General Statistics
Total Posts: 277081
Total Topics: 4690
Online Today: 28
Online Ever: 127, on March 13, 2007, 12:56:10 PM
Users Online
Totals
Users: 8
Guests: 9
Total: 17
Index Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
Badger Reply #160 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 29, 2008, 08:15:23 AM
Renown: +169/-8
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,548

Swift as a deer, size of a dog, head like a monkey

*snip*
Sinic:  you said that some people have left the forums because of Roder's behavior.  Did they tell you that they talked to Roder about his behavior?

I ask this because a lot of people's reactions to Roder are similar to some people's reactions to me at times.  There are differences, of course, key differences, but there are similarities, and I, for one, would like to know if someone has a problem with me.  I also think that it is only fair that just as I would like to know if someone has a problem with me, but that if anyone had a problem with Roder, or anyone else, that they would make it clear to said person.  Because if someone did have a problem and didn't mention it until they just "popped", that would make it their problem, not mine, not Roder's, not anyone else's.
*snip*

I can answer that.  I'm one of the people in question, sort of.  I've been taking long hiatuses from the forum when I can't stand certain posters any more.  Roder's one of them.  Prior to this conversation he had spent quite some time on my 'do not engage' list and he's back on it.  He can't play nice so I refuse to play with him.

Over the last several years, I've had multiple conversations with Roder (one in this thread!) in which I've said to him, "My problem with you is that when you interact in debate, you come from the position that if people don't agree with you, it's not because their arguments are valid or you've not made your point clearly enough, it's because they are not smart enough to see things your way."

His response is ALWAYS, "You're just misunderstanding me.  You should understand me better and then you wouldn't think that."  My response to that has always been, "And if you're consistently misunderstood, maybe the problem's not other people."

I leave periodically because it's impossible to have a reasonable, intelligent conversation without someone coming in and pissing all over it, then getting snarky when people either ignore him or refute his points.  Roder's certainly not the only person who does it, but he's the only person I never see do anything else.

As to the dissection of my character posted earlier in this thread, I might gently submit that there is a vast difference between my preferred approach of, "You seem to have misunderstood me; let me try to say that in a different way," and "You seem to have misunderstood me.  Why are you so stupid?"
Logged

""We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer
Barefoot Priestess
IridiumFleas Reply #161 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 29, 2008, 11:17:01 PM
Renown: +54/-8
Online Online

Posts: 1,204

Weave the world, dance the puppets, call the muse

Sinic:  ...did you just say that the problem was that people left because the mods weren't doing their job?

Quote
People leaving the forums because of Roder is a symptom and not specifically what was at issue.  What was at issue was him breaking the rules of Debate and getting away with it for far too long.  This should have happened sooner before he started driving people away (I know one person left specifically due to non-enforcement of the rules).

Not directly, but still... ouch.


Badger:  I see your points.  They seem solid.  Thanks for sharing.

Now it would be interesting to see if anyone in the forums had a problem with Roder and didn't bring it up to him... and by didn't bring it up to him, I don't mean, "Well, I didn't like the guy, so I just ignored him."  I mean, "Problem with Roder?  Check.  Let it bother me?  Check.  Discussed both with someone other than Roder?  Check."
Logged

Conversation is nothing more than a friendly game of psychological warfare.

Story of mine:
Moon-Crossed
machiavelli33 Reply #162 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 12:45:33 AM
Game Master

Renown: +48/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,199

Not your typical chinaman.

As to the dissection of my character posted earlier in this thread, I might gently submit that there is a vast difference between my preferred approach of, "You seem to have misunderstood me; let me try to say that in a different way," and "You seem to have misunderstood me.  Why are you so stupid?"

I'm going to shoot for the moon and make an assumption that this was about my post.  If I'm wrong, feel free to black out this entire post from your mind.

