posted
*groan* Can't we just ignore this guy? I think we should start posting warning labels on threads that involve Chad. And just when I was feeling better about Hatrack, too.
posted
Oh that makes it ok then. So you admit you were wrong, but want me to point it out again?
Maybe read Kath's responses...Or maybe Your "whiney" response, or maybe some of the others....
Listen Snarky, how about the fact that you continue to derail Amka's thread and turn it into a Chad questioning because you can't understand the posts after they've been explained NUMEROUS times.
Show Amka some respect and post on topic.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it was nice deflecting all your attacks for the day. I actually got alot of work done while doing so (didn't have to think too hard to explain the same thing over, and over, and over, etc.).
posted
Chad, perhaps it may not yet have dawned on you that Amka may not want you to pose as a stalwart defender of her reputation, for many remarkably good reasons. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, it was nice deflecting all your attacks for the day. I actually got alot of work done while doing so (didn't have to think to hard to explain the same thing over, and over, and over, etc.).
Here's a hint - if you're saying the same thing over and over in response to others' posts, you might want to at least consider that you're missing the point of those points.
posted
He loves it - he loves the attention. I think most of the people here are bored, and we're too polite to argue with each other. Either that, or we've all heard the same arguments a million times and it's fun to have a new matador waving a flag.
posted
While Chad may very well fit in at ornery, I strongly encourage him not to show up. Far too many of our worst problems over there have trickled over from hatrack, some, I suspect, because they've been told they would fit in better over there....
Its rude. Stop trying to send the hatrack problems to ornery. We don't want them THERE anymore then you want them here. Shoving people out your front door, and telling them to go bother the neighbors, is just plain rude.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to derail this terribly fascinating derailment, but I saw something I wanted to comment on. Back on the first page, Icarus mentioned something that is basically a restatement of one of my favorite gripes about debate and disagreement.
My version of the gripe is that I find it unbearably frustrating when someone's argument for their position is made in such a way as to imply that anyone holding an opposing view must be either stupid, dishonest, or just plain evil. People do this in a number of ways, from accusing the opposition (shotgun fashion) of nefarious motive, to simply expressing their inability to comprehend how anyone could hold a particular view.
I have found that it is easiest to detect this deplorable tactic when it is used by someone who disagrees with you, placing you within the category of dolts, liars or fiends. When the tactic is used by someone with whom you basically agree, it is more subtle.
In my case, I tend to agree with most of the points OSC makes in his essays. Even when I don't, I often find his arguments persuasive. But I do notice that he has a bad habit of resorting to this, my least favorite debate tactic, with dismaying frequency. Since I agree with his basic points, I find that the blameworthy passages, though annoying, tend not to distract me much -- at any rate, I can either ignore them or rationalize them. To be honest, I find myself thinking, "That's not really what he means. He just didn't express himself as carefully as I would like." Alas, I am fooling myself.
I sympathize with those hatrackers who have felt disturbed and even personally insulted by some of these unfair generalizations when they read OSC's essays. I know I don't enjoy it when I find myself on the receiving end of such a remark.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
For the record, I am one of the most patient people I know. Seriously. It takes a herculean effort to get on my nerves (unless you happen to be my own child). That being said,
I am now officially fed up with this CStroman person.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My version of the gripe is that I find it unbearably frustrating when someone's argument for their position is made in such a way as to imply that anyone holding an opposing view must be either stupid, dishonest, or just plain evil. People do this in a number of ways, from accusing the opposition (shotgun fashion) of nefarious motive, to simply expressing their inability to comprehend how anyone could hold a particular view.
It's annoying the first time. It's maddening when one defends oneself with what is believed to be reasoned and compelling arguments, and the person accusing simply dismisses them as being inconsequential or inaccurate. Not because they can be refuted, but because the accuser has already been written off any attempt at defense ahead of time as being stupid, dishonest, or just plain evil and therefore indefensible.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: My version of the gripe is that I find it unbearably frustrating when someone's argument for their position is made in such a way as to imply that anyone holding an opposing view must be either stupid, dishonest, or just plain evil. People do this in a number of ways, from accusing the opposition (shotgun fashion) of nefarious motive, to simply expressing their inability to comprehend how anyone could hold a particular view.
