posted
Stone wolf, let me know if you encounter a poster who has a forum name "I am trying to make the point that stone wolf is a really bad poster who really just is stubbornly and stupidly fixated on always getting a not-clever retort in, and he gets really stubborn about it, and I am actually just going to keep baiting him to respond to me in order for his own behavior to make my point about him being a bad poster, but surely he won't be gullible enough to keep doing it if I'm making it obvious what i'm doing" because that user has no interrobang in their name and interrobang sounds like a bad word!
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hey, Stone_Wolf! Hey, man, somebody said some stuff once about 'why do you keep interacting with these people like this'. I'll direct them to this set of exchanges, and maybe you can help them understand!
Translation: Goddamn it didn't take long for the veneer of worldly restraint to wear off for you, Stone_Wolf.
Did my calling Parkour adorable offend you?
You are BOTH so cute!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's good to know that all those skills honed to razor-sharpness in the Last Post Thread aren't useless in the real world.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit that what I wasn't expecting was for Ron to come off looking second worst in this thread.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am living in the land of confusion, but that's okay. Things are a little oddly colored here, though. It's like a dimly lit acid trip, or at least what that seems like it would be from the descriptions.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heya Tom...why ignoring my relevant questions and just drive by snarking?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Ron shouldn't be hated, he should be pitied. And treated kindly, as if he were blind or deaf or mentally disabled.
As if he were, say, broken and delusional?
Yes...exactly.
Maybe you wonder the the streets accosting homeless vets w ptsd about how 'broken & delusional' they are...but I doubt it.
I kno I'm not going to change your view or Rakeesh's, but really think about it.
If you are correct about Ron, really & truly...don't you think you should treat him with kindness befitting someone who ain't all there instead of needle him & label him & mess with him?
How do you usually treat people you honestly think are broken & delusional?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For the record, I previously identified this hill as not being a desirable one on which to die.
quote:you mean to people online who are backward & delusional? Are you trying to help them you think? Honestly...what do you get out of calling Ron a bigot?
The funny thing about this is that I, and others, actually have a lot more respect for the mind and personhood of Ron Lambert than you do. To me, even though it would be difficult for me to disagree with him more than I do already, he is an intelligent adult with free will, who gets both credit and blame for his speech and actions. Given that I think these things, it stands to reason I also don't think he's some emotionally anemic helpless victim, who cannot stand to hear criticism of his views. The man has published books, Stone_Wolf. Now yes, later on he'll mourn my ignorance and profess a desire that God help me see the light, or more properly that I start listening to God, etc. And he'll continue to ignore inconvenient criticisms to his factually ridiculous arguments and probably wrong predictions.
You? You think he's helped by treating him as though he were mentally handicapped.
I ask (repeatedly) about YOUR MOTIVATION and you ignore, deflect & talk talk talk about Ron & me.
Let's try yet again...what do you, Rakeesh, get out of calling Ron a bigot?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the point of it is that you just described ron something that you chastised tom for describing ron as.
I didn't tho...I agreed w Tom & then asked him what are the ramifications of his stated beliefs...he ignored me & dog piled
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't get to credibly complain that someone is ignoring a 'point' of yours. Your reply to 'hey maybe there's a problem with grouping the deaf, blind, mentally handicapped and mentally ill and homeless all together as broken and requiring your pity' was 'oh don't be so PC this was just frank talk'.
You're the one who has never had any reply, much less a good one, for why it is somehow nicer to Ron or anyone to treat them as though they were 'broken and delusional' than to react with criticism or even hostility to their words. You're the one who when asked 'so is someone diminished if they call David Duke a bigot?' with 'calling a bigot a bigot is the same mindset as lynching'. Who lectures others on 'why do you respond when you know it won't do any good?' and then almost immediately does exactly the thing you were just lecturing others for with Parkour.
Well, I mean you *can* complain to Tom about a point not being addressed. Just not without looking pretty silly.
Anyway, I know you're too 'worn down' to really address any of that, so please revert to 'jokes' that are actually laughably disguised passive aggressive jabs, m'kay?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
More talk talk talk...about Ron...about me...you really don't want to admit to yourself that you like picking on folk eh?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: (Rakeesh)...the mere application of the label 'bigot' to someone is not necessarily the same mindset as being bigoted towards other people, much less lynching;
This is not an argument...just disagreement & dismissal.
quote: (me) The really real point of labeling Ron (or anyone) a bigot is to dehumanize them so they may be neatly and cleanly catagorized and dismissed.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your message: It's okay to call them names...they are bigots.
Bigots message: it's okay to call them names...they are niggers.
Your message: it's okay disregard anything he says...he's a bigot.
Bigot's message: it's okay to disregard anything he says...he's a nigger.
Your message: He doesn't deserve respect...he's a nigger.
Bigots message: he doesn't deserve respect...he's a bigot.
Whups...switched those last two.
I'll look for it...but boots made this exact point recently as well in a different thread.
Reguardless...the point you are missing (actively dodging) is those fellas in white hoods doing the hanging label & disregard their victims...and so do you.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm challenging the status quo...I knew there would be resistance.
But you guys can't keep pretending this is all about me and my issues if I stay on target & copy and paste pertinent & ignored points I've made.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, don't be so chickenshit. You know the answer to your 'serious question', as we've discussed this topic at least once before. And I'll note that your question loses a lot of its weight when you engage in exactly the same sort of behavior you are condemning.
Anyway, to answer again: one, there is utility in reacting with negative criticism to a bigot, or a misogyist, etc., in that it serves a purpose both for the individual to recognize 'hey this might not be socially acceptable', and for society at large. Further, it simply isn't true that the only way to persuade someone is through gentle, civilized correction. Not everyone is so thin-skinned.
