quote:I sure that's my fault and is becoming I'm and insensitive human being, but that doesn't change the fact that I really honestly can't tell what will set you off.
The first half of this sentence strikes me as a good example of why some modicum of respect for the conventions of a language's grammar is a good thing. I perceive what you're trying to say in the same way that I'm able to "see" things without my glasses--fuzzily and indistinctly.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You seem to be referring to the thread link I posted above. I admit that I was definitely involved in an arrogance war with kat in that thread and appreciate the irony of my complaining about her being condescending in that circumstance. It really wasn't necessary or productive of me to keep needling her the way I did. Its just so tempting. My part in that whole battle is likely a bit of academic culture that I really should try to curb here.
Ok, yes, I was doing a lot of "this person says to that person, which this (the latter) thinks of this person is what the other person thinks of another.... blah blah blah"
Essentially, if you can cut through my circumlocations, I was saying that: A) condescension is an attempt to establish superiority over another in that person's mind, or in the minds of observers. B) A person who often feels condescended *to*, may in fact be more concerned with the appearance of status than the person who is allegedly condescending (the condescedent?). C) A person with a low sense of status, or with a mixed sense of status (such as a person who feels superior, but is overly sensitive to issues of status in a given situation), will in turn condescend in order to establish their own social status, and in *their own terms*.
I was not referring to either of your behavior in the linked thread, as I only skimmed it, and don't recall it from its original appearance. I was talking a little more generally, but also about the recent thread in which the whole issue came up.
Plus, we've had a version of the same conflict in a grand way on this forum for years and years. OSC is a textbook definition of a person with a mixed sense of status- so are a lot of very creative people, I'm sure.
To expand, I think you have a firm sense of status, and this probably comes from a mixture of things- your upbringing, inherent personality, your current social and professional standing, etc. I think Kat has a mixed sense of status, or at least displays a mixed sense of status, and is overly concerned with the portrayal of her thinking or position in the words of others. This manifests itself, interestingly, in a defiant attitude towards genuine criticism, and a belief that one's own words and thoughts are above misrepresentation- therefore inviting a sense of insult if a person is disagreed with on basic assumptions. I think the reason this happens is that parties involved are unaware of the stake that each invests in their side of the argument- one feels secure and comfortable in with the vagaries of his/her moral standing (admitting uncertainty that there is a genuinely "right" position), while the other does not, and so seeks to represent their position as being founded on bedrock moral principles, at the expense of openness to contradiction.
On the other hand, I could be wrong... Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is however not elitist to give more respect to someone's opinion on climate change because they have spent years studying and gaining expertise in the issue.
I think this is mistaken, based on one word you've included there - "respect".
The problem is the conflation of "respect" and "trust". I do think it is wise to trust an expert's opinion more than a person who has no expertise. By that I mean that if an expert simply asserts something that is in their field of expertise, it would make sense to trust that assertion unless there's good reason not to. But if a non-expert simply asserts something, you can't trust it without a good reason to accept it.
But "trusting" an opinion is different from "respecting" an opinion. When you respect an opinion, it means that you accept it as a valid belief and a position that a reasonable person could hold (even if you don't think it's true). In the context of a debate on an issue, respecting an opinion means you give it its due treatment: If you reject it, you provide good reasons for rejecting it. If a person holds that belief, you don't consider them foolish for holding it. And you give it real consideration. That's what it is to respect an opinion.
In my view, it makes sense to trust expert opinions more than non-expert opinions, but both expert and non-expert opinions should be respected. If you disrespect a person's belief just because they are not an expert, then I think that is elitism... even if that belief is considered wrong by experts.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I sure that's my fault and is becoming I'm and insensitive human being, but that doesn't change the fact that I really honestly can't tell what will set you off.
The first half of this sentence strikes me as a good example of why some modicum of respect for the conventions of a language's grammar is a good thing. I perceive what you're trying to say in the same way that I'm able to "see" things without my glasses--fuzzily and indistinctly.
To be fair, you should at least note that I saw the error and went back and corrected it before you made this post. I need to use preview post more but I do not generally diss the conventions of grammar intentionally.
