Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » rachel maddow kicks ass (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: rachel maddow kicks ass
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR,

You're going to have to dumb that down for me if you want me to respond, LOL. Or we can just grant that you are correct.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am not all that worried about Tom and Pete. I was mostly just curious. As I said, I think I tend to be more polite online than in person because I have more control. I am utterly transparent in person so anyone with even the slightest bit of sensitivity can see by my face when I think they are an idiot even if I manage to keep from saying that they are.

Like you, I'm extremely transparent in person; no control over my facial responses [Frown]

The difference between us is that I actually respect genuine idiots. Poor bastards just playing with the intellectual hand that God gave them. We should salute them. There but for the grace of Darwin go I. Run, Forrest, Run.

OTOH, I jump on apparent idiocy when it's in text, for tactical reasons.

[ March 14, 2012, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm down for a tour of your town next time I'm around, Pete.

But only if we do it Hangover style--if we don't accidentally pop roofies on a rooftop, and end up needing a good bit of fancy lawyering from you, then I'm gonna leave Las Vegas disappointed.

[Big Grin]

TD wants some extra company, so he should come--now we just need a fourth...

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant,

quote:
ou're going to have to dumb that down for me if you want me to respond, LOL. Or we can just grant that you are correct.
heheh - not really sure what I'm not explaining simply enough.

Psychopaths avoid doing things primarily because they fear punishment and thus the repercussions to themselves. They don't care about the impact on others even when aware of the impact.

Empathatic individuals will avoid doing something because they are concerned how it will impact another individual.

An ignorant person will do something out of lack of awareness of the impact of their actions. Their ignorance could be due to a lack of adequate information in the communication channel they are using or a lack of knowledge/ability to make use of the information. (Ie written communication is more difficult to catch the nuances than in person communication - so someone with difficulty picking up the nuances - or with a predisposition to misinterpret or over emphasis negative aspects in such communication will behave more negatively in writing versus in person).

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR,

I get you now. See, I roll all of those things into the heading of "social repercussions". I think Boots made it clear to me when she stated:

"Grant, I mistook what you meant by social repercussions. I thought you meant only repercussions to one's self."

Though to be honest since she was the one who first used the term "social repercussions", then it was I who misunderstood her rather then she misunderstanding me.

I simply understood "social repercussions" to mean any negative effect that results from a social interaction or resulting in damage that can be termed "social".

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
I'm down for a tour of your town next time I'm around, Pete.

But only if we do it Hangover style--if we don't accidentally pop roofies on a rooftop, and end up needing a good bit of fancy lawyering from you, then I'm gonna leave Las Vegas disappointed.

[Big Grin]

TD wants some extra company, so he should come--now we just need a fourth...

Too bad Eddie Whiteshoes is gone. He's the only Ornerian I recall that had the, um, mental capacity to convincingly play the fourth guy in the hangover.

[ March 14, 2012, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*grin* You malign Lalo more than a bit, y'know. He's all grown up, engaged to a very lovely woman, and a year from getting a law degree from Columbia.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
LR,

I get you now. See, I roll all of those things into the heading of "social repercussions". I think Boots made it clear to me when she stated:

"Grant, I mistook what you meant by social repercussions. I thought you meant only repercussions to one's self."

Though to be honest since she was the one who first used the term "social repercussions", then it was I who misunderstood her rather then she misunderstanding me.

I simply understood "social repercussions" to mean any negative effect that results from a social interaction or resulting in damage that can be termed "social".

And I picked it up from LR so we may have come full circle.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*grin* You malign Lalo more than a bit, y'know. He's all grown up, engaged to a very lovely woman, and a year from getting a law degree from Columbia.

Glad to hear that there's no one quite as dumb as he seemed to be on Ornery. Perhaps it was a language problem?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:

We just need someone to leave passed out on the roof...

...

Re internet fora vs live interpersonal communication: As with all things, there are many variables that impact the difference between cyber-speak and meat-mouthing, it doesn't boil down to one single thing. But aside from the anonymity of an avatar, and the myriad differences between fully-engaged interpersonal communication and text correspondence, there is the big difference of discursive context.

