(I don't know if it was illegal anywhere 4-5 years ago, but it doesn't appear to be illegal now. That said, police do tell people not to film them whether or not they're in their way.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That said, police *have* attempted to make it illegal, that is fought court cases and such. That I have zero sympathy or respect for.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are both right. Sort of. It is not illegal to video the police but it may be illegal to secretly record conversations (audio) if there is "an expectation of privacy".
posted
Edit: ^^^ The ACLU's overly cautious caveat ends with the statement But no state court has held that police officers performing their job in public have a reasonable expectation [of privacy], so really, no.
You have a first amendment right to film cops in public. A few states have tried to apply wiretapping laws, but that's been overturned time and again by the courts, and even the DOJ has weighed in on it.
A 5 year old article from Gizmodo does not good evidence make.
blayne said 'its illegal in something like 12 states to film a police officer'
this is an incorrect statement and he's completely wrong
I said 'it is not illegal to film the cops in any state.'
this is a correct statement and i'm completely right
Police have no right to charge or detain a person for filming police specifically. If they do, get a lawyer and contact the ACLU and the press and force the police to settle for a lot of money for their unlawful action, regardless of state. It is legal to film the cops in every US state. They have no specific claim to detain or charge a person for filming police that would allow them the right to forbid someone to film them at will. Prohibitions on specific types of recording exist but are not specific to making it illegal to film cops in any state. The secret recording issue pertains to wiretapping laws and only applies if you are not openly filming a police officer.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be more compelling, kmbboots, if it weren't for the link Elison shared detailing the sorts of recording he was talking about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't need to be particularly compelling. It just want to make clear that it isn't as simple as, "it isn't illegal to film the cops". It can be illegal if you do it secretly and there is audio.
I probably should have said that you were both wrong but I was trying to be nice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, I mean, I'm glad you don't think you need to be particularly compelling — but I have no idea what else I need to say about that blayne's statement is still totally completely wrong, not just 'sort of' wrong because — as you are essentially applying — there are ways to film a cop illegally anywhere. great, now apply that to twelve specific states as a general prohibition on cop-filming that blayne was asserting and you're good.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I probably should have said that you were both wrong but I was trying to be nice.
quote:It just want to make clear that it isn't as simple as, "it isn't illegal to film the cops". It can be illegal if you do it secretly and there is audio.
Well, you could say this for pretty much any category of people.
If i said "it's not illegal to film six foot tall blondes in any state." and someone offered that I am wrong because it might be specifically illegal to do so under specific circumstances that are not in any way really related to a prohibition of filming six foot tall blondes, this is a crappy argument for the statement being wrong. Like you could say "well you're wrong because it's illegal if you do so while trespassing on their property, or physically clubbing them to death with a bone"
posted
That eavesdropping law specifically allows for recording police interactions in public. If it didn't, it'd be struck down by the courts just like the law it replaced. Nobody in this thread is talking about (in the words of an Illinois senator talking about what the law does cover) "bugging a squad car or listening in on a phone conversation at police headquarters."
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point I'd argue is that it's a pretty pedantic objection and if you wanted to argue the ~nuance~ of the law you should've framed the discussion as such instead of just laying down a general absolute of "Not illegal anywhere in the US nope." The point is something around 12 states do have "Mutual Consent Laws" where they try to pull the argument that even in public police can ask you to put it away and then proceed to arrest you if you don't; with people facing charges of over 15 years in prison for recording the police abusing their position.
That it's from 5 years ago doesn't negate that it happened and feeds into the narrative of escalating police abuse of power and increasing public distrust and fear.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part where you were crowing at Samprimary and avoided copping to being wrong about it on a flimsy pretext because you don't like him. The kind of recording being discussed wasn't secret surveillance without the cop's knowledge, and you know it. We were talking about filming cops on the street while they were arresting or perhaps victimizing someone supposedly being illegal, and this being a sign of police misconduct in the present using a four and a half year old source.
