(11-29-2023 02:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(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'.

Didn't add words. Was trying to clarify what he meant by "article of faith". As Tanq pointed out, it wouldn't make sense in that context to simply copy his phrase verbatim.

Quote: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 understand that. I'm still confused why my response to George became the line in the stand but it is what it is.

Quote: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....

How can I remove the words that I added without simply repeating the phrase that he used? I was trying to understand his post. Not trying to add something to make the post seem silly.

Quote: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.

I wouldn't have expected you to read it as I did. I would have expected everybody to read it as I did. It wasn't a partisan issue.

Quote: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.

There is a ton of petty BS on this board (some of it supplied by me) but this post was not that. But whatever... I understand and agree with your overall point.

(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.

Then I have zero idea why are making such an issue with the rephrase by 93.

Quote:The only thing REMOTELY important to me here is trying to move us towards more respectful discussions.... and even that isn't 'wildly' important.

I think that is a wonderful goal and idea. I fail to see how 93s comments on 'generally' engender any aspect of the topic.

Asking whether George's comments on the 'article of faith' also meant some other issue 'in general' doesnt even approach a first step in being disrespectful.

Quote: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.

'An article of faith' either means an pure belief in the truth of the matter, or a rhetorical flourish to make a point.

93 said explicitly 'he doesnt use the term'. He *used* an alternative form to either clarify since he didnt use it, or used it in the example to clarify that the usage was rhetorical flourish.

It isnt an issue to use alternative language to explore the issue. Somehow for you it is.

Kind of roughly like adding words when exploring the color of an object: One person says it was red. Perfectly okay to ask whether more burgndy, or more bright stop sign. Adding words in those instances allows a reasonable 'counterexample', and also serves to clarify the original issue. Much like whether 'article of faith of a group' really means 'an article of faith' in all its glory, or whether it simply means 'generally speaking'.

Quote: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'.

I fail to see *any* form of an unsheathing of a sword. I think 93s query to be an absolutely honest one that asks the speaker of an unbounded comment to defend that unbounded comment -- a very valid, and very non-antagonistic, query on the bounds of that comment. But seemingly runs afoul of some rule on using differing words.

A very focused point.

Quote:where words were added to what he said to make a comment that I found fairly benign,

Here are the words: "it has been an article of faith among leftists that the principal blame for terrorism lies with the terrorists' targets.""

Fairly benign.... they are actually fairly strong. And indicting. To a full degree.

Quote:to be (IMO) much more aggressive.

Here is the response: "You think that Leftists in general blame 9/11 on the US?"

How is the response 'much more aggressive'? The response is on par with the original comment. And bring up a great counterexample to the broad statement.

I dont see that 'really benign' to much more aggressive' delta there.

Look, I agree, and applaud, the goal to make this a much more respectful place. Absolutely. On the Richeter scale of disrespect, this a half-full garbage truck rumbling down the street after an equally half-full garbage truck preceded it.

I think 93s counter was respectful in nature, and still got to the counterexample very cleanly, and very clearly. If 93s counter is so 'aggressive', then how in the world is an original blanket statement about the article of faith for Leftists so benign in nature?

In a lot of senses, I actually agree with George's direction - much of the Left *does* talk about the blame for terrorist actions lying with their targets. But 93s counter-query sheds light on the very aggressive stance that George himself took in that initial declaration -- in an equal tone.

And as for 'aggressive' -- neither George's nor 93s was anywhere near an issue that would be cause for concern of runaway Kyra Board material.

In retrospect, I absolutely applaud your stated goal above. This doesnt really seem to be an item that is good fodder for the teachable momoent, with all respect.

(11-29-2023 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here are the words: "it has been an article of faith among leftists that the principal blame for terrorism lies with the terrorists' targets.""

...
Here is the response: "You think that Leftists in general blame 9/11 on the US?"

How is the response 'much more aggressive'? The response is on par with the original comment. And bring up a great counterexample to the broad statement.