Take a topic: Is there an afterlife?

A forum that encourages spirited debate is a different context for this topic than, say, a lunch discussion with a potential client, or a late night empathy session with an intimate acquaintance whose mother just died.

Something entirely appropriate in one context is wildly inappropriate in another.

And people do perceive the context of an Internet discussion forum differently. One person may be looking for community and empathy, whereas another may be looking for a challenge against which to hone his ideas. Somebody else could be participating for the pure aesthetic value of the literary arts.

And some individual might even slip seamlessly back and forth through all of these discursive contexts, and more.

The issue is that the context one individual creates in his mind at any time for an Internet discussion can be very different from the context in which another individual is engaging--and neither individual is actually wrong, everyone is participating for their own reasons, and the context that maps out the discursive expectations of one individual can be quite different from the context within which another individual perceives the discursive values.

[ March 14, 2012, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps it was a language problem?
No. He was born in New York. And he was never as dumb as you seemed to think he was; he just didn't have any patience for you at all, and you didn't have any for him -- and, of course, he was fifteen years old and hella passionate, which is often indistinguishable from dumb at a distance. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
so it goes.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious, Pete--are you aware that you seem to take things far more personally than anyone else here?

I don't even know who Eddie Whiteshoes is. It's been so long since he posted here, that folks like myself who have only been around for 5 years have never heard of him, and yet you're still taking time to gratuitously insult somebody who was apparently an adolescent when he riled you up.

It's clear that you FEEL personally attacked by others, which is fine--feelings don't need to be rational in order to be valid, but have you noticed that you complain about being personally attacked more than everyone else on the board combined?

Now, maybe this is because the whole world really is out to get you, but alternatively, perhaps you simply have a perception problem...

Ever notice that when you get really heated--when you most seem to feel like others are attacking you--people are constantly having to point out that you are mixing up interlocutors, that you're failing to even parse WHO is saying something. Do you think that there is any possibility that the emotional impediment to accurate parsing extends to WHAT someone is saying as well as WHO is saying it?

Maybe people really aren't always attacking you, even if you do feel attacked...hmm?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And yet other folks on this forum have thought that you were attacking me, SP, when I didn't feel that you were attacking me. [Big Grin] I've never felt you were personally attacking me since we first spoke by phone. Annoying, often, sometimes even stalking in a creepy sort of way, but never personal attack. [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was an evasive response. Sp is trying to ask the same question I was to which you gave a flippant answer.

[ March 14, 2012, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And yet other folks on this forum have thought that you were attacking me, SP, when I didn't feel that you were attacking me.
Well, I'm not actually talking about me, here--although you have accused me on multiple occasions of misrepresenting your position when I wasn't even talking about your personal position. But I indisputably sprinkle personal piquancy like a spice in our food for thought here--seizing things others say and saturating them in a hot-sauce context to hand back on a platter that can only be handled by pachydermal palate, so I'm not the best example here, which is why I've long responded to your allegations of personal impugnment with a wink and an impish grin, reminding you that I'm not attacking you, just wrapping what you've said in ridiculing riddles.

And you know well that I hold you in high esteem, and that I truly appreciate your contributions even when we vehemently disagree, which is a large part of why we're friends in spite of our differences.

But, setting aside you and me, I do frequently see you lash out at others for "attacks" that seemed to exist only in your perception.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen you get dogpiled, and I would agree that there are a couple of posters that seem to go after you out of personal animosity--but you also seem to frequently accuse people of personal attacks when no attack seems to me to have actually been made.

For instance, while I've seen TD snark on you on occasion, and I've personally butted heads with him once or twice for attempts to impose his sense of propriety through "shaming" interlocutors, I've got to tell you, that in my perception, you often do indeed accuse him of attacking you when absolutely no attack appears to have been made.

In fact, you've created a running meme that his assertion of a personal opinion alone is enough to define a position as wrong and full of malice, and I've often seen you seize upon a simple expression of his opinion as proof of a spiteful attack against you.