It wasn't even necessary, because as noted police themselves do try and claim it's illegal, particularly on the ground versus in the courtroom where they have tried before. You could've skipped the premature victory lap and gone right to that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, now what are you talking about. "The kind of recording being discussed wasn't secret surveillance without the cop's knowledge, and you know it." This has nothing to do with what I said.
"We were talking about filming cops on the street while they were arresting or perhaps victimizing someone supposedly being illegal"
This is what I was talking about, what did you read?
[ February 06, 2015, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except it's not illegal, you stated flatly that it was, and gloated to Samprimary about it.
It's a short conversation. We were discussing the militarization of police and the way that can lead to tragedy in arrests and their interactions with citizens. You stated plainly that it's illegal in 12 states to film cops. Nowhere did you say *anything* about audio or secrecy, until kmbboots offered the out. In fact the four and a half year old source you used talked specifically about public recordings, not the sort of exceptions she referenced.
I mean seriously, man, you're smarter than this! I *know* you don't actually think that you believe it's a 'pedantic objection' to reply to your 'it's illegal to film' using an outdated reference with 'it's not illegal in any states, not just 12'. You're criticizing Samprimary for making an absolute statement in response to *your* absolute (and inaccurate) statement!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Except it's not illegal, you stated flatly that it was, and gloated to Samprimary about it.
1) He didn't cite a source, am I supposed to take everything he says at face value?
2) It's still a point that its pedantic, because it doesn't change the conclusion of my original argument; swap "its illegal in X many states" to "police are trying to make it illegal" and the conclusion is still the same. If I claim "That X,Y,Z,W,R,Q,M, and P, all suggest ABC" and someone says "M IS WRONG!" it doesn't negate the rest of what was said.
3) If you have a problem with me taking an opportunity taking a shot to gloat at Samprimary remember that to me he goes out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat. Yes yes, "I expect him to go out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat but I expect better of you." I'm not saying I'm right, I am saying that's what goes through my mind when I see an opportunity to get back at him, that's the rationalization.
quote: It's a short conversation. We were discussing the militarization of police and the way that can lead to tragedy in arrests and their interactions with citizens. You stated plainly that it's illegal in 12 states to film cops. Nowhere did you say *anything* about audio or secrecy, until kmbboots offered the out.
In fact the four and a half year old source you used talked specifically about public recordings, not the sort of exceptions she referenced.
What the what? I *never* said anything about audio or secrecy, and I said nothing to do with kmbboots, what are you talking about?
Here's my post again:
quote: The point I'd argue is that it's a pretty pedantic objection and if you wanted to argue the ~nuance~ of the law you should've framed the discussion as such instead of just laying down a general absolute of "Not illegal anywhere in the US nope." The point is something around 12 states do have "Mutual Consent Laws" where they try to pull the argument that even in public police can ask you to put it away and then proceed to arrest you if you don't; with people facing charges of over 15 years in prison for recording the police abusing their position.
That it's from 5 years ago doesn't negate that it happened and feeds into the narrative of escalating police abuse of power and increasing public distrust and fear.
Where do I say anything about audio or secrecy?
I mention "mutual consent laws", but that fits under "video recording a police officer with a phone" like we've been discussing. Maybe the source I linked mentions it? I don't remember, but it certainly isn't something I claimed or said.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: remember that to me he goes out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat.
For some reason I read this as "strawberry asshat", which gave me an image of a man wearing a giant strawberry on his head like a hat, with a chinstrap.
I should probably sleep more.
Anyway, this looks like it's going to be fun...
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) He didn't cite a source, am I supposed to take everything he says at face value?
Wait, so your four year old source was right and Samprimary was wrong until he cites a source? Because you skipped a step. Gloating is usually in bad taste (fun as hell though, I'm not actually criticizing your wanting to stomp on Samprimary, goodness knows he is in no position to insist someone doesn't), but you need to be *right* first. Not flat-out (though understandably) wrong about the question of whether or not it's illegal to film police officers.
quote:2) It's still a point that its pedantic, because it doesn't change the conclusion of my original argument; swap "its illegal in X many states" to "police are trying to make it illegal" and the conclusion is still the same. If I claim "That X,Y,Z,W,R,Q,M, and P, all suggest ABC" and someone says "M IS WRONG!" it doesn't negate the rest of what was said.