I dont see that 'really benign' to much more aggressive' delta there.

...

I think 93s counter was respectful in nature, and still got to the counterexample very cleanly, and very clearly. If 93s counter is so 'aggressive', then how in the world is an original blanket statement about the article of faith for Leftists so benign in nature?

In a lot of senses, I actually agree with George's direction - much of the Left *does* talk about the blame for terrorist actions lying with their targets. But 93s counter-query sheds light on the very aggressive stance that George himself took in that initial declaration -- in an equal tone.

And as for 'aggressive' -- neither George's nor 93s was anywhere near an issue that would be cause for concern of runaway Kyra Board material.

In retrospect, I absolutely applaud your stated goal above. This doesnt really seem to be an item that is good fodder for the teachable momoent, with all respect.

For what it's worth, I think Tanq has described my comment and 93's response pretty well. My comment was certainly "full of piss and vinegar", as they say*, to which 93's response was both fair in substance and moderate in tone.

*Ok, I suppose nobody says it anymore but me. I learned it from one of my teachers in high school, and it was an old-fashioned expression even then.

Can we get this thread back to the war in the Middle East, and not the he said/she said as hominems?

I'll start with George.

Although I chose your comment and I appreciate you chiming in... this really wasn't about whether or not that was an accurate representation of your position. It was simply about the potential risks of rephrasing what someone else has said. If the words are obvious then there really isn't a need to rephrase them... and if they are not, then there is SOME risk if you assume.

That's it.

(11-29-2023 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I understand that. I'm still confused why my response to George became the line in the stand but it is what it is.

Never said it was a line in the sand. To say it more bluntly, I honestly thought this would be an easily understood example, since all of the others I've tried have has substantially more angst and personal attachment to it by the parties involved. I didn't see that here, so I thought it would be a great, relatively BENIGN example and discussion

Quote:How can I remove the words that I added without simply repeating the phrase that he used? I was trying to understand his post. Not trying to add something to make the post seem silly.

You're all caught up in personalizing this. Step back from it for a second.... again, its not as if I've been speed-bitching about your comment and how awful it was.

You just asked me a question seeking understanding/clarification by me... and it didn't begin with something akin to 'so are you saying....?' Not that you can't or should never do that... of course it can be reasonable to do so... just that the very act of doing so brings your own assumptions into the equation

you say here that you weren't trying to make it sound silly, but you previously called it (iirc) absurd... so obviously the 'silliness' was already there from your perspective. Maybe it was intended that way, maybe it wasn't... you don't know until GEORGE says so (as he now has).

Quote:I wouldn't have expected you to read it as I did. I would have expected everybody to read it as I did. It wasn't a partisan issue.

That's what I said... but that isn't the case now, is it that everybody read it as you did. I COULD have read it that way but I didn't, because of my relationship with George. Assuming positive intent has nothing to do with 'party', but it's pretty hard to agree that a Republican making a disparaging comment about 'leftists' isn't a potentially partisan issue. Assuming positive intent is not always right. Sometimes people intend to be snarky, as is the case here... but that STILL doesn't make it 'wrong' on an internet forum LIKE THIS ONE (and few are like this one, which is why it matters to me) to do so.

Quote:There is a ton of petty BS on this board (some of it supplied by me) but this post was not that. But whatever... I understand and agree with your overall point.

I agree... but the ones that ARE that petty BS get defended even more aggressively than this did. Perhaps you see my dilemma??

My previous acts to call out the REALLY petty BS get ignored or worse... so I thought I'd call out an example of the same actions, that didn't involve pettiness or ill intent.

(11-29-2023 03:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:How about this then....
Please stop pretending that I made such a comparison and demanding that I defend it.

Then I have zero idea why are making such an issue with the rephrase by 93.

I've answered this many times.... and you obviously understand my point in doing so, though you may not understand why I chose THIS example... but so what? Why do I need to justify to you why I chose this example? You clearly understand my purpose.