To my understanding, he seems to represent the embodiment of your perception of a social disrespect for certain aspects of your advocacy. It seems to me that when you feel attacked or criticized in a certain regard, you project the locus of the criticism as deriving from Tom. Even if he hasn't said anything, you associate the experience of feeling attacked with him.

I don't know the whole history of the two of you--and frankly, I don't much care. And maybe you'll dismiss this all as a psychoanalytic attack [Big Grin] , but since you frequently air your perceptions of being personally attacked, I thought that perhaps you might be interested in an outside perspective in response.

From this seat, you're an invaluable contributor to this board, and a personal friend--but you do seem to occasionally feel personally attacked by others, when nobody is actually attacking you.

Just some food for thought--hot-sauce not intended.

[Smile]

[ March 14, 2012, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"For instance, while I've seen TD snark on you on occasion, and I've personally butted heads with him once or twice for attempts to impose his sense of propriety through "shaming" interlocutors, I've got to tell you, that in my perception, you often do indeed accuse him of attacking you when absolutely no attack appears to have been made."

That's probably true. I reckon it probably happens more times than I realize, and less times than you suppose.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's probably true. I reckon it probably happens more times than I realize, and less times than you suppose.
Perhaps. But if it's happening at all, it means that you are misrepresenting someone else.

If you claim that someone is attacking you, or misrepresenting your position, and they are not, it means that you are libeling someone else--potentially causing the entire audience to believe that the person you are accusing is doing something despicable that they are not, in actuality, doing.

And we all know how much misrepresentation bugs folks around here.

Here's the thing, Pete: there is no point in accusing someone of a despicable tactic when you can simply cite their words, and show what they have done. But you often (even usually) accuse others of despicable tactics without even pointing out exactly what you are referring to. So not only can the accused not respond with an apology or retraction, but they can't even defend themselves against the allegation by pointing it out if you happen to be the one who is misunderstanding what is being said.

But since many interlocutors and lurkers don't always follow an entire conversation, your accusations can cause others to assume that someone has been engaging in despicable tactics--even though the audience hasn't seen it, even if it hasn't actually happened. And the people you accuse can't even defend themselves, because you aren't pointing out precisely where they did what you are claiming they've done.

It's a pretty sh*tty tactic, to be honest. It's beneath the guy I personally tend to think you really are. If you really need to call someone out for doing something scorn-worthy, it should come with a citation--"Here's David Tomson saying "X," and here's a demonstration of how this is a misrepresentation of my position/personal attack."

Alleging that someone is engaging in a contemptible tactic IS an attack. If you need to do it, it should come with a demonstration to justify it AND to allow the accused to respond/apologize.

If you can't show it, you shouldn't say it.

[ March 15, 2012, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
That's probably true. I reckon it probably happens more times than I realize, and less times than you suppose.
Perhaps. But if it's happening at all, it means that you are misrepresenting someone else.
When I realize that I've erred in representing someone, I apologize.

You can get off my leg now, because I've stopped reading with that obvious and unnecessary scold.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It might be obvious, but I'd suppose that a lot of people think it needs to be said--and acknowledged.

And part of the point is that you don't always realize when you are misrepresenting others. (Nobody does.)

People cannot respond to accusations if you don't cite and show. I'm not trying to scold you, I'm trying to get you to acknowledge (and hopefully even commit to in good faith) something that I would think everyone would consider pretty reasonable.

I'm sure everyone does this from time to time. But you're the one who started a thread here alleging that others (named and unnamed) are engaging in deplorable tactics without citing the instances for which they are being maligned.

Surely we can all agree that at a bare minimum, the accused should have a right to understand exactly what they are being accused of doing...

[ March 15, 2012, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I feel like I am interrupting the end of a very personal set of conversations, so sorry if I interrupt the flow.