He wasn't talking about your entire argument, which was built partly by the way on the idea that it's illegal to film police officers. If you want to build a house somewhere and a construction company tells you why it's a bad idea, citing drainage, sinkholes, so on, and also throws in there 'actually it's illegal to build right here anyway, there's an environmental concern' and it turns out they were wrong about that last bit...you still probably shouldn't build your house there because the company was right about all the other reasons.
And anyway, dude, *please* don't pretend as though you haven't been just as 'pedantic' in the past when someone disputes something you say by addressing one particular part of it. You know you have. I know you have. I have too.
quote:3) If you have a problem with me taking an opportunity taking a shot to gloat at Samprimary remember that to me he goes out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat. Yes yes, "I expect him to go out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat but I expect better of you." I'm not saying I'm right, I am saying that's what goes through my mind when I see an opportunity to get back at him, that's the rationalization.
*Now* you're not saying you're right. But look, reading this again, it's clear you dislike him strongly enough that if you had said the sky was green and he corrected you, you would still shy away from acknowledging it even if you showboated about it before being proven wrong. Which is pretty understandable, given how much satisfaction it seems like Samprimary takes in baiting you into just this sort of response, man.
I know why you didn't just cop (hah) to the point about filming police in the first place-because it's Samprimary, and you really really dislike him (and not without cause), and so damned if you were going to cop to it. But if you had? You would've completely fizzled his fun. Now he's got a show.
quote:I mention "mutual consent laws", but that fits under "video recording a police officer with a phone" like we've been discussing. Maybe the source I linked mentions it? I don't remember, but it certainly isn't something I claimed or said.
The relevance was that the only possible reason your point wasn't wrong (that point being that it's illegal to film cops) was if you had been talking about the sorts of secret surveillance that is illegal for anyone (except the federal government!), not just towards cops. But you weren't talking about that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see Blayne is severely endangering his sterling credibility on the subject of US law and political affairs.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fortunately his charitable capacity to admit when he's caught with his pants down will prevent him from damaging his reputation as an intellectually credible source of discussion input.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
rakeesh i am actually sort of amazed at how well you are detailing this out in hopes that he just cops to it, or even just sees what is going on through your sheer patience in explaining
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Rakeesh should join JanitorBlade and form an "inhumanly patient people" superhero group or something.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha! Imagining the reaction of many to that statement here is making me actually LOL, Dog, heh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wait, so your four year old source was right and Samprimary was wrong until he cites a source? Because you skipped a step. Gloating is usually in bad taste (fun as hell though, I'm not actually criticizing your wanting to stomp on Samprimary, goodness knows he is in no position to insist someone doesn't), but you need to be *right* first. Not flat-out (though understandably) wrong about the question of whether or not it's illegal to film police officers.
I'd forgotten I didn't post a source until after he said I was wrong; but he does do that a lot, where I post a source and then he'll ignore it.
quote: He wasn't talking about your entire argument, which was built partly by the way on the idea that it's illegal to film police officers. If you want to build a house somewhere and a construction company tells you why it's a bad idea, citing drainage, sinkholes, so on, and also throws in there 'actually it's illegal to build right here anyway, there's an environmental concern' and it turns out they were wrong about that last bit...you still probably shouldn't build your house there because the company was right about all the other reasons.
And anyway, dude, *please* don't pretend as though you haven't been just as 'pedantic' in the past when someone disputes something you say by addressing one particular part of it. You know you have. I know you have. I have too.