But if you really want me to be blunt... I'll do so.

First, 93 doesn't need to defend having added words that COULD have changed the intent of the speaker. As you note, it does not appear that any malice was intended nor was the 'amended' comment egregious. Contrary to the charges here, my purpose was to demonstrate the act of adding words to something someone else said... which can be a problem... and not to 'call someone out for causing a problem by adding words'. The only thing I have been especially insistent on is that he added words that George did not use.

It's not as if I have been scouring the board looking for a great example and FINALLY found this one... I just saw what looked to me like an obvious one that didn't involve me... and also didn't involve people that I know to have a 'history' (George and 93).... nor did I see it as one where anyone might be especially 'invested' in the argument.... and I thought... hey, maybe THIS example which avoids many of the trappings of some previous attempts will work??

My previous attempts to use vastly better examples... especially where I knew EXACTLY what the speaker intended (because I was the speaker) were WORSE than 'not constructive'. Many of them recently involved you (saying this so you know precisely what I'm talking about) and were not just about rephrasing me, but specifically about doing so over my objections... and I repeatedly said that it is the 'over my objections' part that was the big problem... and that has fallen on deaf ears. NOT that you had rephrased me... but that you had rephrased me in a way that I have specifically refuted, yet we were still talking as if your rephrasing was valid. I say this to affirm that it is not about how/why people shouldn't ever rephrase others... but simply that it adds another element to the conversation when you do so... and that element isn't always benign. The ones I complained about previously were not.

I similarly tried to use examples involving OO, where I was less certain about what he may have meant initially... but still saw rephrasing that was 'denied'... and the conversation became all about the rephrasing and the denial and not 'what they really thought'... I have tried being nice/appealing to friendships and kinship on this forum, I have tried returning fire with fire... I have tried 'going away' for a period and 'starting fresh'... I have tried my own examples... I have tried obvious third party examples... I have tried hypotheticals. I have done all I can think of and gotten nowhere... in fact, it has escalated IMO.... so THIS time I tried a less obvious, but also what I THINK is a less 'historical' confrontation that could stand in the way of resolution... by that I mean that unlike you and me and lad and 93 and OO, I am unaware of George and 93 having any 'history' that from my experience, often keeps people from being able to accept their part in escalating, rather than de-escalating a problem.


To THAT point... addressing this to Numbers.... This IS somewhat similar to the War in the Middle East. Of course that has nothing to do with the conversation, I just found it ironic as I typed it.

Quote:

Quote:The only thing REMOTELY important to me here is trying to move us towards more respectful discussions.... and even that isn't 'wildly' important.

I think that is a wonderful goal and idea. I fail to see how 93s comments on 'generally' engender any aspect of the topic.

Asking whether George's comments on the 'article of faith' also meant some other issue 'in general' doesnt even approach a first step in being disrespectful.

Direct confrontation has lead to nothing but escalation. Sometimes you have to get people to agree to 'benign' examples in order to get them to see the disrespectful ones. Most often, people feel JUSTIFIED in (especially intentionally) disrespectful comments, else they wouldn't make them... That has most often been the response to me selecting more obvious examples. As I said long ago, they devolve into 'who started it' or 'who said something worse'. You disagreed with those choices as well.

Quote:It isnt an issue to use alternative language to explore the issue. Somehow for you it is.

Yes it is... absolutely. Some people 'explore the issue' by making people defend things that they didn't say. Whether that was the intention here or not is not the issue... It is the simple fact of recognizing that 'what you understand' is often colored by your own perception of the speaker or the issue... and to me, again as I said... if you say something WITHOUT adding words and it can mean something different than if you ADD the words, then that is a good example of the potential for misrepresentation. YES, if is vastly more obvious and thus a better example if those words change the definitions completely... like adding the word 'not'.... but that wouldn't just be arguing in the absurd, but ignorant.... and not something I would think we would EVER see on a Rice forum. I'm sure not going to wait around for that to happen, with me to read it at all, much less be in the mood and with the time to address it.