A key point was made above that I have been thinking about for the past six months:

quote:
The issue is that the context one individual creates in his mind at any time for an Internet discussion can be very different from the context in which another individual is engaging--and neither individual is actually wrong, everyone is participating for their own reasons, and the context that maps out the discursive expectations of one individual can be quite different from the context within which another individual perceives the discursive values.
I have found that communication on-line is harder than in person - when I am with people, I believe that I can better understand how they are thinking, and thus be better able to formulate my thoughts so as to address the differences between us. And when you are face-to-face, it's much harder to just stop participating when a conflict in logic begins to emerge. And on-line it is much harder to build up the social capital that is required to address the difficult topics.

One of my thoughts from a few months ago was just to ask others, in the words of the quote above, what was the context of their participation in the discussion? I have found that my preferences are not shared by everyone: I'd like to assume that everyone believes every argument that they are making is true, that they feel a responsibility to acknowledge when they have made a mistake, and (whether it is sincere or fake) they choose to express themselves in a way that appears respectful to others. Those are not the internal ground-rules that all people choose to follow, and even if I don't like it, they have every right to adopt different principles.

I spoke with OSC after a book signing a few months ago, and I mentioned that I participated on Ornery. He said that he felt that this site was something of a disappointment to him - I believe that he was hoping for a context similar to the one that I would like, but that the actual results appeared to him to be quite contrary to his expectations and hopes.

I am a little stuck, but I'd like to think of a better mode of communicating with everyone, which might even imply trying to persuade people to adopt my context. I am not a relativist - I believe that my context is one of the better ones. At the same time, I also recognize that people have many values, and perhaps for some the ability to blow of steam on-line is a net good. I am still not sure how to make this case persuasively... maybe that's why I have not been posting as much as I have in the past as I ponder the question.

[ March 15, 2012, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
It might be obvious, but I'd suppose that a lot of people think it needs to be said--and acknowledged.

But when you say it publically, right after I'd said and acknowledged the same; the unnecessary public repetition comes off as nagging.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
And part of the point is that you don't always realize when you are misrepresenting others. (Nobody does.)

Quite true. But when someone manifests good faith, I'm pretty tolerant of accidental misreps, e.g. with DW.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
People cannot respond to accusations if you don't cite and show.

Not sure what you're accusing me of. Could you cite and show an example?

quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
But you're the one who started a thread here alleging that others (named and unnamed) are engaging in deplorable tactics [b]without citing the instances for which they are being maligned.

I did what?

quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Surely we can all agree that at a bare minimum, the accused should have a right to understand exactly what they are being accused of doing...

Aren't you being a little melodramatic?

Here are the first two posts of the thread, which I think fairly represent what I set out to do. I have tidied up the bad cellular spelling.

quote:
Dear lefties,

I just discovered Rachel Maddow, and consequently have no more need of your explanation for lefty povs. Thank you for your efforts through the years. If [sentence fragment so cell-scrambled that I cannot divine what I was saying], I'll be back in touch. Love and smoochies. PETE.

--------
Look forward to seeing you all again after elections, when brains, consciences, and senses of humor and decency kick in again.

Even through this dark period, my offer of warm hospitality to any current Ornerian going through Las Vegas, remains open. Even you, Tom. [Smile] (that was a non sarcastic smile). Also, my number, email, and facebook remain open.

In other words, I come here for public discussion of the issues. To inform myself, rub shoulders with folks that know stuff that I don't. I come out of here better informed. Generally I get more knowledge hour for hour on this forum, than I get during the same watching a TV news show. Rachel Maddow turns that around. And she doesn't make me endure unsolicited public psychoanalysis as punishment for holding politically correct opinions. She just says her own point of view, offers the facts that support that PoV, and pokes a little humorous fun at opposing views.

I'm probably not going to actually leave the forum. I hang out at Ornery for other reasons. I like a lot of you, even those who often annoy me. But as for giving me the lefty PoV stuff, you've been replaced [Big Grin]

[ March 15, 2012, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not sure what you're accusing me of. Could you cite and show an example?
Well, in this thread, you accused TomD specifically of demanding personal insults in reciprocity for unspecified insults and a clear but (again) unspecified message he has been aiming at you.
quote:
last week you sent a sustained and unequivocal message that you found that peace no longer tolerable.
Never mind the fact that you are speculating that his motive was to provoke you and breach the peace (btw, I'll state again, for the record, that motive speculation is a vital part of communication, the only problem is in instances like this, where you insist that someone's intention was something they deny was intended), the  way you phrase this with the term "sustained" makes it clear that you believe you experienced multiple focused and concerted attacks, but neither Tom nor anybody else seems to know exactly what these attacks were...