I have noticed a new tendency for me to omit "to be" verbs in my posts. It's not something I'm doing intentionally and I'm sure its influenced by the Trini dialect. I just don't see that they are missing when I read what I've written. sigh.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, sorry about that Rabbit--I started my reply before you'd made the edit, and hadn't gone back to look at the previous page, so I didn't realize that you'd edited.
Actually, I was coming back in here to edit the post you quoted, because I felt like it had probably come off in a snarky way, which wasn't what I'd intended.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I preferred the vaguer version. While I can't stop you from speculating, the whole problem arose this time because I do not like, do not appreciate, and consider invasive and rude attempts by strangers on an internet forum to pop-analyze myself.
I don't like it. I consider the references to me rude and unwanted, and as you have incomplete information, necessarily flawed and intrusive.
It is also a time-honored method of precisely the kind of jockeying for power that you mention. I'd rather not consider you the same way I consider other people who try to analyze me for their own benefit. Since yesterday you were swearing at me, you are also hardly unbiased or in any position to claim nuetrality here.
Please delete my name and references to me. You do not have enough information or enough goodwill to warrant such an intrusion or analysis.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've also started noticing some Trini dialect slipping into my speech. It was particularly evident while I was in the states over Christmas. The funny thing is that I can't mimic either the accent or the dialect if I try, but it still slips in to conversations when I'm not trying.
That happens to almost anyone who doesn't have a good reason to "hang on" to a native dialect, I think. I do the same thing, as most expats in Prague do, because of the language barrier. Czech and Slovak are so rigid as languages, that you find people sticking to and repeating phrases that they like to use (because of either their "false-friendliness" or correlation to Czech idioms), to the point where an English speaker will actually adopt "Czenglish" phrases for everyday use, especially with locals.
For instance: "for example," is a catch all Czenglish phrase that means, basically, "let me explain," or "please explain" I find myself, when teaching English, saying "what do you mean?" and then saying... "for example?"
Also, the Czech word for "please" (prosim) is also "you're welcome," so you find yourself answering "thank you" by saying "please."
It's also common in Czenglish to substitute the usage of the word "after," or "in" for the usage of "before," when talking about lengths of time, such as "we will have lunch before 2 hours," or "you will get there before 30 minutes." I honestly think this has something to do with the reliability of the Czech transportation system, because SO many people take public transport, and need to arrive places on time, or "before" a certain length of time elapses. A trip can take 15 minutes or 25 minutes, but a person will tell you "before 25 minute," and this is telling you the upper limit.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the context of a debate on an issue, respecting an opinion means you give it its due treatment: If you reject it, you provide good reasons for rejecting it. If a person holds that belief, you don't consider them foolish for holding it. And you give it real consideration. That's what it is to respect an opinion.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement on this subject. If some one holds an opinion that is contradicted by scientifically established facts, I do consider them foolish for holding it.
There are areas where there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the facts, and in those cases the various opinions on the issue do indeed deserve respect even though I may favor one over the other. But that does not imply that all opinions should be respected. If it is your opinion that the moon is made of cheese, or that Japan is a country in Africa, or that we may some day need to make room in the periodic table for new elements, or that the word finger is derived from latin -- I will consider your opinions foolish.
That does not mean I can't respect a person who holds that opinion or even that I consider the person who holds that opinion to be a fool. Even the wisest people make some foolish errors. Of course, the wise are usually quick to admit those errors when confronted with the facts.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have relatively recently recognized that I naturally pick up a little bit of anyones accent when I'm talking with them. Its not enough to pass as a local, but its enough to obscure my own native dialect. As a result, people can never figure out where I'm from. People are always asking me where I'm from and telling me I don't sound like I'm from the states.
When I have just been visiting my relatives in Donegal, I have been told by people in Dublin that I speak "American with a Donegal accent".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's also common in Czenglish to substitute the usage of the word "after," or "in" for the usage of "before," when talking about lengths of time, such as "we will have lunch before 2 hours," or "you will get there before 30 minutes." I honestly think this has something to do with the reliability of the Czech transportation system, because SO many people take public transport, and need to arrive places on time, or "before" a certain length of time elapses. A trip can take 15 minutes or 25 minutes, but a person will tell you "before 25 minute," and this is telling you the upper limit.