Quote:Kind of roughly like adding words when exploring the color of an object: One person says it was red. Perfectly okay to ask whether more burgndy, or more bright stop sign.

Sure... kind of roughly... but not exactly. Though your example is actually even better... And I never said it couldn't ever be done or was de-facto wrong... I simply said that if someone says 'it is red' and you respond with 'You think it is bright stop-sign red?' that you have made a choice that they may or may not have intended. As you note, perhaps they intended burgundy red. Completely benign and reasonable, but STILL an example where your choice impacts the conversation... and while benign here, it doesn't have to be... and politics (comments referencing 'the other party') rarely are.

Again, I'm sorry if I couldn't find the absolute perfect example to point out, but you guys ALL know (because you've all commented on it) that I've been on this for some time now... and because it often involved some form of animosity, not one of you have caught on to my point... even though I've TOLD you before what my point was.

At least this time you all seem to have heard and endorsed my point... you just disagree with my choice of examples. Since my previous examples didn't even get this far, I'd say that's an improvement.

(11-30-2023 09:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Can we get this thread back to the war in the Middle East, and not the he said/she said as hominems?

Respectfully, this is an important discussion, at least for me and what I do will impact all of you. I'm not just acting as a poster here bitching about other people's posts... I'm trying to 'moderate' this forum (including myself) without actually moderating it. There are a LOT of reasons why I don't want to do that... it would dramatically impact my direct involvement in conversations which makes it a chore rather than an outlet for me... and it could potentially impact even more friendships... There are more reasons, but those are the most obvious ones.

To all who might care.... his is a moderated forum... with a hands-off moderator. Spend 5 minutes on the Memphis forum (especially if you knew the 'reported posts' and complaints) and perhaps you might understand why I'm trying this the way I am.

But if you (numbers) have something 'different' to talk about regarding the war then feel free. To me, this is just mostly the same thing I've been hearing about for my entire life. Israel wants security from rockets etc being launched into Israel from Palestine (Or Syria or wherever) so they impose barriers and zones and other things to try and force 'peace' through strength... and Palestinians (reasonably) don't like them doing so... but they don't do anything about the precursor to those actions which are attacks on Israel because somewhere between 10 and 2,000 years ago, Israel did something first.... and then you have players like Iran just wanting to watch some part of the world burn.

This is where we are... This is the path forward. To me 'playing defense' doesn't win territorial wars... and Palestine has a futile, losing hand. The promise of being exalted in Heaven for being a Martyr is not consistent with the God I know, but if that is what their God tells them then why are they not celebrating what Israel is doing? That's not justifying it... it just suggests a disconnect in the logic. As they said in Inglorious Bastards... This man wants to die for his country. Oblige him.

"if you say something WITHOUT adding words and it can mean something different than if you ADD the words,"

I will use 93s comments for *this* issue as the best counterpoint -- "it wouldn't make sense in that context to simply copy his phrase verbatim".

Most people dont have a thin skin about exploring the subtle differences that additional, different, or removal of words can make.

The *rational* response is to say 'I dont agree with the (two three four) added words. Because..."

Or "I didnt say 'burgundy' I said 'red' and here is why I said that...."

Or "You removed [a][a few] word[s], and that impacts the issue."

That rational back and forth allows for (perhaps subtle, perhaps important) differences between the two to be defined.

As in what 93 did with George.

If you want to have a conversation of, perhaps subtle, perhaps critical, differences explored, your thesis of "Dont ever change words, that is aggression" is a game failure out of the box.

In the cases of your added words being the difference between 'OK' and 'OK, *******' as you use as a previous example, I think all of us here can readily ascertain that change as nothing but personal in nature. And I think that the folks here can ascertain the exploration of the edges of the thought system equally well.

(11-30-2023 02:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you want to have a conversation of, perhaps subtle, perhaps critical, differences explored, your thesis of "Dont ever change words, that is aggression" is a game failure out of the box.

