(11-27-2023 04:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I assumed that he DID NOT believe this (again, the opposite of what you keep saying) and that's why the request for the clarification.

You're finally catching on.

For all your denials, Thank you for admitting that you were making an assumption.

I realize you're trying to claim it somehow wasn't what I said it was... but that falls flat/fails to represent what I said.

You said...
'He made a claim that I found somewhat absurd'...

I said from the start that you were arguing in the absurd. I don't know what you THINK about George... I can't read your mind... but I do know that what you ASSUMED is that 'he made a claim that you found somewhat absurd'....

It seems to me that if someone with a reputation for clarity typed something and it sounded absurd to me, that the problem might be in my interpretation. I am not 'demanding' this out of you... but I am suggesting as I have from the start that arguments in the absurd are generally not constructive... and this thread demonstrated precisely why.

(11-27-2023 05:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 04:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I assumed that he DID NOT believe this (again, the opposite of what you keep saying) and that's why the request for the clarification.

You're finally catching on.

For all your denials, Thank you for admitting that you were making an assumption.

I was making an assumption that was directly opposite of the one that you mind-read. I have never denied this.

Quote:

I realize you're trying to claim it somehow wasn't what I said it was... but that falls flat/fails to represent what I said.

You said...
'He made a claim that I found somewhat absurd'...

I said from the start that you were arguing in the absurd. I don't know what you THINK about George... I can't read your mind... but I do know that what you ASSUMED is that 'he made a claim that you found somewhat absurd'....

It seems to me that if someone with a reputation for clarity typed something and it sounded absurd to me, that the problem might be in my interpretation. I am not 'demanding' this out of you... but I am suggesting as I have from the start that arguments in the absurd are generally not constructive... and this thread demonstrated precisely why.

Yeah... so I asked him to clarify rather than assume that he believed the absurd. Seems reasonable to me TBH. Not sure why you have lost the plot over this.

(11-27-2023 05:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yeah... so I asked him to clarify rather than assume that he believed the absurd. Seems reasonable to me TBH. Not sure why you have lost the plot over this.

Let me start with this. I've already said that your interpretation was not without any basis... hence is it not unreasonable per se.... My issue is that it is emblematic of a 'style' of communication that does not lend itself to good outcomes... and while it might be a little more reasonable for you to misunderstand me, George is extremely consistent.... hence why I am using this example, even if it isn't especially egregious.

There is a reason you heard what you heard and I heard what I heard... and the DIFFERENCE is us, not George or his words... because George wrote what he wrote once... and we both read the same words.

Yes, 'what you interpreted' him to say was in conflict with what you have come to expect from him, hence you asked... but still... you obviously had to interpret him FIRST. I pointed out the additional words because I saw that as being 'the difference' in our interpretations. With those words added, the statement meant to me exactly what you heard. Without them, it did not.

Unlike your contention above, it doesn't have anything at all to do with whether you BELIEVED your own interpretation or not... merely that you 'heard' something that I didn't... and by your own admission, that George almost assuredly didn't intend.


My point is... and I am more than willing to try and be better about it myself... but if something sounds absurd on a Rice forum, it probably isn't what the person intended... And even ASKING 'do you really believe this absurd thing I am hearing you say?' given the highly polarizing topic of politics is not generally conducive to good conversation.

Again, this is not an egregious example... at all... there are much more egregious examples I could have used... but this is one where (best I know) the writer and the reader do not have any argumentative predispositions nor animosity towards each other...

When I have used vastly more egregious examples, particularly ones that involve me.... it usually comes down to a 'who did what first' or 'which was worse' situation... and this example avoided all of those trappings.

(11-28-2023 11:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 05:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yeah... so I asked him to clarify rather than assume that he believed the absurd. Seems reasonable to me TBH. Not sure why you have lost the plot over this.

Let me start with this. I've already said that your interpretation was not without any basis... hence is it not unreasonable per se.... My issue is that it is emblematic of a 'style' of communication that does not lend itself to good outcomes... and while it might be a little more reasonable for you to misunderstand me, George is extremely consistent.... hence why I am using this example, even if it isn't especially egregious.

There is a reason you heard what you heard and I heard what I heard... and the DIFFERENCE is us, not George or his words... because George wrote what he wrote once... and we both read the same words.

Yes, 'what you interpreted' him to say was in conflict with what you have come to expect from him, hence you asked... but still... you obviously had to interpret him FIRST. I pointed out the additional words because I saw that as being 'the difference' in our interpretations. With those words added, the statement meant to me exactly what you heard. Without them, it did not.