The problems I described concerning your attitude in debate and Roder's attitude in debate aren't comparitive.  I wasn't comparing you to Roder, nor stating that you had similar problems in debate as Roder does, simply saying that if problems are to be had with Roder's rather particular debating attitude, then then there's plenty of attention to be directed the other way as well.  Your sass and Roder's forwardness are nothing alike each other.  Its like comparing apples and oranges. 
Its not however, a difference of "understanding individual's method" and "pigheaded child's method" either, as wonderfully simple and easy as that'd make things.  Both attitudes, as far as I'm concerned, are far from ideal to take during a debate.  An attitude of Badger-trademark sass can get under the skin of someone who's trying to be taken seriously.  When couching a serious argument, said sass can come across as petulant, or condescending, and at its worst, just a little rude. 
Its not nearly as forward or direct as insinuations of lack of intelligence or the like, but it certainly doesn't help things.  And this is noticable.  Badger I'm sure you must know this at least a little.  I don't hold it against you, and it'd be far from me to ask you to -stop-.  Especially since if I ever had the gall to do such a presumptuous fucking thing, I'd have to take issue with the attitudes of every other person in the debate forum.
The point is that problems with attitude are everywhere.  And I was chalking up Roder's particular attitude in debate to such a thing.  Everyone contributed to the shitfest, the debate itself even contributed to the shitfest, and by word, no one then ought to be to blame for it.

((also I was being baffled by the fact that in spite of your's and Roder's constant assertions that you were misunderstanding each other earlier, that you were essentially arguing the exact same thing, while believing otherwise...which as far as I know, is something that if left unnoticed can turn ugly))

Evidently though the consensus that its a little more than that.  I personally haven't seen a problem with Roder's attitude, then again I don't spend a whole lot of time in debate.  I've only ever spent time pontificating with him over philosophy, and the only actual debate I had with him involved GM foods, where I started with an argument that General Motors should not try to make food.

In other words, I don't really have anything to add to this whole thing.
Logged

"Wasn't until years later we found out what fag -really- meant."
"-You're- a fag."
"No no...a fag's a cigarette...remember?"
"-You're- a cigarette."

8833_mr._gm.png
fae Reply #163 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 06:04:30 AM
Dancing Jeebas

Renown: +101/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,440

braiiiiiiiiiiiiiiins!

Mach:  I don't know if you realize it, but that's a really insulting post.  FYI.   They were not arguing the same thing.   Were they on the same spectrum?  Yes.  But to say to someone "We're essentially saying the same thing, so why are we arguing?" is very narcissistic and blatantly ignoring the other person's point.
Logged
machiavelli33 Reply #164 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 08:37:01 AM
Game Master

Renown: +48/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,199

Not your typical chinaman.

Maybe I was wrong.  As I saw it, they were both arguing one side of the argument while accusing each other of arguing the other, however, which you must see can be problematic.  I haven't gone back and read it in a while...perhaps I am and was mistaken.

But I still stand by the rest of what I say. 
Logged

"Wasn't until years later we found out what fag -really- meant."
"-You're- a fag."
"No no...a fag's a cigarette...remember?"
"-You're- a cigarette."

8833_mr._gm.png
fae Reply #165 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 09:32:49 AM
Dancing Jeebas

Renown: +101/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,440

braiiiiiiiiiiiiiiins!

They were arguing on the same side of the aisle, but they weren't coming from the same point.   Yes, there was overlap, but there was also dissonance, so to say they were saying the same thing is very insulting to both of them.
Logged
machiavelli33 Reply #166 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 01:06:14 PM
Game Master

Renown: +48/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,199

Not your typical chinaman.

Insulting?  I wasn't aiming to do anything of the sort.  You may be a little mistaken as to my intentions.
Logged

"Wasn't until years later we found out what fag -really- meant."
"-You're- a fag."
"No no...a fag's a cigarette...remember?"
"-You're- a cigarette."

8833_mr._gm.png
Badger Reply #167 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 01:22:49 PM
Renown: +169/-8
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,548

Swift as a deer, size of a dog, head like a monkey

Insulting?  I wasn't aiming to do anything of the sort.  You may be a little mistaken as to my intentions.

She may be mistaken as to your intentions, but she's dead-on as to the effect.
Logged

""We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer
Barefoot Priestess
fae Reply #168 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 01:30:35 PM
Dancing Jeebas

Renown: +101/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,440

braiiiiiiiiiiiiiiins!

I don't ever speak to intentions, because, frankly, I have no way to know them and subscribe fully to the school of thought that says in communication, they don't matter.