You also accused me specifically of intentionally pressing your hot-buttons:
quote:
here, you and SP were playing chopsticks on my well known hot buttons, for several days, and it seemed clear to me that you were not going to let up until I satiated you
I'm personally not sure exactly what you mean, because the unspecified accusation you've been levying at me elsewhere is that I've been deceptively misrepresenting your position (which, by the way, is serendipitously in a thread that shows me repeatedly but futilely asking you to cite and explain how I am misrepresenting you, since I deny that I've done any such thing, and believe that in this specific case, you're talking about my characterization of what someone else has done, and how it has been perceived).

But the overarching point, Pete, is more of a question:  why do you make your sense of being personally attacked the centerpiece of conversation so frequently?  Why is there a constant narrative running about the underhanded attacks your enemies are waging against you?

Wouldn't it be better if this particular topic of discussion just faded from memory, and low-handed tactics were simply addressed directly and exposed for what they are whenever they come up?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
[snip portions of the post which the next paragraph renders redundant]
Wouldn't it be better if this particular topic of discussion just faded from memory, and low-handed tactics were simply addressed directly and exposed for what they are whenever they come up?

My feeling exactly. Wading back to a week ago through Tom's post to find where he was calling me dishonest and, in my eyes, set this off, would do more harm than good. I'll just address it when it comes up again.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:

[Smile]

Excellent.

Now, if you'll go and show please SP's sin of propounding misrepresentation in Hypocrisy, then this particular spirit will dissipate into the sub-pretextual sound of "Who's Down for an Ornery Night on the Town?"

Greg

quote:
He said that he felt that this site was something of a disappointment to him
I've never seen him participate here. I don't know what his hopes for this site entailed, but I wouldn't think he understands much of what this site actually is.
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My sense is that he was hoping for an experiment that would show a broader level of civility, but the ability of some divisive voices to arrive and substantially change the tone was not what he expected. I think that this judgment was independent of his own participation here. I am not sure whether his judgment was based on not seeing the actual level of ethical behavior practiced here under the surface of occasional flaming comments, or whether his expectations were higher than what has actually resulted.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
My sense is that he was hoping for an experiment that would show a broader level of civility, but the ability of some divisive voices to arrive and substantially change the tone was not what he expected. I think that this judgment was independent of his own participation here. I am not sure whether his judgment was based on not seeing the actual level of ethical behavior practiced here under the surface of occasional flaming comments, or whether his expectations were higher than what has actually resulted.

I blame us (and weak moderating). We haven't learned how to play nice, and we push back when the mods try to force us to play nice.

This forum really has become a playground for people who like to argue, which is unfortunate, because it used to be a great place to learn new stuff. (not to say that the arguers didn't use to be here, but there was enough signal to make the noise worthwhile, it's been a while since I've seen a thread that was informative and thought provoking, they tend to devolve into name-calling and retreaded arguments much more quickly now that the people who provided actual content have moved on)

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that it's become narrower in it's openness to factual argument. I don't shy away from expressing my opinion, and I don't think anybody should. Selective fact-picking is par for the course, since we all tend to focus on and respond to certain kinds of information or certain sources. What drives me up a wall is twisted information intended to deceive or proselytize a particular point of view. I won't shy away from exposing that when I see it (and people should skewer me when they think I've done it), and if the poster has a pattern of deception that is also deserving of being called out.

I've been around Ornery for about 7 years and left for long stretches and come back. I remember some excellent posters and excellent threads that I learned a lot from. I agree that the forum has lost a lot more than it has gained over that span of time. It's regrettable, both because it used to be more fun, but also because I don't see many better alternatives out there nowadays.