I dunno. I--once--expressed an inability to comprehend how anybody could hold a particular view on this board, and was promptly called to task on it. (In fact, I read the post with a growing sense of dread that UofULawGuy was laying the groundwork to quote me and call me a hypocrite.) The thing is, I was certainly not implying that anybody who held that view was "either stupid, dishonest, or just plain evil". Maybe a little background is in order here . . . I have always considered my greatest strength to be my ability to see things from a variety of viewpoints--my "moderateness," if you will, though I know the word is 1) made up, and B) inappropriately used here. This is one thing that drew me to OSC's writing, that I felt like I saw myself in many of OSC's characters who were capable of understanding other people's viewpoints to the extent that they could see those people how they saw themselves. And, of course, I'm sure I'm not the only one. And so, in addition to indirectly expressing my belief that people who disagreed with me in this case were wrong (which is okay, that's what we do every time we debate), I was really reflecting on my own failure to empathize, and expressing how it baffled me. I stated this because I felt that something that was usually a strength of my character was oddly absent, and I was confused by it. I was expressing this confusion.
I don't believe it is reasonable to infer from this that I believe, or wish to imply, that those who disagree are evil, stupid, whatever. And, quite frankly, I would hope that I have earned a reputation--regardless of whether or not Chad would agree--that would allow people to give me the benefit of the doubt on that point.
If not, what can I say?
I think it is way out of line to equate, "I don't understand why some people feel this way," which is, after all, phrased explicitly as a statement of failure on my part, with statements explicitly characterizing people who hold certain political viewpoints as enemies of families or dupes.
I have more to say, but I'll split my post up and finish in a later post.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no, no, Icarus. You've completely misunderstood me. Perhaps I didn't express myself very well.
On the first page, you said this:
quote: It's not the hyperbole I'm objecting to. It's the characterizations of people who disagree as enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes.
I fully agree with that gripe, and I gave my own version of it. You see? You're not the target of the gripe; you said something that sounded like a gripe that I share, and I didn't want to let it pass without giving it a "hear, hear."
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between someone saying “I just can’t understand how someone could think X” with the subtext, “I’ve honestly tried to understand this position, and I don’t get it. I’m obviously missing something, but I can’t figure out what” and someone saying the same thing with the subtext, “therefore the people who do must be idiots.”
Unfortunately, unless you know the poster it can be hard to tell the difference.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually I can tell the difference pretty easily by the second or third post after that, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, so which did you decide it was, in my case?
(And no, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I honestly want to know if I succeeded in explaining myself, because, as I recall, it was you who thought I was rude or presumptuous in that thread.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad has accused many people of posting not on topic. He has not named me specifically, but that's no guarantee that he doesn't mean me.
My posts to this thread have been entirely on topic. Part of the topic (arguably, the central part of the thesis itself, if there is one) is OSC's essays, and the rudeness of those who disagree with them.
And I agree, at least to an extent, with those who see this as the Card living room. And I agree that it's rude to criticize your hosts. And so I am having an entirely real and not-disengeniuous (I'm all about the made-up words, today) moral dilemma here. And I'm trying to decide if my behavior is unacceptable, or if I have managed to skate by on the correct side of the line.
I certainly do not believe I have engaged in name calling, either explicit or, as UofU sees it, implied. I have tried to live by the motto of speaking with passion and listening with respect. And I say this not to say that I have been successful, or to fish for others to say it, but simply to report how I view my own actions. Pretty much everybody on this thread illustrates the point that we each believe that we have the best of intentions, whether others would see it that way or not.
Obviously, there is room here for people who disagree with Card's views. The TOS codifies this, and the existence of threads where this disagreement is expressed, sometimes quite vehemently, is evidence of this.
But agreement or disagreement with OSC is not, as people have attempted to point out on this thread, the issue. It's okay to disagree with your host and discuss your opinion in his house. But when you criticize your host himself, and when you say that your host has, in your opinion, been rude, well, then a line has been crossed. Regardless of whether you're correct in your assessment or not.
