|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:42:18 GMT -5
yeah it was! No way! ......Surely not in the same sense of the mocking and disrespect that's at the crux of this whole issue? If so, The very fact that you would place Quinn's words there in the same category as the 'mocking' that has been pointed out here as being unnecessary and inappropriate, says much. There is a point, and the line is really not so fine at all, where speaking in slight jest, with light sarcasm or joking, crosses the line into outright mockery. I find it interesting that it seems to be the worst perpetrators of the outright mockery here that seem to have the greatest difficult in deciphering where that line crosses over. Here you seem to want to shift the focus away from Reefs' simple observation that Quinn had mocked him toward a larger discussion about mocking in general. Now you deny having any interest in seeing this behavior stop, in the same breath as you attempt to steer the conversation in a direction toward the topic. To me this seems conflicted at best and possibly even disingenuous, but only you can say for sure on that second point. Do you want to see the mocking stop or don't you?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:44:00 GMT -5
When one is unable to recognize their own inherent self-contradiction, even as they go on forcefully re-expressing it for pages at a time, it invites satire. YOu saw 'mocking, poking or jeering' in my post? No.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 15:45:40 GMT -5
There are examples to be found of of myself and Fig is side-dialogue of course, but the number of side dialogues that we have had, compared to the number that you, Reefs and Enigma have been involved in, is ridiculously few. And even when we have had them, the exchange is normally limited to one message. Its not often that I engage in side-dialogue with anyone, its not something I lean towards and that's because I have experienced what its like to be talked about, and its a bit of a pain. So I will tend to towards hitting the 'like' button rather than do the side dialogue. This text is you creating a positive image of yourself and figgles and a negative image of others, and at that, it's not completely accurate. Here, I'll counter this image with a different one: Your image might seem accurate to someone who doesn't take the time to read every post in every megathread (and especially if they judge the content based on emotion and feeling), and there are a number of reasons for that. One of the ones that I highlighted recently is your's and figgles propensity to align yourself with words and phrases that evoke positive feelings, like "love" and "joy" and "releasing attachment" and then express a complex conceptual structure around them that is in opposition to the ideas expressed by others, whom you are usually busy characterizing negatively at the same time. When that conceptual structure is challenged, the challengers have no choice but to literally assume the role of kill-joys. Yes, I created a positive image of us, and a negative image of you, and I can acknowledge that it may come with some ego/self-image. Does that mean I should have not challenged what you said (and the picture you painted)? What I said was accurate though. I would say there is definitely a time and a place for a 'kill joy' role, but what I challenge is the falsity of the conceptual structure of the challengers. For example, the idea that joy and attachment go hand in hand. Or that joy and misery go hand in hand. Or that joy is solely a dualistic mind state.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:45:59 GMT -5
Now that you're conscious of it, will you continue to criticize the practice when others make you the subject of it? To be clear, I have no issues with you and figgles having a side dialog about what I've written, even when it gets unflattering. If that's what you want to write, that's what you want to write. When I used the terms 'side-dialogue' that's not what I was referring to. I'm referring to the explicit identification of someone who is not part of the dialogue, and that person is then referred to in a mocking, jeering manner, perhaps even with a term that's been coined by one and jointly agreed upon to specifically refer to the ideas the subject of the mocking has put forth (Andrewism, figandrewism 101, etc. ) You mean, like "fundamentalism", or "stuck"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 15:48:15 GMT -5