Lastly, I'm not always right -- I'm sometimes even Wrong, which is my right. That's the way of semi-personal discussion in a public forum. Correct me when you see either my attitude or facts need it, and I'll try to amend what needs it.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg:
quote:
My sense is that he was hoping for an experiment that would show a broader level of civility, but the ability of some divisive voices to arrive and substantially change the tone was not what he expected
I'm not sure how much credibility to assign to your sense of someone else's hope/expectation, but if this really were representative of his desires for the forum, don't you think it's a bit of a pot being disappointed that the kettle is black?

Have you read the material he posts on the front page?

Here's a snippet from the current article:
quote:
Here's the source of the semi-insane foreign policy decisions being muffed again and again by President Obama: He doesn't yet understand that he's President of the United States, and not just the richest member of an intellectual talking society consisting mostly of European snobs and idiots.
He doesn't agree with someone else's policy, so he calls his opponent insane, claims that his opponent doesn't understand what it means to hold the office his opponent holds, and speculates that his opponent views himself only as a rich member of a group of snobbish idiots.

And it's an article--it isn't even slightly justified by dint of the personal tension that attends the interaction of a dialogue with an interlocutor. On top of this, this is from a foreign policy article--OSC is actually way tamer and less divisive in his FP posts than in his social issue advocacy--on domestic issues he whips out the "stupid" and "immoral" paintbrushes to color in his view of his opponents.

I'm personally fine with what he says, and the way he says it, because I'm a realist when it comes to the actuality of discourse. But if OSC is disappointed in the lack of utopian civility of discourse here, he deserves a round of rolling eyes, and someone needs to hand him a mirror, no?

Personally, what I don't understand is the idealistic naïveté that pretends that human communication regarding civil advocacy can magically exist without the tension inherent in diametrically opposed advocacy. Every few months we hear a chorus of disappointment that seems to be based on a failure to accept fundamental discursive realities.

Society's policies impact everyone. Everyone has a different opinion about what policies should be implemented by the group entity. All things desired by all people cannot be satisfied. What effective discourse CAN do is allow conflicting ideas to compete in a public forum. There is no such thing a discourse regarding conflicting ideas that doesn't include the reality of conflict.

Can people address issues and ideas rather than personally attack interlocutors and opponents? Sure. Personally, I tend to think that overall, participants in this forum tend to do much better at this than the guy supplying the material on the front page.

But is there such a thing as an dialectical expression of conflicting ideas that doesn't express conflict? No. It's a contradiction of a tautology. This fantasy needs to be put to bed--everyone knows that Santa Claus won't come until the children are asleep.

And, btw, the fact that conflicting ideas come into conflict here doesn't doesn't mean that informative posts cannot be and are not currently being supplied. Participants are supplying interesting, well-researched information all the time. Just because people aren't standing up to say "I had an incorrect view of this issue, and this discussion has changed my mind/informed me of my error/increased my knowledge and understanding," on a regular basis doesn't mean it isn't happening all the time--this is simply another misapprehension of how human discourse actually works.

Friction produces heat, which can produce glaring light, but noticing a squeaky wheel doesn't justify the dismissal and derogation of the well-oiled functionality of the totality of the whole cart...

Have you seen the rest of the Internet?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Kate:
I am not sure that being polite in person because we are afraid of social repercussions makes us nicer in person. Perhaps just less honest.

I think you are underselling manners here; restraint is not inevitably the same as dishonesty. Taking a few moments to think about what you're about to say, and considering the values, opinions and experiences of the person you are talking to, is a reflective exercise: the opinion you express may be different from what first crossed your mind, but it remains a true opinion. [Smile]
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, she didn't say "dishonest," she said "less honest." As in: more selective about the truths one is willing to express.

Me, I tend to think manners do create a bit of dishonesty:

"I'm doing very well, thanks for asking."

"It was great seeing you, ex-girlfriend, I'll call you so we can catch up."

"What an adorable child."

[Wink]

This isn't necessarily a bad thing in my book of relative morality--in fact I'm on record arguing that dishonesty is a fundamental component in interpersonal interaction of all flavors, which was a very unpopular argument, btw.