My really good friends could tell me in my house that I am out of line, and not wear out their welcome. Is it presumptuous to assume for ourselves this rank? (I dunno . . . nobody who is not a really good friend could call himself a "regular" in my living room. And yet it seems to me that this probably is presumptuous.)
I'm not worrying about getting banned. As Kristine has pointed out numerous times, all kinds of vile things are said about OSC here, and very few of them are suppressed, and very few people are banned. Most rudeness is tolerated. Clearly, there are people much more outspoken, and much ruder, than I am. What I am worried about is the conflict between speaking my mind and being rude. I don't want to think that I am tolerated as a necessary evil. I don't want to be endured. Nobody would ban me, but I think I would rather leave voluntarily than be considered an irritant.
So what I want to know if if that's the category I fall into if I admit, as meekly as possible, that some of OSC's recent rhetoric has struck me as a bit aggressive, a but rude, to those who are people of good will who simply have a different opinion of what the world needs at this point in time. (So the question is quite personal, to me, and it is really quite irrelevant for Chad to point out that other people are really really rude, because I am not wondering about my fitness to continue posting on any of their websites.)
If I criticize OSC directly, do my charm, wit, and all-around good looks make me still desireable company?
(And it does me no good to hear my friends say they want me around. Of course they do. By definition, this is what makes them my friends. So why don't I ask the Cards directly? Because they might answer, and I might not like that answer. I have seen what the responses look like when people call out the Cards, and say, "I don't like what you do; why don't you tell me what you think of me?"--EDIT TO ADD: Every once in a while you see a post where the author's thinking clearly seems to have run along the course of, my post on Why OSC is Wrong about Everything will be so compelling, so eloquent, so adroit, that he won't be able to help but break down in tears and admit that I am right, and change his ways, and use his considerable literary connections to get me a lucrative writing contract. Needless to say, that is more than a little naïve.--It would sadden me greatly if I made it on to the Card, er, pooplist. END EDIT Better instead to ask someone who seems to share a similar worldview to that of the Cards if my behavior is inappropriate for the living room. If that person thinks it is, I can excuse myself from the living room before I have a chance to attract the host's attention with my boorishness. And so I'm kind of hoping that Amka will answer me, even though it's been three pages since I asked.)
I assume you wrote this before my last post, wherein I tried to clarify that I had been agreeing with you, not targeting you. As far as I have seen, or can remember, you have not been guilty of the kind of conduct I was griping about.
You are in fact one of the most reasoned, measured and level-headed posters I have had the pleasure of becoming familiar with, on this or any other forum.
As one of those who, I think, tends to think like OSC, or at least to agree with him, I can say that you are more than welcome to speak your mind.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
UofU, thanks. I appreciate that. I wasn't actually still being sensitive about what you said. My last post was actually the post I had been intending to write, and so I broke it off into its own post to separate it from my reply to you. I guess I'm just exploring how far this living room analogy extends. I know there are bigger jerks than me (in fact, I happen to think I'm not a jerk at all), and I but I just don't want to cross the line into rude guest, even with the security of knowing that my rudeness will be endured. But it's not your post I'm replying to.
posted
Oh, I might be remembering the thread now. Let me see if I can find it.
Dagonee Edit: OK, I can't find it. I don't remember it being about the word "understand," and if it was, then you either spelled it wrong or the search function is wonkier than usual.
quote: If you need me to define "bashing" and how "bitch slapping" another poster is bashing...I have nothing more to say to you.
Bitchslapping another poster is not bashing. At least not the way AJ did it. She bitchslapped you by refuting your points with a little something called facts . Do you know what facts are? (This is me being vitriolic, kind of). AJ was NOTHING but polite to you. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, everyone in this thread has been polite to you except me. And I don't really care if I'm polite to you or not because.. well, you've shown a rather high disregard to other people's opinions and thoughts.
quote: While I appreciate the sentiment behind St. Yogi's words as one of support, "bitchslap" was not my intent at any point.