The actual reason for this is that people are translating literally from Czech (thinking in Czech but using English words). The preposition "do" in time constructions as you described can mean before that time, by that time, until that time and a few others [edit: or within that time, as in your examples], and it is simply easy to mix up for those who don't speak English well. Creative reasoning you came up with though. Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTE]In my view, it makes sense to trust expert opinions more than non-expert opinions, but both expert and non-expert opinions should be respected. If you disrespect a person's belief just because they are not an expert, then I think that is elitism... even if that belief is considered wrong by experts.
It also does not acknowledge that a "non-expert" may have something of value to add to a discussion.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's also common in Czenglish to substitute the usage of the word "after," or "in" for the usage of "before," when talking about lengths of time, such as "we will have lunch before 2 hours," or "you will get there before 30 minutes." I honestly think this has something to do with the reliability of the Czech transportation system, because SO many people take public transport, and need to arrive places on time, or "before" a certain length of time elapses. A trip can take 15 minutes or 25 minutes, but a person will tell you "before 25 minute," and this is telling you the upper limit.
The actual reason for this is that people are translating literally from Czech (thinking in Czech but using English words). The preposition "do" in time constructions as you described can mean before that time, by that time, until that time and a few others [edit: or within that time, as in your examples], and it is simply easy to mix up for those who don't speak English well. Creative reasoning you came up with though.
That is how I use it now, but of course, it was just my armchair linguistics theory.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is also a time-honored method of precisely the kind of jockeying for power that you mention. I'd rather not consider you the same way I consider other people who try to analyze me for their own benefit. Since yesterday you were swearing at me, you are also hardly unbiased or in any position to claim nuetrality here.
Please delete my name and references to me. You do not have enough information or enough goodwill to warrant such an intrusion or analysis.
This the polite version of the request.
And this isn't?
Offering my view based on what I have observed is intrusive? Wow. You should probably never say *anything* to *anyone.*
As per your request... no.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's too bad, Orincoro. You had a chance to honor a polite request. That you refuse is revealing, as is the post that comes after.
How about you turn that penlight you are flailing about on yourself. What would you say about someone who refuses to cease committing, rude, intrusive, flawed acts on someone who asked them politely to stop? Any theories? What if that person the day before had needed to be chastised for swearing at the same person? Any speculation as to that person's true motives and character?
quote:I think we have a fundamental disagreement on this subject. If some one holds an opinion that is contradicted by scientifically established facts, I do consider them foolish for holding it.
Yes, that is a fundamental disagreement. I don't consider it automatically foolish to disagree with established "facts" - in part because I think one of the most well-established facts is the fact that almost no beliefs are truly and absolutely established to be true.
But beyond even that, I don't see any benefit to not respecting someone's opinion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Offering my view based on what I have observed is intrusive?
Yes, it can be.
This is why parents get embarassed by children who scream out, "Mommy, look at that lady! She's so FAT!"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And incidentally, Orincoro, didn't you recently get offended by Danlo for making observations on what he'd observed?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not like, do not appreciate, and consider invasive and rude attempts by strangers on an internet forum to pop-analyze myself.
In general...
Tru dat, yo. Straight up.
The part I disagree with is that we are strangers. You and Tom and Kat and I and many others have been in this forum for 8 years or more. We've read thousands of things written by the other on dozens of different topics. I think we know each other very well. Certainly that knowledge isn't complete, but that certainly doesn't make us strangers. How many people are there in the world who know the complete you? I think people on this forum know me better than most people in my real life.
You may not behave exactly the same here as you do with your wife. But you probably don't behave exactly the same at work as you do at church or in your home. Different environments bring out different aspects of our personalities, but all those aspects are valid parts of us. Just because we know each other through an internet forum rather than a club doesn't make our knowledge of each other less real.
I know that it can be easy to pretend to be someone you're not on the internet, but it is really hard to play that character for an extended length of time. In this respect, it's not all that different from real life. In fact one of our long time members recently discovered that her boyfriend (of several years?) was not who or what he had pretended to be.
If you are just playing a character on this forum that you don't think is at all like the real you, then there is really no reason to take offense at peoples attacks. They don't know anything about the real you, they are just attacking a character. Otherwise, I think its disingenuous to claim we are strangers.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having had relationships of all kinds with many people that started on the Internet first, I am firmly convinced that online interactions only count for online interactions, and that all bets are off until you have a relationship in person.
