said:
Is it possible, just possible, that this is what happened here and there is nothing else to it?
Click to expand...
No, because my comment is apparently still the most sexist thing ever posted to this site, despite it not being sexist at all. Perhaps more attention should be paid to that part of the issue rather than trying to assign blame to me. Or if you don’t have the courage to do that, perhaps you should just take Loosey’s advice and drop the subject.
 
Jer said:
No, because my comment is still the most sexist thing ever posted to this site.
Click to expand...

Ah, there we are. You finally admitted it. Now we can close the case.
tenor.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top