Unlike your contention above, it doesn't have anything at all to do with whether you BELIEVED your own interpretation or not... merely that you 'heard' something that I didn't... and by your own admission, that George almost assuredly didn't intend.


My point is... and I am more than willing to try and be better about it myself... but if something sounds absurd on a Rice forum, it probably isn't what the person intended... And even ASKING 'do you really believe this absurd thing I am hearing you say?' given the highly polarizing topic of politics is not generally conducive to good conversation.

I understand your point here, but as to the bolded I simply asked George to clarify the comment that he made in a non-confrontational way. Before he had a chance to respond you jumped in with a rant about adding words to make his statement absurd and ended up calling my question to George passive-aggressive. Not generally conducive to good conversation indeed.

(11-28-2023 11:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I understand your point here, but as to the bolded I simply asked George to clarify the comment that he made in a non-confrontational way. Before he had a chance to respond you jumped in with a rant about adding words to make his statement absurd and ended up calling my question to George passive-aggressive. Not generally conducive to good conversation indeed.

I must have removed the comment in an edit, but I quite literally had typed out that I had chosen to use a third party because when I use myself, it almost always devolves into a 'who did what first or which was worse' sort of comment. You couldn't have given a more 'spot on' response to that... and I probably would have as well.

It wasn't a rant to note that you had added words that he didn't say. It was literally an observation about why you were reaching such dissonance. It only perhaps became one when you disagreed/misunderstood/missed my point/choose your adjective with what I was saying. If someone is trying to be clear and that isn't happening, the obvious response is to explain it further/better/again. How is THAT not reasonable (a question you keep asking me)?

As to being passive aggressive... first, I made a point to say that it may not be the exact correct term.... but let me be clear about this because I can already anticipate your objection here....that term is generally defined as expressing negative feelings indirectly...

It was not the question that I was describing as passive aggressive... that absolutely WAS direct... It was the negative interpretation (as opposed to the positive one that I had) that lead to the question that I was describing as indirect and therefore passive aggressive.... coming full circle where the difference is not in what George wrote, but in our interpretations of what he wrote. I saw it in a more positive light consistent with my expectations of George and you saw the exact same words in a more negative one, inconsistent with your expectations of George.

I honestly can't think of a better example of 'expressing negative feelings indirectly' than to go against your own expectations of someone and interpret negativity into their comment.... even if you recognize the inconsistency.

While I get that this has taken a long time to get around, I think this conversation has been productive. Don't think for a moment that I don't see my own guilt in such things... nor do I expect that either of us should always give each other the benefit of the doubt... that is not a reasonable request... but I do think that doing such things more often than we (collectively, not just us) do now would be more constructive and conducive to better conversations.... and using examples that included me or OO was not getting us anywhere.

(11-28-2023 12:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-28-2023 11:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I understand your point here, but as to the bolded I simply asked George to clarify the comment that he made in a non-confrontational way. Before he had a chance to respond you jumped in with a rant about adding words to make his statement absurd and ended up calling my question to George passive-aggressive. Not generally conducive to good conversation indeed.

I must have removed the comment in an edit, but I quite literally had typed out that I had chosen to use a third party because when I use myself, it almost always devolves into a 'who did what first or which was worse' sort of comment. You couldn't have given a more 'spot on' response to that... and I probably would have as well.

It wasn't a rant to note that you had added words that he didn't say. It was literally an observation about why you were reaching such dissonance.

Dude... I was clarifying his statement.

Here is his statement:

"It is refreshing to read an article that places blames for the harms of terrorism where it belongs: on terrorists. For most of the last two decades, it has been an article of faith among leftists that the principal blame for terrorism lies with the terrorists' targets."

I, for one, don't remember ever reading the phrase "article of faith" used in this context. I have never personally used the phrase "arcticle of faith". To me, it sounded like that meant that there is general agreement among leftists that the principal blame for terrorism lies with the terrorists' targets.

1) I wasn't certain what he meant by "article of faith".
2) I thought it unlikely that he believed what I wrote about 9/11 however based on my interpretation of his phrase it could reasonably be deduced that he DID believe it.

So I responded with:

You think that Leftists in general blame 9/11 on the US?

Again, asking for clarification on his statement.

I don't think this is an issue. I don't know why you made it one TBH.

Quote:It only perhaps became one when you disagreed/misunderstood/missed my point/choose your adjective with what I was saying. If someone is trying to be clear and that isn't happening, the obvious response is to explain it further/better/again. How is THAT not reasonable (a question you keep asking me)?

As to being passive aggressive... first, I made a point to say that it may not be the exact correct term.... but let me be clear about this because I can already anticipate your objection here....that term is generally defined as expressing negative feelings indirectly...