Perhaps, but I think those sorts of arguments I made are older then recent arguments.
quote: *Now* you're not saying you're right. But look, reading this again, it's clear you dislike him strongly enough that if you had said the sky was green and he corrected you, you would still shy away from acknowledging it even if you showboated about it before being proven wrong. Which is pretty understandable, given how much satisfaction it seems like Samprimary takes in baiting you into just this sort of response, man.
I know why you didn't just cop (hah) to the point about filming police in the first place-because it's Samprimary, and you really really dislike him (and not without cause), and so damned if you were going to cop to it. But if you had? You would've completely fizzled his fun. Now he's got a show.
Very well, I was wrong.
quote: The relevance was that the only possible reason your point wasn't wrong (that point being that it's illegal to film cops) was if you had been talking about the sorts of secret surveillance that is illegal for anyone (except the federal government!), not just towards cops. But you weren't talking about that.
Again, I only make the arguments I explicitly way out that are supporting in the text of my post. While it may be the context you think would make sense for me to try to claim isn't wrong but that isn't how I think.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is magical! Myself & Elison admitting we were wrong. Rakeesh admitting he was pendactic. Next Samp is going to admit he baits Elison. Then boots will admit to being grumpy. Then W will admit to losing to Gore...then...then...who knows what else...it's a brave new world people! BRAVE NEW WORLD.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
what even is the definition of 'baiting' anymore. does anything i've done here count as 'baiting' by anyone's estimation? by blayne? i also see i am a disingenuous 'strawmanner.' that definition has changed a lot too. does it still just mean what i think it means? am i going out of my way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat here? what do i have to add to my retinue if i am falling short in my sacred disingenuous strawmanning duty?
these are all sort of serious questions. i prefer critiques of samprimary to be somewhat non-abstract.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think perhaps expecting Blayne to subject himself to the same standards of rational thought and basic fact checking/adherence to reality that you would expect from anyone else is "baiting." I thought it was interesting that nobody even batted an eye at him resorting to personal and obscene insults as a response to you politely telling him he was wrong. Like, that just comes with the territory when debating him. Which is kind of sad.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are demonstrably wrong, for example any recent discussion about the F-35 program follows the pattern of me posting sources, quotes, and articles to support my arguments and then resulting in people arguing against a strawman caricature of my position and not even anything I actually said; or just resorting to straight up mockery.
The last time it happened Rakeesh admitted he was mistaken when he and Parkour claimed that I lied or made up the fact that I had quoted Orwell in support of my position; until surprise surprise I actually posted the link to the thread where I made the post with the full quoted and bolded text.
Rakeesh apologized as reasonable rational people are want to do, but I never got an apology from Parkour or anyone else.
I mean sure, lets just forget about all those times, I'll be happy to accept a "reset" of all previous posting history if it applies to everyone.
But I mean, did you suddenly forget about the first page and a half or so of this very thread where I did have a well thought out rational position that contradicts your thesis or are operating under rules where any sort of "constructive" posting I do shouldn't be considered least it contradict your premise?
Its obviously an unfair double standard and I have zero reason to react to it in any other way than complete contempt.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:when he and Parkour claimed that I lied or made up the fact that I had quoted Orwell in support of my position
You misremember and you have your characteristic poor reading comprehension. Perhaps you think that my statement was equivalent to what Rakeesh was saying. I don't have to apologize for that because I never said that.
What I actually did was guess that after you made your initial statement, you came up with the "it was a reference to Orwell" position as an excuse afterwards, when your initial statement was getting laughed at. Because that's the sort of thing you seem to do.
After reading the thread in question again I am pretty satisfied with that my guess is probably correct, but that it isn't something you'd freely admit to.
Not much of a dilemma though oh well.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
No, I'm well aware that you also post rational things. It's just whenever anyone calls you out on anything or tells you you're wrong you flip out and start insulting people and using profanity. Like, just a few minutes ago in response to Rakeesh calling you out on saying some truly delusion stuff you replied:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
You seem utterly incapable of handling adversity without resorting to the infantile posturing of a schoolyard bully, and this really hasn't changed in the 6 years I've been here. And normally I just ignore it and ignore you when you act this way, but you're now in the process of hijacking 2 threads I'm actually interested in with your behavior and I'm actually begging you to stop. Hatrack has already slowed down significantly in the past few years, please don't destroy the conversations we have going right now with your childishness.