Well, I tried.

Obviously despite claiming that you support my goal, it appears that you have zero interest in furthering it.

Here are two quotes just from my last post... they are not the only time I've said these things.

1) First, 93 doesn't need to defend having added words that COULD have changed the intent of the speaker. As you note, it does not appear that any malice was intended nor was the 'amended' comment egregious. Contrary to the charges here, my purpose was to demonstrate the act of adding words to something someone else said... which can be a problem... and not to 'call someone out for causing a problem by adding words'. The only thing I have been especially insistent on is that he added words that George did not use.

2) NOT that you had rephrased me... but that you had rephrased me in a way that I have specifically refuted, yet we were still talking as if your rephrasing was valid. I say this to affirm that it is not about how/why people shouldn't ever rephrase others... but simply that it adds another element to the conversation when you do so... and that element isn't always benign. The ones I complained about previously were not.

I've bolded the portions that are most on point... especially considering I wrote them before you wrote the above... it's pretty spot on.

Quote 2 is essentially what you are still doing here... acting as if I didn't JUST TYPE that I was not saying that 'people shouldn't ever rephrase others', but simply that it adds another element that isn't always benign.

I mean, I don't know how you get 'that is aggression' from 'that isn't always benign'... or 'this is not about how/why people shouldn't ever rephrase others' to mean "Don't ever change words'. It seems self-evident that only someone with thin skin would be concerned about a benign addition... but the changing of words can ALSO be egregious.... and require simply being human.

But mostly, you apparently are assuming negative intent... that I am somehow proscribing behavior. That isn't at all what I have done. I have simply described behavior/responses that IMO more often leads to better conversations vs behavior/responses that more often do not.... and I am seeking some concensus on that

As I said to you perhaps as long as a year ago... If you had any respect for me as a person, you would not presume that I am doing anything more than expressing my opinion that I hope could lead to better conversations.

As a moderator, I DO have other options if what I was trying to do was proscribe it.... which I wouldn't have to convince ANYONE of... I could just do it.... and I have intentionally and to my own detriment, generally declined to do that. If I were thin skinned, why wouldn't I just ban everyone who 'dissed' me??

(11-30-2023 03:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-30-2023 02:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you want to have a conversation of, perhaps subtle, perhaps critical, differences explored, your thesis of "Dont ever change words, that is aggression" is a game failure out of the box.

Well, I tried.

Obviously despite claiming that you support my goal, it appears that you have zero interest in furthering it.

I do support your goal Ham. I just dont think that your lecture to 93 is based on any type of equivalent of the other side of the spectrum that you put forth -- that is the changing of 'OK' to 'OK, asshat'.

I dont think that introducing 'other words' to explore a position to be such an offense that some do. The times I have been mischaracterized, I will typically simply ask where I said something to that level, that is without the allegation that the other person is a chronic mischaracterizer, or a liar as some have put forth.

Others might take a word change, a characterization, a lack of an exact quote, a rephrase, or a query of adding a word as a personal affront. Most dont in that situation.

Quote:Quote 2 is essentially what you are still doing here... acting as if I didn't JUST TYPE that I was not saying that 'people shouldn't ever rephrase others', but simply that it adds another element that isn't always benign.

First, I dont have an edactic (?) memory. Second, your message seems to strongly state that people shouldnt rephrase. My personal apologies if I dont get that down *exactly* as you wish. Thirdly, if you wish to take any such rephrase as somehow personal and non-benign, that is on you.

Quote:It seems self-evident that only someone with thin skin would be concerned about a benign addition...

Yes. yes it does.

Quote:but the changing of words can ALSO be egregious.... and require simply being human.

And the accepting of the changing of words may also be non-personal, and non-egregious. It may be that one person's style of communication doesnt register very well in getting the point across to another *without* the introduction of it being perosnal, or such changes being the construct of a 'liar'.