Negative feelings? I was asking him to clarify what he wrote!

(11-28-2023 03:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Negative feelings? I was asking him to clarify what he wrote!

This has gotten to the point where I believe that you're just being a troll. This is a negative feeling that I am addressing directly.

You edited my quote, demonstrating precisely what I anticipated to be your objection.... because my VERY NEXT LINE would be responsive to your post...

Quote:It was not the question that I was describing as passive aggressive... that absolutely WAS direct... It was the negative interpretation (as opposed to the positive one that I had) that lead to the question that I was describing as indirect and therefore passive aggressive....

Surely you're not arguing that you asked him to clarify what he wrote before you interpreted it to mean something you found 'absurd'.

Simple, clear English.

(11-28-2023 04:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-28-2023 03:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Negative feelings? I was asking him to clarify what he wrote!

This has gotten to the point where I believe that you're just being a troll. This is a negative feeling that I am addressing directly.

And I believe that you are acting like a pompous Karen when it comes to this exchange. This is also a negative feeling that I am addressing directly.

Quote:You edited my quote, demonstrating precisely what I anticipated to be your objection.... because my VERY NEXT LINE would be responsive to your post...

Quote:It was not the question that I was describing as passive aggressive... that absolutely WAS direct... It was the negative interpretation (as opposed to the positive one that I had) that lead to the question that I was describing as indirect and therefore passive aggressive....

Surely you're not arguing that you asked him to clarify what he wrote before you interpreted it to mean something you found 'absurd'.

Simple, clear English.

I can't even remember what your "positive interpretation" was when it comes to what he wrote.

I stand by my idea that what George wrote made it sound like leftists in general would assign blame to the US for the terrorists actions on 9/11. Instead of assuming the worst of George and telling him that he was crazy for believing that, I assumed better of him and simply asked him to clarify his statement (trying to figure out what he meant by "article of faith" because to me that was the same as saying "in general").

Ham... would you look at this discussion differently if George had wrote, "For most of the last two decades, leftists in general assign the principal blame for terrorism with the terrorists' targets."?

(11-28-2023 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  93:

You are correct that an 'article of faith' for a group means that the idea noted as such an article of faith is generally or very probably believed by those who fall into the group noted.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona...ve%20soon.

Somehow that phrase was overlooked in responses by others talking about subsets or all.

Perhaps because it makes zero difference to the point I am making.,


Look... We can either try and make things better around here or we can continue to let them decline. I chose this comment in large part because unlike almost anyone else who has posted in this thread (including you and certainly me) it did not involve someone who has had much of a history of direct confrontation with the other 'frequent' posters. I have repeatedly said that it was not especially egregious AND that it was not without basis. I therefore didn't think I needed to 'spell out' that basis. So contrary to your claim here, it was NOT 'overlooked'. It was just the best example that came up while I was thinking about it.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the comment means exactly what you thought it meant, but that you somehow needed clarification. Clarification implies that the words are somehow ambiguous.... which you are asserting that they are not. If they are not ambiguous, you would (just as I suggested many posts ago) be seeking confirmation or retraction.

(11-28-2023 04:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  And I believe that you are acting like a pompous Karen when it comes to this exchange. This is also a negative feeling that I am addressing directly.

Ignoring of course that I have other means to do such a thing if I just want to be a pompous Karen.... and I sure as **** wouldn't admit to being part of the problem if that were my purpose.

Quote:

Quote:You edited my quote, demonstrating precisely what I anticipated to be your objection.... because my VERY NEXT LINE would be responsive to your post...

Quote:It was not the question that I was describing as passive aggressive... that absolutely WAS direct... It was the negative interpretation (as opposed to the positive one that I had) that lead to the question that I was describing as indirect and therefore passive aggressive....

Surely you're not arguing that you asked him to clarify what he wrote before you interpreted it to mean something you found 'absurd'.

Simple, clear English.

I can't even remember what your "positive interpretation" was when it comes to what he wrote.

Which of course is the least meaningful part of my comment. It doesn't matter what my interpretation was... I didn't think his comment was absurd.

Quote:[quote]I stand by my idea that what George wrote made it sound like leftists in general would assign blame to the US for the terrorists actions on 9/11. Instead of assuming the worst of George and telling him that he was crazy for believing that, I assumed better of him and simply asked him to clarify his statement (trying to figure out what he meant by "article of faith" because to me that was the same as saying "in general").

This to me is just circuitous arguing.,,, and continues to ignore what you are responding to. Your comment in response to him is not the issue. Yes, you absolutely could have been MUCH more aggressive... and you weren't.