Like, seriously, can you create a "Blayne vs. the World" thread for you to get it all out of your system periodically so we can resume normal discussion without worrying about you flying off the handle?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
No, I'm well aware that you also post rational things. It's just whenever anyone calls you out on anything or tells you you're wrong you flip out and start insulting people and using profanity. Like, just a few minutes ago in response to Rakeesh calling you out on saying some truly delusion stuff you replied:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
You seem utterly incapable of handling adversity without resorting to the infantile posturing of a schoolyard bully, and this really hasn't changed in the 6 years I've been here. And normally I just ignore it and ignore you when you act this way, but you're now in the process of hijacking 2 threads I'm actually interested in with your behavior and I'm actually begging you to stop. Hatrack has already slowed down significantly in the past few years, please don't destroy the conversations we have going right now with your childishness.
Like, seriously, can you create a "Blayne vs. the World" thread for you to get it all out of your system periodically so we can resume normal discussion without worrying about you flying off the handle?
I don't fully subscribe to the notion that its in anyway the most advisable that when someone acts in a way I find unacceptable that you just have to just sit there and accept it to make it go away. That's ignoring the problem, not resolving the problem and what I do is to make it absolutely clear where my position stands, with no room for misinterpretation.
From what position can you ask me anything? You're not showing my respect when you make generalized claims about my behavior that yeah I'm obviously going to take issue with.
quote: You seem utterly incapable of handling adversity without resorting to the infantile posturing of a schoolyard bully
This isn't true. There are plenty of times I show restraint to being insulted or disrespected, today I just happen to lose patience because of specific reasons that I'll get around to respond to Rakeesh with assuming he's interesting in actually resolving the issue, I don't know yet, I haven't read his response if he's responded yet. But here's the thing, people can argue and disagree with me and have done it plenty of times without me "blowing up"; the only times it happens is if I perceive an insult; what happened with Samprimary was because of what Rakeesh said and I was wrong to act that way in that instance.
But there's years and years of people playing nerd pecking order games and I dunno if you go to sakeriver but the situation you describe never happens there even though people with similar personalities who act like jerks are there; its because I perceive that there I am treated fairly and a modicum of respect. Heck, I've been on Something Awful for something like five years and I don't have these issues there either, because there isn't years of generalized poorly remembered history distorting how we're interacting.
Like, lets go back to your contradiction, you claim that I can't handle "adversity" and yet there's a whole page and a half of Stone Wolf disagreeing with what I said, he misunderstood me but that happens often enough in arguments I have here that that isn't some special circumstance, but I... Don't overreact? I don't insult him? I'm perfectly reasonable.
But then look at for example the next 2-3 posts Samprimary makes after I apologize to Rakeesh, he's still trying to pick a fight. But I'm not bothering to respond to him though I almost did so. So again, there's adversity and me clearly not "acting like a schoolyard bully".
You're just wrong there.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I don't fully subscribe to the notion that its in anyway the most advisable that when someone acts in a way I find unacceptable that you just have to just sit there and accept it to make it go away. That's ignoring the problem, not resolving the problem and what I do is to make it absolutely clear where my position stands, with no room for misinterpretation.
Listen, Elison, I want to have a heart to heart with you here. Because I think this post is actually one of the first times you've opened up your thought process, and because I want to encourage and further this sort of openness.
I think there is a vast gulf between the tone in which your adversaries here make these comments you respond to and the tone with which you interpret them, and feel the need to respond to them with. Furthermore, it's entirely possible, and indeed even desirable, to make it absolutely clear that you disagree with someone without resorting to insults, rants, and profanity.