No way! ......Surely not in the same sense of the mocking and disrespect that's at the crux of this whole issue? If so, The very fact that you would place Quinn's words there in the same category as the 'mocking' that has been pointed out here as being unnecessary and inappropriate, says much. There is a point, and the line is really not so fine at all, where speaking in slight jest, with light sarcasm or joking, crosses the line into outright mockery. I find it interesting that it seems to be the worst perpetrators of the outright mockery here that seem to have the greatest difficult in deciphering where that line crosses over. Here you seem to want to shift the focus away from Reefs' simple observation that Quinn had mocked him toward a larger discussion about mocking in general. Now you deny having any interest in seeing this behavior stop, in the same breath as you attempt to steer the conversation in a direction toward the topic. To me this seems conflicted at best and possibly even disingenuous, but only you can say for sure on that second point. Do you want to see the mocking stop or don't you? To be honest Laffy, looking right now, whether it stops or continues, I really don't have a strong sense of wanting there either way....what I want most, is for those who engage in that behavior to take a real honest look at the 'whys' behind it, and to discuss that. That's what really interests me...what's behind the behavior of being nasty to someone who does not see things in exactly the same way as you do..?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 19, 2014 15:48:54 GMT -5
When I used the terms 'side-dialogue' that's not what I was referring to. I'm referring to the explicit identification of someone who is not part of the dialogue, and that person is then referred to in a mocking, jeering manner, perhaps even with a term that's been coined by one and jointly agreed upon to specifically refer to the ideas the subject of the mocking has put forth (Andrewism, figandrewism 101, etc. ) You mean, like "fundamentalism", or "stuck"? I'd like to say that using someone's proper name in that manner is far more personal than just a regular word like fundamentalism and stuck. shee.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:49:48 GMT -5
This text is you creating a positive image of yourself and figgles and a negative image of others, and at that, it's not completely accurate. Here, I'll counter this image with a different one: Your image might seem accurate to someone who doesn't take the time to read every post in every megathread (and especially if they judge the content based on emotion and feeling), and there are a number of reasons for that. One of the ones that I highlighted recently is your's and figgles propensity to align yourself with words and phrases that evoke positive feelings, like "love" and "joy" and "releasing attachment" and then express a complex conceptual structure around them that is in opposition to the ideas expressed by others, whom you are usually busy characterizing negatively at the same time. When that conceptual structure is challenged, the challengers have no choice but to literally assume the role of kill-joys. Yes, I created a positive image of us, and a negative image of you, and I can acknowledge that it may come with some ego/self-image. Does that mean I should have not challenged what you said? What I said was accurate though. Can you challenge without that sort of personal disparagement? If you don't, why should the mockers put aside the cartoons? Accuracy is a matter of opinion. Here's another image: You and figgles put an awful lot of energy into writing elaborate descriptions of others in support of the opinions that you express, and rather than match that energy, one valid response to it is to make a joke about it. I would say there is definitely a time and a place for a 'kill joy' role, but what I challenge is the falsity of the conceptual structure of the challengers. For example, the idea that joy and attachment go hand in hand. Or that joy and misery go hand in hand. Or that joy is solely a dualistic mind state. You're just highlighting what I pointed out to you about how you set-up your debating partner to be the kill-joy.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 19, 2014 15:50:18 GMT -5
fundamentalism or liberalism is only 'offensive' to those who are overzealous -- which proves it doesn't pay to talk about religion or politics!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 15:50:41 GMT -5
When I used the terms 'side-dialogue' that's not what I was referring to. I'm referring to the explicit identification of someone who is not part of the dialogue, and that person is then referred to in a mocking, jeering manner, perhaps even with a term that's been coined by one and jointly agreed upon to specifically refer to the ideas the subject of the mocking has put forth (Andrewism, figandrewism 101, etc. ) You mean, like "fundamentalism", or "stuck"? As I see it, those terms do not mock. They seriously describe without poking fun at, or ridiculing the ideas put forth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:54:11 GMT -5
Here you seem to want to shift the focus away from Reefs' simple observation that Quinn had mocked him toward a larger discussion about mocking in general. Now you deny having any interest in seeing this behavior stop, in the same breath as you attempt to steer the conversation in a direction toward the topic. To me this seems conflicted at best and possibly even disingenuous, but only you can say for sure on that second point. Do you want to see the mocking stop or don't you? To be honest Laffy, looking right now, whether it stops or continues, I really don't have a strong sense of wanting there either way....what I want most, is for those who engage in that behavior to take a real honest look at the 'whys' behind it, and to discuss that. That's what really interests me...what's behind the behavior of being nasty to someone who does not see things in exactly the same way as you do..? There is a dissonance between you disclaiming any desire for it to stop on one hand, and the fact that you often bring the discussion back to the point, such as right here -- it's also another example of you putting yourself in a positive light while putting others in a negative.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 15:54:57 GMT -5