Quote:Ham... would you look at this discussion differently if George had wrote, "For most of the last two decades, leftists in general assign the principal blame for terrorism with the terrorists' targets."?

Absolutely. If someone says 'in general', barring a brain fart (which also sometimes happens to all of us) chances are pretty good that they meant 'in general'. More on this in a minute.... but although you used the above opportunity to insult me (I realize you felt insulted), I note that you didn't challenge the 'why' that I presented. You didn't disagree with me that you were arguing a point that I had already addressed.

As I've said... I didn't read it the way you did... and neither it appears did OO... so despite Mr Webster's contribution above, it IS possible to read what he wrote and not assume the words 'in general'. Note that I have not claimed that I KNOW what George meant... I have only said that he didn't use those words, so I didn't do it for him.

To the 'in general' comment above... and since you asked about changing the words... I will do so as well. The Webster's definition of the word 'all' means something akin to 'every single one'... 'without exception'... but certainly people often say 'all' when they really mean 'almost' or 'functionally' all.... and if my friend or someone I respected said it, I most likely wouldn't feel compelled to seek clarification. If it was instead said by an 'enemy' or someone I didn't respect, I would be more inclined to challenge it... maybe politely... maybe rudely... but the difference there between challenging it at all or not would lie in something OTHER than the words that were written.... and one would lead to a better conversation than the other two.

I suspect every person on this forum has had an HR meeting or 20 over the years where they have been encouraged to 'assume positive intent'.... particularly in emails or other internet conversations. While not exactly what I am suggesting, that is fairly close.

While certainly political discussions can get ugly... and people sometimes intend to say rude things... or have tragically flawed perspectives on some issues... I tend to be rude when I intend to be rude... pretty black and white... and if it's not fairly obvious, I probably didn't mean it that way...... but if someone is expecting to be offended, the chances are pretty good that they will find an opportunity to be so.... regardless of the writers intention.... and just as here, we end up arguing the definitions of words and not the intent.

(11-28-2023 05:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-28-2023 04:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  And I believe that you are acting like a pompous Karen when it comes to this exchange. This is also a negative feeling that I am addressing directly.

Ignoring of course that I have other means to do such a thing if I just want to be a pompous Karen.... and I sure as **** wouldn't admit to being part of the problem if that were my purpose.

Quote:

Quote:You edited my quote, demonstrating precisely what I anticipated to be your objection.... because my VERY NEXT LINE would be responsive to your post...

Quote:It was not the question that I was describing as passive aggressive... that absolutely WAS direct... It was the negative interpretation (as opposed to the positive one that I had) that lead to the question that I was describing as indirect and therefore passive aggressive....

Surely you're not arguing that you asked him to clarify what he wrote before you interpreted it to mean something you found 'absurd'.

Simple, clear English.

I can't even remember what your "positive interpretation" was when it comes to what he wrote.

Which of course is the least meaningful part of my comment. It doesn't matter what my interpretation was... I didn't think his comment was absurd.

Quote:I stand by my idea that what George wrote made it sound like leftists in general would assign blame to the US for the terrorists actions on 9/11. Instead of assuming the worst of George and telling him that he was crazy for believing that, I assumed better of him and simply asked him to clarify his statement (trying to figure out what he meant by "article of faith" because to me that was the same as saying "in general").

This to me is just circuitous arguing.,,, and continues to ignore what you are responding to. Your comment in response to him is not the issue. Yes, you absolutely could have been MUCH more aggressive... and you weren't.

Quote:Ham... would you look at this discussion differently if George had wrote, "For most of the last two decades, leftists in general assign the principal blame for terrorism with the terrorists' targets."?

Absolutely. If someone says 'in general', barring a brain fart (which also sometimes happens to all of us) chances are pretty good that they meant 'in general'. More on this in a minute.... but although you used the above opportunity to insult me (I realize you felt insulted), I note that you didn't challenge the 'why' that I presented. You didn't disagree with me that you were arguing a point that I had already addressed.

I'm surprised that you would approach it differently.

When I read his post, I didn't see much differentiation between what he said:

For most of the last two decades, it has been an article of faith among leftists that the principal blame for terrorism lies with the terrorists' targets.

and this:

For most of the last two decades, leftists in general assign the principal blame for terrorism with the terrorists' targets.

I guess that's the disconnect where you didn't assign the significance to "article of faith" that I did. I wasn't 100% of his intent and that's why I asked him to clarify. Do you find a lot of space between the two statements above?

Quote:As I've said... I didn't read it the way you did... and neither it appears did OO... so despite Mr Webster's contribution above, it IS possible to read what he wrote and not assume the words 'in general'. Note that I have not claimed that I KNOW what George meant... I have only said that he didn't use those words, so I didn't do it for him.