I was digging after the facts and will let them speak for themselves.
AJ
I'm sorry AJ. I attached the word "bitchslap" to your post, giving Chad an excuse to ignore it. I'd take it back if I could. I just got kind of excited I do that sometimes.
Now Chad, people are asking you to point out the things that you consider to be vitriolic. I don't even consider my bitchslap comment to be vitriolic. It was done in a joking manner to show my support of AJ even though I knew you'd ignore her and dismiss her points as "vitriolic". As I said, please point out all the insults to you in this thread. And if you can't(because there aren't any except my fact thing), then please acknowledge this. Just because you say that people have been insulting you doesn't make it true.
quote: One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
It's amazing in how many ways you fit the description Chad. I know that you're probably just going to dismiss this as an attack but please look at the definition and try to see why people are so annoyed with you.
Ok, I'm sorry for further derailing the thread into revolving around Chad personally so I'll go back and try to refute Chad's points instead .
You're saying that someone who doesn't use the same kind of delivery as OSC can't criticize OSC for the way he delivers because they don't criticize people on this board who do the same thing. Ok...
But the thing is Chad, that they do. I have seen people spewing out garbage like that (and yes, I did just call what our host is spewing out for garbage) and Dagonee jumping on them. All of this has NOTHING to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the person's points. I've seen him do it with both liberal and conservative posters. I'm not sure if you know this, but Dagonee is actually rather conservative. He'd probably agree with you on most things if you actually showed any interest in other people's opinions and showed people some of the respect that you crave.
Now, when you post a reply, can you please point out the things in this post that you find offensive so that we can further understand your definition of bashing. And please don't respond with "If you can't see it yourself, I won't point it out to you."
Your argument is still "Other people do it too" Which doesn't excuse OSC. You say that other people on this board use the same tactics when criticizing OSC.
Prove it. And yes, I HAVE done a search using those words and there wasn't much. But even if there is a couple of people who do it, how does that invalidate our criticism of OSC?
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thank you for your defense of me in my absence, but might I offer a bit of critique? When you start to get into the realm of repeating basically the same thing over and over again, and pointing at people and yelling "See! See!", and start talking about who is winning, people stop listening, with good reason.
I know it is frustrating when so many people come against you. I know you want to be acknowledged as being right.
But you must know this: At least half of the time, and perhaps quite a bit more than half, people will think you are wrong. You cannot change that, no matter what words you use. If someone decides to change their mind about something, it will be their action and not yours.
So, sometimes you just state your case, defend the points of the case as people point out what they think is wrong, and let it go. Even if (in the same venue) people point out the same thing again, just let it go. Repeating yourself will actually lessen the impact of your argument.
But what is more, there are going to be several times when you are wrong. This isn't because you are CStroman. This is because, like everyone on this board, you are human and are working with limited data.
Every single one of us on this board holds a view that will ultimately turn out to be wrong. This is not a character flaw, so no one should get too defensive about it if they find that they are wrong. Just shrug, and think "Today I am more enlightened" and then go on an improved person.
When I came back to this thread at this obscene hour, the 4 pages frightened me initially, and excited me. When I read most of it, it saddened me. I considered deleting it. But this was my mess, and I need to clean up after it. Deleting things like that tend to leave a bad taste in the forum, I've generally found, and do not solve the actual problem except to cover it up. And people had brought up interesting objections.
The biggest thing that I've noticed come out of this is that people are 'okay' with what OSC believes but not in how he communicates that belief, and that it is not in the spirit of Hatrack.
Let me say this: he is giving Jatraqueros links to what he writes, but he is not writing to us as an audience. He is not reacting to us. Why should he? How many of us are here? If he coddled us, we might be satisfied and happy, but his audience would decrease significantly. He is reacting to the liberal side of the media, and he is reacting in such a manner as to be heard. He is reacting to "Bush is stupid" and similar vitriolic comments.
People have commented that when they met him in the old AOL folders, he was a lot nicer. But again, I think they forget that there, he was conversing with a handful of individuals. In his articles, he is conversing with a wide audience. It makes a difference.