Quote:But mostly, you apparently are assuming negative intent... that I am somehow proscribing behavior. That isn't at all what I have done. I have simply described behavior/responses that IMO more often leads to better conversations vs behavior/responses that more often do not.... and I am seeking some concensus on that

I assume no intent for the most part.

Quote:As I said to you perhaps as long as a year ago... If you had any respect for me as a person, you would not presume that I am doing anything more than expressing my opinion that I hope could lead to better conversations.

(will readily accept the forthcoming mod ding with the following) -- and when you told me you were going to ban me in light of our past private disagreements, and some public ones that turned into name calling-fests, I have made a studious effort to *not* engage you in any personal attack style. If I have, then my apologies. And I have made a studious effort across the boards in that manner.

To be honest, it came close when you called my expressing *my* opinion directly after yours as 'stop adding words to mine.' And it came close when I explored and tried to clarify a statement of yours with the addition of one other adjective, that you again went on a bender about me changing words, albeit it was a question to you that you could have simply answered 'no, I dont believe that'.

In all honesty, much of your writing style confounds me. It is not clear at times to me.

Maybe that is early onset dementia on my part. Maybe not. But it does get aggravating to constantly be called a 'liar' and a (paraphrase here, to be *absolutely* clear) 'mass mischaracterizer'.

And you do have a penchant from time to time to assume stuff about a writer's intent and thought process. I can point to one with 93 just a few days ago.

You and I had a discussion on this earlier. The subject was my previous belief that you are an abject supporter of Trump. And the related belief on your part that I am nothing but a living breathing embodiment of TDS. At one point one of those discussions became *very* heated -- and since then I have stayed well away from assigning those thoughts to you. Simply because you said they were untrue. Thus, I dont make that comment anymore about you. Because in that instance I fell into my own 'assume someone else's thought process'.

If I am saying anything out of order or offensive here -- apologies. Not trying to stoke the fire.

I am happy to have a level headed discourse. With anyone. I think we are having one right now, to be honest. As to 93, I think you were off base in your lecture to him. For many reasons. I think you were also off base in saying that "George's comments were benign, and 93s were much more aggressive" (again, paraphrase). Truth be told, both were sharp. And both had nothing personal. And neither was more aggressive than the other, from where I stood.

Had there been an escalation, or some issue that seemingly went personal I dont think I would have spoken up. But there really wasnt in either sense.

In short, I wholeheartedly support your effort to make the escalation issue more visible. And even more wholeheartedly support your other prong that I see that personal 'avenues' not germinating into rows.

If this post itself has cut against those goals, then my apologies in advance.

Edited to add:

I want to re-address this comment: "But mostly, you apparently are assuming negative intent... that I am somehow proscribing behavior."

I am assuming zero intent. I am noting your own words and your own stated intent, and imbued with at least a little bit of your own subjective interpretation. Namely these words: "where words were added to what he said to make a comment that I found fairly benign, to be (IMO) much more aggressive."

I think it is fairly straightforward that the only person who characterizes 93s comment in any negative fashion is you. That is asking 'Do you believe leftists believe that the America was at fault for 9/11" is (to you) "much more aggressive".

It seems that the vast majority of the persons here do not view that response as "much more aggressive", not even the author of the original. Is your comment of the 93 statement being "much more aggressive" some indication of *your* negative intent?

From my perspective, George's comment, and 93s were equal to one another. The lesson I took from your targeting of 93 thus seemed to me to be not one of 'dont raise the temperature needlessly' (i.e. OK asshat), but the example seemed to me to fit squarely in the ambit of 'dont rephrase' -- since it seems fairly equivalent across readers (excepting your subjective opinion to the contrary of it being "much more aggressive") that 93's comment did not 'raise the temperature'.

That was my interpretation. And why I noted it as such. No negative intent -- just that your statement that 93s comment being (in your opinion) "much more aggressive" didnt seem to fit the ambit.