To the 'in general' comment above... and since you asked about changing the words... I will do so as well. The Webster's definition of the word 'all' means something akin to 'every single one'... 'without exception'... but certainly people often say 'all' when they really mean 'almost' or 'functionally' all.... and if my friend or someone I respected said it, I most likely wouldn't feel compelled to seek clarification. If it was instead said by an 'enemy' or someone I didn't respect, I would be more inclined to challenge it... maybe politely... maybe rudely... but the difference there between challenging it at all or not would lie in something OTHER than the words that were written.... and one would lead to a better conversation than the other two.

The difference between "all leftists" and "almost all leftists" seems much less significant to me than the difference of "leftists hold this idea as an article of faith" and "not that many leftists believe this idea".

(11-29-2023 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(11-28-2023 05:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-28-2023 04:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  And I believe that you are acting like a pompous Karen when it comes to this exchange. This is also a negative feeling that I am addressing directly.

Ignoring of course that I have other means to do such a thing if I just want to be a pompous Karen.... and I sure as **** wouldn't admit to being part of the problem if that were my purpose.

Quote:

Quote:You edited my quote, demonstrating precisely what I anticipated to be your objection.... because my VERY NEXT LINE would be responsive to your post...

Quote:It was not the question that I was describing as passive aggressive... that absolutely WAS direct... It was the negative interpretation (as opposed to the positive one that I had) that lead to the question that I was describing as indirect and therefore passive aggressive....

Surely you're not arguing that you asked him to clarify what he wrote before you interpreted it to mean something you found 'absurd'.

Simple, clear English.

I can't even remember what your "positive interpretation" was when it comes to what he wrote.

Which of course is the least meaningful part of my comment. It doesn't matter what my interpretation was... I didn't think his comment was absurd.

Quote:I stand by my idea that what George wrote made it sound like leftists in general would assign blame to the US for the terrorists actions on 9/11. Instead of assuming the worst of George and telling him that he was crazy for believing that, I assumed better of him and simply asked him to clarify his statement (trying to figure out what he meant by "article of faith" because to me that was the same as saying "in general").

This to me is just circuitous arguing.,,, and continues to ignore what you are responding to. Your comment in response to him is not the issue. Yes, you absolutely could have been MUCH more aggressive... and you weren't.

Quote:Ham... would you look at this discussion differently if George had wrote, "For most of the last two decades, leftists in general assign the principal blame for terrorism with the terrorists' targets."?

Absolutely. If someone says 'in general', barring a brain fart (which also sometimes happens to all of us) chances are pretty good that they meant 'in general'. More on this in a minute.... but although you used the above opportunity to insult me (I realize you felt insulted), I note that you didn't challenge the 'why' that I presented. You didn't disagree with me that you were arguing a point that I had already addressed.

I'm surprised that you would approach it differently.

When I read his post, I didn't see much differentiation between what he said:

For most of the last two decades, it has been an article of faith among leftists that the principal blame for terrorism lies with the terrorists' targets.

and this:

For most of the last two decades, leftists in general assign the principal blame for terrorism with the terrorists' targets.

I guess that's the disconnect where you didn't assign the significance to "article of faith" that I did. I wasn't 100% of his intent and that's why I asked him to clarify. Do you find a lot of space between the two statements above?

Enough to lecture people on the issue. Even if the original comment is amazingly benign no matter which way it is sliced.

I guess my previous edit I hit the 'X it out' button or something as it seems to have disappeared, where I have denoted either prong as not really worth a lecture.

Quote:

Quote:As I've said... I didn't read it the way you did... and neither it appears did OO... so despite Mr Webster's contribution above, it IS possible to read what he wrote and not assume the words 'in general'. Note that I have not claimed that I KNOW what George meant... I have only said that he didn't use those words, so I didn't do it for him.

To the 'in general' comment above... and since you asked about changing the words... I will do so as well. The Webster's definition of the word 'all' means something akin to 'every single one'... 'without exception'... but certainly people often say 'all' when they really mean 'almost' or 'functionally' all.... and if my friend or someone I respected said it, I most likely wouldn't feel compelled to seek clarification. If it was instead said by an 'enemy' or someone I didn't respect, I would be more inclined to challenge it... maybe politely... maybe rudely... but the difference there between challenging it at all or not would lie in something OTHER than the words that were written.... and one would lead to a better conversation than the other two.

The difference between "all leftists" and "almost all leftists" seems much less significant to me than the difference of "leftists hold this idea as an article of faith" and "not that many leftists believe this idea".

How dare the words 'in general' are used to rephrase the issue.