[ March 15, 2012, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
sp:
Well, she didn't say "dishonest," she said "less honest." As in: more selective about the truths one is willing to express.

Good point; I misspoke. I should have said "restraint is not inevitably the same as being less honest," which I would also stand by. [Smile]

I agree that manners often require one to avoid stating certain things, but this is not the only thing that happens when one makes an effort to be polite. Consideration, a vital aspect of good manners, is not just about changing what you will say to be more palatable; it's also about re-evaluating what you think to take other perspectives into account and reach more balanced conclusions.

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not sure how much credibility to assign to your sense of someone else's hope/expectation, but if this really were representative of his desires for the forum, don't you think it's a bit of a pot being disappointed that the kettle is black?
That's the odd thing - I find many of his political writings to be outrageous, poorly thought-out and unsubstantiated (including the plot of Empire) - but having heard him talk in person, I find him to be reasonable even when I disagree with him. And the difference is not that the same words are spoken in person, it's that he does not use any of the inappropriate techniques or approaches of his political writing when talking in person. The most outrageous thing he said in person was something to the effect "As a religious person I have to acknowledge that capitalism is fundamentally evil" which was far-left outrageous instead of his usual far -right political outrageousness. It's an interesting question.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jordan:

Not even a little snerk at the "adorable child" deception?

[Big Grin]
quote:
I should have said "restraint is not inevitably the same as being less honest,"
Agreed.
quote:
Consideration, a vital aspect of good manners, is not just about changing what you will say to be more palatable; it's also about re-evaluating what you think to take other perspectives into account and reach more balanced conclusions.
I would think that "consideration," "restraint" and "reevaluation" are interrelated concepts, but they are clearly not the same thing. One might say that restraint allows one space to consider new values, and thus, to establish a new hierarchy of values (perception and expression of fuller truth), but it wouldn't be precise to state that restraint, per se, is what produces a greater expression of "truth."

In general, restraint merely constrains the expression of perceived truth, concealing a conflict between values. It may well lead indirectly in some cases to the revelation of a new synthesis of values, but I would think this is the happy exception, rather than the rule.

In a communicative dynamic, one person's restraint may well provide room for an interlocutor to perceive truths that lack of restraint would have obscured under the noise of conflict, but, again, this is a roundabout mode of linking the expression of greater truth to restraint, per se.

I hope it's clear that I'm not actually arguing against the value of restraint, or of manners--I'm just pointing out that such phenomena do in fact often function to limit the transmission of perceived truth...

[ March 16, 2012, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg:

This thread has already gone several rounds on how some people are far more civil and less divisive in person than in their expressions in the forum.

But if OSC is judging this site a disappointment based on his perception of participants failing to meet his standards in their contributions, then it is indeed his textual contributions here--not his personal demeanor in other contexts--that is relevant to the discussion of those standards for this forum...

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
a valid point
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan:
quote:
Kate:
I am not sure that being polite in person because we are afraid of social repercussions makes us nicer in person. Perhaps just less honest.

I think you are underselling manners here; restraint is not inevitably the same as dishonesty. Taking a few moments to think about what you're about to say, and considering the values, opinions and experiences of the person you are talking to, is a reflective exercise: the opinion you express may be different from what first crossed your mind, but it remains a true opinion. [Smile]
You may not have noticed the exchange about what we mean by "social repercussions". I am not undervaluing manners; I am just not giving people much credit for them when then only reason they do is for fear of social repercussions to themselves.

As for the rest of it, I think that "taking a moment" as you suggest is easier to do in a written forum than it is in person. That should make us more polite on line than we are in person baring all the other things (misunderstanding and so forth) that people have mentioned.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Online communications are completely voluntary, so you have to keep the other person's interest and willingness engaged. Otoh, I don't know you and didn't know you were a woman until recently because this medium is completely impersonal. It's possible that some poster here actually is a dog (I have my suspicions), but I really don't care. I'm polite (when I am) because it suits the subject and the other people i'm taking to, and i'm offensive or rude when that suits the conversation. Irl, i'm much more consistently nicer [Smile] .
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Arf! <oops!>
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not buying it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1