I don't believe people dislike you as much as you think, nor do I think there is any tangible pecking order to speak of. There are no discernible sides here. nobody knows what you look like, how you dress, how you talk, or even whether or not you're cool. All they know about who you are is how you choose to present yourself.
If you write things that are illogical or counter-factual, they will be treated as such. And perhaps denounced quite harshly. Sometimes even if you do your research and feel you have a well informed opinion people will disagree with you. And that's ok, it's not you they're attacking, it's your opinion. In another thread I started here recently, the majority of the posters who have responded to it have done so to disagree with me, several of them rather harshly. But I don't take it as an attack on my person, simply on beliefs I hold. I've agreed with those posters on many other topics, and probably will again in the future.
But you seem to take one or two posters disagreeing with something you said (and it was something pretty obviously incorrect) as "baiting" you, or as some personal insult against you, and you felt the proper way to respond to this was with insults, challenges and curses. You genuinely (I think) feel like you're being picked on and abused here, and I wonder if you realize if you could simply treat people with the same courtesy they give you (at first) and just admit fault gracefully, or even defend your opinions without getting angry, you would be treated with far less suspicion? As you pointed out, earlier in this thread you managed to do very well, so why does one poster disagreeing with you in a rather bland and polite manner throw you into a rage?
As far as Sake - yes, I post there occasionally and lurk frequently. It's something of a melancholy subject for me since I really identified with the community there and would love to be an active member, but seem unable to do so. And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
That being said I'm now working a job with a lot more free time - I work 4 10 hour days a week and complete most of my work in the first 3 or 4 hours, which leaves me a lot more time sitting at my desk waiting for more work and posting on forums. I'll try getting involved there again this week.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just want to point out two things...make that three.
A) I'm the one that said Samp baits Elison...as a joke. But seriously, it has happened.
B) Careful to avoid a gangup. Too many voices can start up people's defenses.
C) Elison changed his name because his former name is his real life actual name. I don't think it's fair for people to use his real name against his wishes. I know I'd be pissed off if someone started calling me Mike after I specifically asked everyone to stop using my given name.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
Well, let's do something about that. Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as Sake - yes, I post there occasionally and lurk frequently. It's something of a melancholy subject for me since I really identified with the community there and would love to be an active member, but seem unable to do so. And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
That's similar to how I feel about Sake, which is why when I visit, I mostly lurk. I never quite know what my point of entry is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne....take a look at what you just wrote there. the only time you act like that is if you feel insulted? So you feel that being insulted...or at least feeling insulted. ..makes this type of post and behaviors ok?
This isn't the first time you've been this way here. It's always someone else's fault you acted the fool...or threatened someone...
I am not saying that Samp and others are great people or never troll people. What i am saying is that you need to be responsible for how you act. If you were people would have less ammo to use against you.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
As far as Sake - yes, I post there occasionally and lurk frequently. It's something of a melancholy subject for me since I really identified with the community there and would love to be an active member, but seem unable to do so. And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
That's so interesting. For what it's worth, I really enjoyed your participation on sake, and when I saw CT's thread over there I was happy about it, because I assumed that it meant that you'd popped in.
If you were to start posting there again, I'm pretty sure that people would view you as a welcome old friend with interesting things to say rather than a weird uncle who presumes too much.
quote:That being said I'm now working a job with a lot more free time - I work 4 10 hour days a week and complete most of my work in the first 3 or 4 hours, which leaves me a lot more time sitting at my desk waiting for more work and posting on forums. I'll try getting involved there again this week.
quote: Listen, Elison, I want to have a heart to heart with you here. Because I think this post is actually one of the first times you've opened up your thought process, and because I want to encourage and further this sort of openness.
I think there is a vast gulf between the tone in which your adversaries here make these comments you respond to and the tone with which you interpret them, and feel the need to respond to them with. Furthermore, it's entirely possible, and indeed even desirable, to make it absolutely clear that you disagree with someone without resorting to insults, rants, and profanity.