(11-29-2023 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm surprised that you would approach it differently.

When I read his post, I didn't see much differentiation between what he said:

For most of the last two decades, it has been an article of faith among leftists that the principal blame for terrorism lies with the terrorists' targets.

and this:

For most of the last two decades, leftists in general assign the principal blame for terrorism with the terrorists' targets.

I guess that's the disconnect where you didn't assign the significance to "article of faith" that I did. I wasn't 100% of his intent and that's why I asked him to clarify. Do you find a lot of space between the two statements above?

Respectfully, you're hitting on what I am talking about, but then stepping away from it.

The real difference doesn't lie in the wording.... it lies in the reading. As in the example of reading 'in general' into Lad's example of 'Republicans are racist' vs choosing not to, that is IMO, mostly a reflection of how we view the writer... or perhaps even grace being given.

If he had said 'in general', then there really isn't a way to NOT read that into it.... but if he didn't, then there is.

I thought the racism example was a good one... but 'Black Lives Matter' is a good one as well.

If someone says that phrase, there are two basic ways to 'hear' it. 1) that like every other life, they matter... which is not confrontational... or 2) that they somehow matter MORE or at least need more attention... which can be.

If I don't know you at all, then I don't know how you may have meant it... but if I know you even a bit, I probably have an idea of how you meant it.

Still, I see three options.

1) choose to seek/promote conversation by hearing and reacting as if they said the former...
2) choose to seek/promote confrontation by hearing and reacting as if they said the latter...
or 3) (which is what you did and thus why it wasn't a great example) to hear the latter, but reacting by giving the person room to step back from it.

If they say ONLY Black Lives Matter, then there really isn't any way to hear anything else.

Quote:The difference between "all leftists" and "almost all leftists" seems much less significant to me than the difference of "leftists hold this idea as an article of faith" and "not that many leftists believe this idea".

I don't connect these as you seem to be.... There isn't a lot of difference between all and almost all... but iirc, the example was just 'leftists'... and I think there can be a meaningful difference between 'leftists' and 'all' or even 'almost all' leftists.

but more... I don't think the two things you see a difference in are NECESSARILY in conflict. As I think OO said... while not many people may believe this idea, to the extent that they do, they come from the left and hold it as an article of faith. No abortion for any reason would be an example of that from the right.

The reasons this example were not great are absolutely correct and noted.... but most 'better' examples lacked some key elements to my point. As I said, they usually devolve into a 'who said what first' or 'which was worse'. This one had some key differences.

Said succinctly... I was using it as an example that we should assume more positive intent on this forum... particularly if the lack of doing so results in what we ourselves define as an absurd outcome. THAT is what made this a good example and why I chose to make it... because what you found to be MOST absurd was not the comment as you understood it... partisans make such comments all the time.... but that someone like George would make it.

Had certain other posters made the same comment, you probably wouldn't have even bothered to ask for confirmation (nor would I).

(11-29-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Enough to lecture people on the issue.

This is an internet forum, not a classroom or courthouse. You are under no obligation to read one single word that you don't want to.... you must make the choice yourself to do so.

I do find it funny though that you seem intent on lecturing me about lecturing you.

Quote:How dare the words 'in general' are used to rephrase the issue.

You use a key word here... You 'rephrase' things. You call internet conversations (especially ones that don't involve you) 'lectures' which of course gives an entirely different, much more negative tone to the conversation.

It seems self-evident that 'rephrasing' someone else's words opens the door to mischaracterizations.... often that reflect more about the reader than the writer.... and 'adding words' is one of the most obvious ways to do that.

An obvious example might be...
OK vs OK, Asshat.

The latter singular added word might accurately reflect the intention of the former, but because they didn't write it, it might not. If the Pope told you OK, I doubt you'd assume that he meant to add 'Asshat'... nor would you likely even seek confirmation... but I suspect there are people from whom you would expect that. It is this disconnect that I have suggested would key one in to making a different choice.

(11-29-2023 11:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-29-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Enough to lecture people on the issue.

This is an internet forum, not a classroom or courthouse. You are under no obligation to read one single word that you don't want to.... you must make the choice yourself to do so.

I do find it funny though that you seem intent on lecturing me about lecturing you.

I am glad to know from the bolded that I am not required to read words here. I believe that I will continue to read the ones I wish, and not to the others. Thank you for the reminder.

By my count you are up to several thousand words telling us *how* 93 thought, and *what* 93 intended, and the big issue between characterizing the vast difference between 'a group having an article of faith', and 'the same group generally believing'.