(11-30-2023 03:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-30-2023 02:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you want to have a conversation of, perhaps subtle, perhaps critical, differences explored, your thesis of "Dont ever change words, that is aggression" is a game failure out of the box.

Well, I tried.

Obviously despite claiming that you support my goal, it appears that you have zero interest in furthering it.

Here are two quotes just from my last post... they are not the only time I've said these things.

1) First, 93 doesn't need to defend having added words that COULD have changed the intent of the speaker. As you note, it does not appear that any malice was intended nor was the 'amended' comment egregious. Contrary to the charges here, my purpose was to demonstrate the act of adding words to something someone else said... which can be a problem... and not to 'call someone out for causing a problem by adding words'. The only thing I have been especially insistent on is that he added words that George did not use.

I changed the phrase from the one that he used to a more generally understood phrase as a way of clarifying his phrase.

As in "Wait, I'm not sure what you mean here... are you saying this?". Obviously in not so many words.

Quote:2) NOT that you had rephrased me... but that you had rephrased me in a way that I have specifically refuted, yet we were still talking as if your rephrasing was valid. I say this to affirm that it is not about how/why people shouldn't ever rephrase others... but simply that it adds another element to the conversation when you do so... and that element isn't always benign. The ones I complained about previously were not.

I've bolded the portions that are most on point... especially considering I wrote them before you wrote the above... it's pretty spot on.

Quote 2 is essentially what you are still doing here... acting as if I didn't JUST TYPE that I was not saying that 'people shouldn't ever rephrase others', but simply that it adds another element that isn't always benign.

I mean, I don't know how you get 'that is aggression' from 'that isn't always benign'... or 'this is not about how/why people shouldn't ever rephrase others' to mean "Don't ever change words'. It seems self-evident that only someone with thin skin would be concerned about a benign addition... but the changing of words can ALSO be egregious.... and require simply being human.

But mostly, you apparently are assuming negative intent... that I am somehow proscribing behavior. That isn't at all what I have done. I have simply described behavior/responses that IMO more often leads to better conversations vs behavior/responses that more often do not.... and I am seeking some concensus on that

As I said to you perhaps as long as a year ago... If you had any respect for me as a person, you would not presume that I am doing anything more than expressing my opinion that I hope could lead to better conversations.

As a moderator, I DO have other options if what I was trying to do was proscribe it.... which I wouldn't have to convince ANYONE of... I could just do it.... and I have intentionally and to my own detriment, generally declined to do that. If I were thin skinned, why wouldn't I just ban everyone who 'dissed' me??

I understand your point about rephrasing somebody's words to weaponize.

It's pretty clear that's not what I did, which I see now that you are acknowledging.

When you first took me to task for my response to George it definitely felt like you were coming down on me rather than simply using this benign interaction as a general example. Maybe I took it wrong, maybe you didn't express what you were doing that clearly, but that's how it felt at the time.

It's not a big deal. I recognize your point. Being a moderator here must suck. Happy to move forward.

(11-15-2023 10:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You didn’t say it in so many words.

No, I didn't, but you obviously felt free to restate something I said as something I did not say.

Quote:Your contributions to this discussion have been frankly idiotic and you have made multiple ridiculous leaps that defy logic.
I guess as someone who regularly spews hateful ideology here you may recognize it when you see it, so maybe I should take your word for it.

WTF? "Idiotic"? "Ridiculous leaps"? "Hateful ideology"?

Any facts to back up those assertions?

Izzy Jeead terrorist admits to rape, NYT probes Han-aassss's sexual violence
An investigation by The New York Times was published that described in detail how Haaa-naasss weaponized sexual violence on October 7

how "peaceful"....



Leading UK daily features Han-aassss's rape of Israelis on front page of The Times, the United Kingdom's paper of record, featuring shocking testimonies from Israeli victims who were raped by Haaa-naasss terrorists on October 7

Yeah, they just wants to "get along" and "co-exist"...NOT!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opi...1fe1&ei=44