I was intending to apply for a job today, but I didn't.  So as far as the company is concerned, my intentions mean nothing.  I could call you a necrophilic puppy raper and INTEND for you to take it as a joke.  If, however, you in fact are a necrophilic puppy raper and feel that my intention was to out you, I can't gainsay that.   Reader reaction = reality for them.   Doesn't matter what you intended to convey, what you did convey is more important.
Logged
machiavelli33 Reply #169 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 01:51:42 PM
Game Master

Renown: +48/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,199

Not your typical chinaman.

She may be mistaken as to your intentions, but she's dead-on as to the effect.

Then please accept my humblest apologies for making such a presumption.

Would that you had told me earlier up front so that I may have had a chance to re-evaluate what I was trying to say and how it was said.

Rather than having to deal with someone else first instead.

Quote
I was intending to apply for a job today, but I didn't.  So as far as the company is concerned, my intentions mean nothing.  I could call you a necrophilic puppy raper and INTEND for you to take it as a joke.  If, however, you in fact are a necrophilic puppy raper and feel that my intention was to out you, I can't gainsay that.   Reader reaction = reality for them.   Doesn't matter what you intended to convey, what you did convey is more important.

I agree.
However if Badger or Roder were truly insulted then I would trust them to be so good as to step forward and tell me so themselves. 
Which Badger has more or less done.  I have realized my mistake and presumption, and I have thus stepped back and offered apologies. 


Again, Badger, all jabs aside, I'm very sorry for the insult, I wasn't trying to do so and I really ought have picked words more carefully or even just read the thing more carefully.  I have never even pretended to be deeply involved in the original topic and that is where I misstepped.  Please forgive me.

...

Aside of all this, however, the rest of what I said yet stands.
Last Edit: July 30, 2008, 01:55:44 PM by machiavelli33 Logged

"Wasn't until years later we found out what fag -really- meant."
"-You're- a fag."
"No no...a fag's a cigarette...remember?"
"-You're- a cigarette."

8833_mr._gm.png
fae Reply #170 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 02:28:43 PM
Dancing Jeebas

Renown: +101/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,440

braiiiiiiiiiiiiiiins!

It's not about being well and truly offended.  If two people have been discussing something for several pages and one of them says to the other "You know, after rereading our conversation I'm forced to admit that our positions are very similar with the exception of x, which you call y.  At this point that's similar enough for me."  However it's phrased, is fine.  For one to say to the other "I don't see why we're debating  this, we're saying the same thing," is insulting because it shows a.) a basic lack of respect for the opponent that they would keep arguing when everyone is clearly in agreement, and b.) a basic lack of comprehension or even attempting to comprehend the other person's point.

To come at it from outside the argument compounds that level of offensiveness, because it says that both sides are morons who can't even see that they're really agreeing with each other.

I know it can look that way from the outside, but even when someone says "Huh, you know I"ve been arguing with you tooth and nail but I now see that when you say x you mean y and why your confused that I've been keeping it up this long" they aren't really saying "we're saying the same thing," rather, they've just gotten tired of a stalemate and are cutting their losses.
Logged
machiavelli33 Reply #171 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted July 30, 2008, 02:50:48 PM
Game Master

Renown: +48/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,199

Not your typical chinaman.

Very well.  I understand.  Thank you.
Logged

"Wasn't until years later we found out what fag -really- meant."
"-You're- a fag."
"No no...a fag's a cigarette...remember?"
"-You're- a cigarette."

8833_mr._gm.png
jabbaciv Reply #172 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted August 10, 2008, 09:28:35 AM
All Klingon in the Pants

Renown: +68/-15
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,288

We can't stop here, this is bat country

From the Democrat Convention schedule

Logged

Don't confuse a position that is both a logically and morally defensible one with dogma.
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." -SCOTUS Justice Kennedy
thedrunkenmonkey Reply #173 in You'll Never Guess Who Voted For FISA Telecomm Immunity — Posted August 14, 2008, 03:17:01 PM

Renown: +110/-14
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,010

Inebriated Simian (Skype: thedrunkenmonkey)

Your MOM is sponsored by AT&T and Genworth.
Logged

You are TOO my monkey.
Index Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
  |  Reply