In short, George's version is the one more problematic, as the issue of 'article of faith' tosses in the concept of 'all' that you seemingly venture into. In short, if one were to take it as a matter of pointed rhetoric, and how we should be more careful -- your comments should be aimed at George for using the 'all must have' connotation.

Instead you decide to aim your comments at 93.

Further, George's even more pointed and acerbic comment -- isnt even pointed and acerbic. Let alone 93's very toned down recharacterization. Neither of them are really worthy of such pointed concern that you seem to wish to make.

So yes, I do find your ongoing stuff rather 'Karen' in nature.

If George has an issue with the recharacterization, George is ably equipped to do so.

Quote:

Quote:How dare the words 'in general' are used to rephrase the issue.

You use a key word here... You 'rephrase' things. You call internet conversations (especially ones that don't involve you) 'lectures' which of course gives an entirely different, much more negative tone to the conversation.

How does the term 'in general' connote a more negative tone than 'article of faith'?

In fact, the term 'in general' washes the pointedness of the original comment, whether done in a querying 'are you saying stuff that implies X', or whether done in a pure 'can you clarify' issue.

And again, none of the two is negative in any aspect. Let alone the more pointed comment by George that seems to be missing from your analysis.

To the boldeds (yes plural) Yes, I can choose not to read. Absolutely. I am not supposed to read *some* subthread? As to the second, yes, how dare I comment on an open to the public thread? I have seen interjections from every person on this board on topics that 'didnt involve them' (yes, you as well Ham, even here when you called down a George -- 93 interaction, funnily) -- now that is an issue? I think you are simply wildly off base in what you are denoting about the George-93 issue, and making a mountain of a molehill as well.

Quote:It seems self-evident that 'rephrasing' someone else's words opens the door to mischaracterizations.... often that reflect more about the reader than the writer.... and 'adding words' is one of the most obvious ways to do that.

And is entirely appropriate when introducing a counterexample. Or for clarification.

It seems inane to ask for clarification, or for denoting a counterexample, when using the requirement is to use the 'exact same words' as the original.

Quote:An obvious example might be...
OK vs OK, Asshat.

It is all dependent on the words introduced. The introduction of 'asshat' doesnt make any attempt to clarify, does it? Nor does it use other wording to find the bounds of an issue, does it?

Quote:The latter singular added word might accurately reflect the intention of the former, but because they didn't write it, it might not. If the Pope told you OK, I doubt you'd assume that he meant to add 'Asshat'... nor would you likely even seek confirmation... but I suspect there are people from whom you would expect that. It is this disconnect that I have suggested would key one in to making a different choice.

I think the example of "OK" vs "OK asshat" is wildly disingenuous as to the issue of the difference of rephrasing 'a group has an article of faith' vs 'a group generally believes'.

(11-29-2023 11:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the example of "OK" vs "OK asshat" is wildly disingenuous as to the issue of the difference of rephrasing 'a group has an article of faith' vs 'a group generally believes'.

Ok




I never once suggested that there is a significant difference between 'a group generally believes' and 'a group has an article of faith'... so that clearly isn't the issue... the 'difference' between those terms.... and since I am the one who brought it up, yes I am the sole arbiter of what issue I am speaking to. But to respond to your comment, if there really is not one bit of difference whatsoever, why rephrase it? You're not even really saving letters... and in the ACTUAL rephrasing that was done, two words were added.

Whether or not this is a good example 'according to Hoyle' doesn't make one damn bit of difference to the idea that 'better' people should think 'better' of others... even those they disagree with... and a BIG indicator of that to me is that if something sounds absurd to you (not just the statement, but that statement coming from that person) then it probably DOESN'T mean (by their intent, not according to Webster's) what you think it means. I'd LIKE for us to move that direction, but I'm not going to do it alone.

FTR, these 'Karen' memes are as dumb as the 'Hamsplaining' or 'lecture' ones. I mean, on some levels I appreciate the straightforwardness of the insults, but it IS the very definition of 'dickish' behavior that I think drags down this forum.

(11-29-2023 12:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-29-2023 11:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the example of "OK" vs "OK asshat" is wildly disingenuous as to the issue of the difference of rephrasing 'a group has an article of faith' vs 'a group generally believes'.

Ok

NOW do you get it?

No, I do not understand the wild importance and issue with the difference between 'a group has an article of faith' vs 'a group generally believes' based on that exemplar.

(11-29-2023 12:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No, I do not understand the wild importance and issue with the difference between 'a group has an article of faith' vs 'a group generally believes' based on that exemplar.

Ok


How about this then....
Please stop pretending that I made such a comparison and demanding that I defend it. That may be what you understand the issue to be, but I have assured you that it is not. 'Wild Importance'?? Who ever suggested that? The only thing REMOTELY important to me here is trying to move us towards more respectful discussions.... and even that isn't 'wildly' important.