So a more interesting and illuminating discussion would be OSC vs widely read media rather than OSC vs Hatrack. What, exactly, is OSC reacting to? Why does he react in such a manner?
I've missed a lot of points. Sorry. But this is the one that shouted out the most attention.
And again, I probably won't have time to post during the day, so be patient with me.
2 ripe avacados 2 firm plum tomatoes, seeds and pulp discarded One bunch of green onions One clove of garlic The juice of one half a lime One habanero pepper. Some cilantro (not too much) Some salt (not too much)
Halve the avacados, throw out the pit, and spoon the lovely green 'meat' into a blender.
Cut the habanero in half, chop up the green onions, and the garlic and roast them all together. Mmmmm. . .
Toss everything into the blender. Blend until blended. Serve with Scott R's famous fajitas, or with Scott R's famous homestyle tortilla flats.
[ October 22, 2004, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If he coddled us, we might be satisfied and happy, but his audience would decrease significantly. He is reacting to the liberal side of the media, and he is reacting in such a manner as to be heard."
So you would agree, then, that he is playing Demosthenes?
Personally, while I'm not particularly keen on being coddled, I wouldn't mind having a week go by in which he didsn't accuse me of hating America or being too stupid to realize that I hate America. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like Guacamole. In particular, I don't much care for avocados or peppers. If you could make guacamole without these things, I migh consider you a genius.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me say this: he is giving Jatraqueros links to what he writes, but he is not writing to us as an audience.
So don't take it personally.
Hmm.
So you're saying that he probably has friends IRL who favor John Kerry, oppose the Patriot Act, and favor allowing same-gender marriages, whom he does not think are idiots or enemies of what he stands for, but instead merely believes are well-intentioned but mistaken?
quote:He is reacting to the liberal side of the media, and he is reacting in such a manner as to be heard.
Okay. Well, this is a critique of the effectiveness of his strategies, though I don't have any credentials to back it up: Do you think it's effective? By effective, I mean, will it swing either people who disagree with him, or at least people who are undecided. I recognize that this may not be his goal, because these essays are, after all, published in what I understand is a newspaper read primarily by people who largely share his worldview. So maybe they're more about cheerleading for fellow conservatives, or venting pent-up annoyance at rude liberals (though it would seem they are not effective for this either, since he seems to grow angrier with time, not less so). Is he accomplishing what he wants to be accomplishing with his delivery?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you're saying that he probably has friends IRL who favor John Kerry, oppose the Patriot Act, and favor allowing same-gender marriages, whom he does not think are idiots or enemies of what he stands for, but instead merely believes are well-intentioned but mistaken?
That is exactly what I'm saying, and there is much evidence to back it up. Look at his reviews. Barring the non-fiction books he disagrees with, he has no compunction against writing a glowing review of something created by someone who is a 'flaming' liberal. On various "I met OSC" threads, liberal leaning jatraqueros have related positive experiences at being recognized.
About his purpose, I may be wrong because I'm certainly not him, but I think that his purpose is to counter the unbalance he percieves in the media, and this may be exactly why he gets heavy handed.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:About his purpose, I may be wrong because I'm certainly not him, but I think that his purpose is to counter the unbalance he percieves in the media, and this may be exactly why he gets heavy handed.
If that's his purpose, he may be defeating himself, because his writing style in his articles is a turn-off to those who disagree with his opinions. So, in essence, he is preaching to the choir.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I really liked quacamole until I got pregnant.
People say you get cravings. I don't. I get anti-cravings. Things I loved before, make me nauseous. Good things like popcorn, any kind of sausage like thing, bananas, and the aforementioned quacamole. At least I like breads this time around.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmm. I love sausage. Sweet italian sausage with roasted peppers, garlic oil sauce and capellini pasta. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R, that guacamole looks good. Though it could use some more avocados. Oh, and here's the etymology of guacamole: it's literally "avocado sauce".
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--er, no . . . wrong button. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Yes, that's it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Oh, and 