Yes, I created a positive image of us, and a negative image of you, and I can acknowledge that it may come with some ego/self-image. Does that mean I should have not challenged what you said? What I said was accurate though. Can you challenge without that sort of personal disparagement? If you don't, why should the mockers put aside the cartoons? Accuracy is a matter of opinion. Here's another image: You and figgles put an awful lot of energy into writing elaborate descriptions of others in support of the opinions that you express, and rather than match that energy, one valid response to it is to make a joke about it. I would say there is definitely a time and a place for a 'kill joy' role, but what I challenge is the falsity of the conceptual structure of the challengers. For example, the idea that joy and attachment go hand in hand. Or that joy and misery go hand in hand. Or that joy is solely a dualistic mind state. You're just highlighting what I pointed out to you about how you set-up your debating partner to be the kill-joy. What I said was accurate. The statistical difference would be enormous. I am fine with what I said, I don't believe that the personal disparagement was strong, and was basically pitched at the level that you began with. Like I said, I don't see the kill joy role as necessarily a problem if the conceptual structure is unproblematic i.e the role is fine in certain situations.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 15:56:16 GMT -5
To be honest Laffy, looking right now, whether it stops or continues, I really don't have a strong sense of wanting there either way....what I want most, is for those who engage in that behavior to take a real honest look at the 'whys' behind it, and to discuss that. That's what really interests me...what's behind the behavior of being nasty to someone who does not see things in exactly the same way as you do..? There is a dissonance between you disclaiming any desire for it to stop on one hand, and the fact that you often bring the discussion back to the point, such as right here -- it's also another example of you putting yourself in a positive light while putting others in a negative. Which you are also doing in saying that Fig is putting herself in a positive light whole putting others in a negative light. You see your self-contradiction, right?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:56:47 GMT -5
You mean, like "fundamentalism", or "stuck"? As I see it, those terms do not mock. They seriously describe without poking fun at, or ridiculing the ideas put forth. Only if you believe the images that you create, and the fact is that you ignore the deconstruction of them. When you do that, it's actually quite humorous.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 15:57:57 GMT -5
Can you challenge without that sort of personal disparagement? If you don't, why should the mockers put aside the cartoons? Accuracy is a matter of opinion. Here's another image: You and figgles put an awful lot of energy into writing elaborate descriptions of others in support of the opinions that you express, and rather than match that energy, one valid response to it is to make a joke about it. You're just highlighting what I pointed out to you about how you set-up your debating partner to be the kill-joy. What I said was accurate. The statistical difference would be enormous. I am fine with what I said, I don't believe that the personal disparagement was strong, and was basically pitched at the level that you began with. Like I said, I don't see the kill joy role as necessarily a problem if the conceptual structure is unproblematic i.e the role is fine in certain situations. This is an example of that repetition that takes the form of a sort of endless affirmation. It's a form of propaganda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 15:58:40 GMT -5
To be honest Laffy, looking right now, whether it stops or continues, I really don't have a strong sense of wanting there either way... .what I want most, is for those who engage in that behavior to take a real honest look at the 'whys' behind it, and to discuss that. That's what really interests me...what's behind the behavior of being nasty to someone who does not see things in exactly the same way as you do..? There is a dissonance between you disclaiming any desire for it to stop on one hand, and the fact that you often bring the discussion back to the point, such as right here -- it's also another example of you putting yourself in a positive light while putting others in a negative. Where's the dissonance? I explained why I'm talking about it: "what I want most, is for those who engage in that behavior to take a real honest look at the 'whys' behind it, and to discuss that." As far as putting myself in a positive light while putting others in a negative, that may be happening, but its far from being my focus.
|
|