If the words were identical, there would be no need to rephrase them. Rephrasing them (if they were not your own words to begin with) represents your understanding... not the speakers actual intent.... regardless of what Webster's says.

Shakespeare quite often spoke of men 'unsheathing their swords'... and only sometimes did it have anything to do with a sword. Not all words are bound by 'definition one'.

(11-29-2023 01:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-29-2023 12:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No, I do not understand the wild importance and issue with the difference between 'a group has an article of faith' vs 'a group generally believes' based on that exemplar.

Ok


How about this then....
Please stop pretending that I made such a comparison and demanding that I defend it. That may be what you understand the issue to be, but I have assured you that it is not. 'Wild Importance'?? Who ever suggested that? The only thing REMOTELY important to me here is trying to move us towards more respectful discussions.... and even that isn't 'wildly' important.

As a moderator you have a thankless job.

But your intervention in this instance was "trying to move us towards more respectful discussions"?!!?!?

Dude... have you seen the stuff people write on the Quad? The fact that you decided to intervene with my response to George is frankly baffling. This is when you felt that tut-tutting a poster for a disrespectful post was necessary? Seriously?

(11-29-2023 02:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Dude... have you seen the stuff people write on the Quad? The fact that you decided to intervene with my response to George is frankly baffling. This is when you felt that tut-tutting a poster for a disrespectful post was necessary? Seriously?

Let's start with this...

This isn't the first time I've made this complaint.... by ANY means... I've made it repeatedly to Lad and Tanq... for more than a year, mostly about misrepresenting me... a subject about which I am 100% the sole arbiter of 'what I meant' and in response I have gotten precisely what I told you I get. That has become a fools errand.

I have sometimes used OO, with similar results. I think you and Lad probably look at OO in similar ways to how Lad and Tanq look at me. The 'expectation' of disagreement often precedes the actual words.... so if something can be understood two ways, they are sometimes predisposed to the 'bad' understanding. That's certainly not just sometimes true of them, but often of all of us... including absolutely me.

It didn't used to be that way on here.

George does not have that relationship with anyone on here that I'm aware of (there was one at one time, but they are gone)... and yet I saw the same pattern.. where words were added to what he said to make a comment that I found fairly benign, to be (IMO) much more aggressive. Maybe he meant it that way; maybe he didn't.. but the best evidence to me that he didn't intend those words is obviously that he didn't use them. Proof of nothing, but this isn't about 'proof'.

It's not as if I've speed-bitched you here about what a dick you were for calling out George... I've just maintained that (or at least it has been my intention to maintain that, maybe I've failed) that MUCH of what gets said on here wouldn't be said in person. Some of it (absolutely nothing in this thread for sure) might get some people a broken jaw if they did.... and that USED to be the difference between this and most other forums. That we knew each other so we spoke more respectfully and did a better job of assuming positive intent, even with strong opposing feelings. I've even noticed that the 'comfort' of anonymity that some have to be bigger dicks than they ever would in public (which for some people is hardly dickish at all, but still) has occasionally spilled over to where personal relationships have ABSOLUTELY been impacted.... and that to me is a tragedy.

I didn't see it as an egregious example, but I saw it as an example.... and I didn't expect significant push-back because the initial issue to me was so straightforward.... akin to someone saying 'this is a problem' and someone else rephrasing that to be 'this is a MASSIVE issue'.... so now we're arguing about how to define 'massive'... or whether there is a meaningful difference between a 'problem' and a 'massive issue'. I honestly expected that you would have agreed that if you remove the words you added, that you would have read it the same way I did.... or at least accepted that as a reasonable interpretation... maybe with some disagreement, but ultimately it would have been 'okay'..... and that isn't the case. I'm not saying you're wrong... I'm just saying that is what I thought would happen. Just like I suspect (now) that you would have expected me to read him just as you did. Instead we went down a different rabbit trail.

This bull**** needs to stop... and as a Mod, it is my job to do it... even though I am absolutely a big part of it. 'Talking' hasn't been working... because I get lectured about 'talking'.... 'not doing it myself for a period' doesn't work either because it doesn't stop anyone else...and I hold responsibility, but zero moral high ground here.... and I only have one other alternative that I can see and for lots of reasons, mostly personal/selfish, that isn't how I want to go...

If people want to engage in this petty BS, then they need to go to the Memphis board. I want this to return to what this was a few years ago... where there was disagreement and even some wild opinions... but people 'respected' each other and their opinions.

and if you say ' Ok, Boomer'... I'm going to kick your ass lol