I am absolutely not saying that online interactions don't mean anything, but you don't really know each other until you get together and get along in person. Years of online to in-person interactions have only reinforced that, not made it less true.
That's even counting personal e-mails where are trying to plumb each other's souls. The kind of impersonal information posted here, even at its most revealing, is even less likely to lead a true knowledge of someone else.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that you can get to know someone well enough through this medium to judge them on how they participate in this forum. Which really isn't different from most aspects of our lives.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Having had relationships of all kinds with many people that started on the Internet first, I am firmly convinced that online interactions only count for online interactions, and that all bets are off until you have a relationship in person.
I am absolutely not saying that online interactions don't mean anything, but you don't really know each other until you get together and get along in person. Years of online to in-person interactions have only reinforced that, not made it less true.
That's even counting personal e-mails where are trying to plumb each other's souls. The kind of impersonal information posted here, even at its most revealing, is even less likely to lead a true knowledge of someone else.
I have no doubt that this has been your experience, but I think quidscribis, dkw, Bob_Scopatz and numerous others would disagree.
I also don't think the internet is any different from other parts of our lives in this respect.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having had relationships of all kinds with many people that started on the Internet first, I am firmly convinced that online interactions only count for online interactions, and that all bets are off until you have a relationship in person.
My experience differs, though I might agree that this is the case for public fora in many cases. I have a number of friends which I talk to frequently in a private IRC-like environment (it's essentially a constant companion whenever I'm at the computer) and I feel I know those people very well. The couple times I've met them in person there have been no surprises and no new insights into their character. As far as I can tell, we really do know each other as well as we know anyone else online or off.
Perhaps it is different for you because, for whatever reason, you somehow filter your online interactions differently. That's not meant to be criticism, just a possible explanation for the difference between your experience and others'.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would like to hear your explanation for how such a thing is always intrusive.
:blink:
You want me to explain something I don't believe?
I'm a pretty amazing guy, but that's beyond my capacity.
If you can't, then don't. I only inferred your belief, since you never fully stated it in your reply. I apologize if I misinferred. I further apologize if 'misinferred' isn't a word. It damn sure oughta be.
quote:
quote:Scott doesn't think you can ever get to know someone through this medium. At least, not well enough to be allowed to judge them on anything.
More or less. There's a bit more nuance to the idea than JT has implied.
Oh, I know that! I just didn't trust myself to get all the details right, so I gave the summary (in my understanding, of course).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think its possible to get to know people well enough through any medium to be allowed to judge them except on their performance and behavior in specific tasks.
I'm not sure that making inferences about why people behave certain ways necessarily constitutes judging. I think it is human nature to try to seek explanation for things. When those explanations aren't readily available, we speculate. I think that this is true of most of our relationships with people and pretty normal.
I think very few if any people don't speculate about why people behave the way they do. I also think that since we rarely fully understand why people behave the way they do, we should be generous in our speculations about each other.
If a child is throwing a temper tantrum, it is much kind and likely more productive to presume that the child may be sick, or tired or hungry than to presume the child is a selfish spoiled brat.
If I blow up at you, I'd much rather have you presume that I must be having a bad day or that I'm suffering from PMS or even that I'm insecure, than to presume that I'm a nasty mean and hateful person who enjoys tormenting other people for no reason.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have friends who I am better friends with long distance and friends who I am better friends with in person. One of my friends and I chat all the time online and yet when we get together (every few years that actually works out), it is like we have nothing to say to each other. Sometimes online works well, sometimes it doesn't.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have no doubt that this has been your experience, but I think quidscribis, dkw, Bob_Scopatz and numerous others would disagree.
quid and Fahim used webcams. And Bob and Dana had met a few times in person before they started dating (or started talking online about dating, to be more accurate).
I emphatically agree with Katie (and Scott) that you cannot really have any idea what someone is like in person from online interactions.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard of people who are much more pleasant in person than I have found them to be online.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having had relationships of all kinds with many people that started on the Internet first, I am firmly convinced that online interactions only count for online interactions, and that all bets are off until you have a relationship in person.
My experience differs, though I might agree that this is the case for public fora in many cases. I have a number of friends which I talk to frequently in a private IRC-like environment (it's essentially a constant companion whenever I'm at the computer) and I feel I know those people very well. The couple times I've met them in person there have been no surprises and no new insights into their character. As far as I can tell, we really do know each other as well as we know anyone else online or off.