I don't believe people dislike you as much as you think, nor do I think there is any tangible pecking order to speak of. There are no discernible sides here. nobody knows what you look like, how you dress, how you talk, or even whether or not you're cool. All they know about who you are is how you choose to present yourself.
If you write things that are illogical or counter-factual, they will be treated as such. And perhaps denounced quite harshly. Sometimes even if you do your research and feel you have a well informed opinion people will disagree with you. And that's ok, it's not you they're attacking, it's your opinion. In another thread I started here recently, the majority of the posters who have responded to it have done so to disagree with me, several of them rather harshly. But I don't take it as an attack on my person, simply on beliefs I hold. I've agreed with those posters on many other topics, and probably will again in the future.
But you seem to take one or two posters disagreeing with something you said (and it was something pretty obviously incorrect) as "baiting" you, or as some personal insult against you, and you felt the proper way to respond to this was with insults, challenges and curses. You genuinely (I think) feel like you're being picked on and abused here, and I wonder if you realize if you could simply treat people with the same courtesy they give you (at first) and just admit fault gracefully, or even defend your opinions without getting angry, you would be treated with far less suspicion? As you pointed out, earlier in this thread you managed to do very well, so why does one poster disagreeing with you in a rather bland and polite manner throw you into a rage?
As far as Sake - yes, I post there occasionally and lurk frequently. It's something of a melancholy subject for me since I really identified with the community there and would love to be an active member, but seem unable to do so. And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
That being said I'm now working a job with a lot more free time - I work 4 10 hour days a week and complete most of my work in the first 3 or 4 hours, which leaves me a lot more time sitting at my desk waiting for more work and posting on forums. I'll try getting involved there again this week.
I'll be avoiding doing what I usually do which is quoting a post paragraph by paragraph, which usually is to make for clear discussion while making responses and counter-responses easier to read but I also feel lends an air of formal "debateness" that is inappropriate for a heart to heart "man-to-man" talk.
The most recent burst was my mistake, I'll work on avoiding that in the future.
But your wrong in thinking that there aren't people who dislike me as much as I think they do; there's a bit of a pattern I discovered in college/highschool is that a lot of people are initially put off by my personality and then what happens is that either they tend to actually come to find some aspect of it endearing (for example, bluntness/honesty) once they get to know me more OR, they doubledown on the contempt and dislike. I know this one person who would go out of his way to be a dick, he doubled down hard; in his case I think the straw that broke the camels back was how I often pulled a Cramer and asked my friends for change, I was friends with his friends and that's the closest I got to an explanation.
So with that as evidence its easy to see how over long term the pattern has repeated itself here and at Sake; Sake started off with a bunch of people disliking me posting there because to some extent they were actually at sake to avoid me but gradually as my writing improved I feel the same decision occurred. Either subconsciously they found some aspect of my personality interesting enough to find the whole package with caveats tolerable and a few double down.
In the case of Sake, in general the only one I consistently recognize is JT, whose responses range from the illogical to dickish; in a thread about writing he absolutely insisted that Mary Sue wasn't a "real" term and back handedly/passive aggressively said that "if I wanted to write only to troper audiences that my choice" blah blah despite the fact that several other people confirmed that the term pre-dates TV Tropes and is used regularly in literary analysis.
So from there, when it comes to responding to disagreement, let us please agree that there are, and will be times where the response ISN'T just "disagreement" but actual, real and not imagined, mockery, defamation, and caricatured strawmaning of my position by the actual use of "made up arguments" attributed to me (or refusing to attribute to me arguments I did make) arguments I never in fact made in that discussion.
It *has* happened, and as Stone Wolf says people baiting me *has* happened. And there are people who have in fact written that their goal and purpose in their interactions with me is to drive me from Hatrack; they have said this, it has happened.
Just look at the latest F-35 "discussion" almost done of the 'responses' were actually relevant to anything I actually said.
So its a matter of an interest in accuracy, I agree, when the disagreement is honest I need to respond better; but there are times where it frankly isn't even "disagreement" its just mudslinging.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