Perhaps it is different for you because, for whatever reason, you somehow filter your online interactions differently. That's not meant to be criticism, just a possible explanation for the difference between your experience and others'.
I hate to bring this up, but didn't katharina and The Rabbit *just* fight about whether one should censor one's self in terms of personal decoration in the workplace versus at home?
It seems to me that someone who (not naming names, don't want to be flamed) leaned toward not censoring is more probable to conduct online interactions that are similar to personal interactions. On the other hand, someone that leaned toward censoring is likely to filter online interactions as well.
Obviously there are exceptions, but the commonality between the two concepts makes me wonder if we're really just seeing the same issue play itself out in different clothing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little late to this topic, and I don't come here as much as I used to; but I've never gotten a bad feeling from you, Rabbit (which is more than I can say about some people on OSC's boards).
Single-line posts don't bother me unless the poster is typically arrogant and/or has tens of thousands of posts. In the first case, single-line posts make me feel that the poster is saying that they are too eloquent to need to clarify their point; "Didn't you read what I wrote?" posts particularly annoy me. In the second case, such short posts make me feel that the poster is trying to rack up their post count.
It also bugs me when a poster comes across as seeing everything as a joke. rec.arts.sf.fandom is full of this type of offender (though perhaps that group is more explicitly humorous than I realize).
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooo people I fight with fighting with each other instead of me! *popcorn*
I'm with MattP. You can get to know people in an IRC channel or chat room. You can't really get to know someone on a webforum. The interaction rather than the passive dropping of messages that can be read hours/days/weeks later (or missed all together) is what lets you know someone.
Oh, and please don't critique my posting style. I already know I have all the charisma of a week-dead possum left out in the rain.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's too bad, Orincoro. You had a chance to honor a polite request. That you refuse is revealing, as is the post that comes after.
How about you turn that penlight you are flailing about on yourself. What would you say about someone who refuses to cease committing, rude, intrusive, flawed acts on someone who asked them politely to stop? Any theories? What if that person the day before had needed to be chastised for swearing at the same person? Any speculation as to that person's true motives and character?
Obviously I'm a sociopath... officer Starling!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to confirm from personal experience: You can be "friends" with someone online, but you can't know them in any meaningful sense until spending time with them offline.
Online, there's just too much stuff that doesn't come through.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And incidentally, Orincoro, didn't you recently get offended by Danlo for making observations on what he'd observed?
No, not so much offended as totally creeped out and angry. Not that I'm going to go on with this in more than one post, but Danlo posted comments to the effect of "I know what you look like," and "I think of your face and smile." I don't care to look it up, but one of his comments is in one of his own threads, and the other was in my thread, which I deleted out of a case of the creeping horrors. In my mind, (and I do not attest to the reality of this perception) the comments were meant to be creepy and stalkery. In truth I had posted a link that DID contain my likeness (from far away) in a newspaper article some time ago (before Danlo was here), but the omission of the source struck a very dissonant chord with me- along with the implication that he had "done the research." I was accused of blowing that out of proportion by at least one person, which is always a possibility, but I was not the only person to find the comments to be beyond acceptable. Rather than continue down that line, I thought better of the whole thing and dropped it, deleted the next thread, and didn't bring it up again until now, and now I intend not to talk about it following this post.
Now, if that isn't different than giving my impression of someone to them in a thread where they have done something similar already, arguably of course, then that does make me a bit hypocritical. I think the situation is different. I am interested in only talking about what Kat has actually shared with everyone on this forum, and everything I mentioned was gleaned from my actual interaction- as I hopefully conveyed in that post, this was my opinion based on that experience alone, and no other. I am not a psychology professional and I do not know Kat in any way outside of Hatrack, and in point of fact I probably know her less well here than most people do because we don't seem to bump into each other that much- or I don't notice it often. When I do though, I *really* do, I don't remember there being any positive interactions.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I do though, I *really* do, I don't remember there being any positive interactions.
Considering I didn't register your existence before the exchange yesterday where you called me an %$&*#@$, I'm not surprised.
I really am easy to get to know - talk about Doctor Who or say something nice about missionaries.
---- And "creeped out and angry" is a very good description of the appropriate response to a stranger performing pop psychology.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