Of course in the case of Ron, it's part frustration and venting of anger over other related political issues and it's also part amusement over 'what will he say next?' since God only knows when someone he knows will have a prophetic dream or something.
Finally, on a more serious note, men such as Ron don't simply have crazy, bigoted opinions. They feel their religion should be a source of legal power in our country, and would see it happen if they could. And they're not at all shy about invoking God and all associated virtues to their side of things. And since I'm not motivated by religion or philosophy to turn the other cheek regardless of context, I'll give that sort of talk the contempt it deserves after it's been made clear for years that no amount of reason will ever, ever work.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Could you elaborate?
I think you are Parkour are mad at each other? Or at least being insulting to one another at some level? But I'm not sure why. (A lot of interpersonal nuance flies right over my head.)
I think it's because you both feel passionately about aspects of the conversation but disagree, and I also think that it became a conversation about personal qualities rather than just abstract concepts. But I'm not sure exactly why, and I can't follow the underlying structure of the conversation. It's like watching Depp in the new Alice movie, but through a vaseline-smeared lens -- something is happening, and there are lots of colors, but it doesn't actually seem to have much to do with Lewis Carroll's text?
--- PS: tl;dr -- I'm confused, and it's not a new state for me.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm challenging the status quo...I knew there would be resistance.
But you guys can't keep pretending this is all about me and my issues if I stay on target & copy and paste pertinent & ignored points I've made.
We're not 'pretending this is all about you and your issues.' There's also the issue that the civility policing you are attempting to enforce is not something we agree with and we don't care to follow. But you've got issues and you're acting and posting really super stupid and you are making all of us wonder if there's literally any point. You will not quit and the longer it goes on the more it shows that you are intractably annoying about it.
Right now, this is completely honest and genuine assessment where I'm trying to get you to see how you are coming off, okay? I'm not writing you off yet like I've written off Ron, king of the ferrous cranus (and most certainly an extremely bigoted individual who deserves to be called out for his delusional bigotry) but you have to change because you're being incredibly dumb. You even got straightforwardly trolled last night and it really put into sharp relief how reliably stubborn and thick you act.
The question is not about whether or not you should want to defend your whole (imo not valid at all) proposal that we have to be kind to people who come into this space to spew reprehensible bigotry and be an ass about it. The question is how you do it. Because right now you aren't helping your case at all. You aren't "challenging the status quo," you're showing people why not to listen to you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
First of all, 'labeling someone a bigot is just a way to dehumanize them' isn't actually an argument. It's a statement of my intent. Being quite hypocritical on some issues, you complained about that being done to you not long ago in this thread.
But anyway, to reissue my rebuttal to those remarks: it is not the case that labeling someone a bigot is only to dehumanize them. It can be in some cases, which is not the same thing. As an example I'll ask again: if I label David Duke a bigot, a man who indisputably is a bigot, am I diminishing myself by doing so? By calling the man what he explicitly is, am I actually engaging in the same mindset as a lynchmob?
The thing you're missing is that there is a difference between using a racial slur to describe a minority, and calling someone who routinely advocates the racial inferiority of ethnic groups a bigot. Yes, both of those things are critical remarks. But one of those things is simply factually untrue, and founded in emotional hatred and insecurity and the other is awareness that the word 'bigot' has a definition that applies to some human beings.
That was why I talked about steaks, and I'll just say that I don't normally make food analogies but I was baffled as to how to get through. 'Mid-rare is the best, and well-done is kinda silly' and 'mid-rare is the best, and people who want well-done should never be allowed to eat steak' are both criticisms, yes. But they're not the same! A molehill is not a mountain, despite their similarities.
So I'll ask you again, and for God's sake you've ignored this question at least twice now so please enough with the complaints that you're being ignored: is someone diminished by calling David Duke a bigot? Or a man who lynches a homosexual a homophobe?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, now that we've established that this is a firm rule, is it an absolute one?
For example, someone who lynches a homosexual because they don't like homosexuals. Am I diminished by labeling him a homophobe? On the other end of things, am I somehow ennobled if I apply the label 'heroic' to someone like Rosa Parks? Or is this the sort of rule where one is only diminished by applying bad labels, and good labels are virtue-neutral for the one using them?
Am I diminished more if I were to, say, call Rosa Parks a bigot than I was for labeling the man who lynched a homosexual a bigot, or are they equally detrimental to me?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To say that their actions were the definition of bigotry is fair. To say they are a bigot, is still fair, however it is HUGELY more* effective for all parties involved to separate the actions of the doer from the human who did them...when a person self identifies with negative believes, those beliefs can not be examined...no perspective...
For the caller of names it encapsulates the called, this person is a bigot and thus everything else they are becones irrelevant...on this we may judge them alone as a human being.
Maybe this person you would name a bigot is also complicated, hurt, damaged, loved, loving, sorry, confused, trying desperately to out grow small thinking, redeemable AND a bigot...or what if how we treat this person was a shining example of the very empathy we say he lacks and it* teaches someone else who read our words?
There is NO advantage to condemnation & personal judgement.
When you stoop to their level you only muddy the waters.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Would it be rude to call Hitler a Nazi?
Not at all...Nazi was a (evil) political party (in his day) & is not at all the same as calling a living breathing human with living breathing feelings broken & delusional to their face.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Muddy waters being said...I also muddy waters...much less now, than in my hayday, however some serious effort has been laid down in...even at times admittedly...into distract the point & taunt me into a tantrum.
It isn't that I succeed in my attempts at unflagging kindness...that is obviously not the case...it's that I put effort into it.
Vs actively borderline unhealthy dog piling, sneering disregard & outright name calling (not even talking about Ron here).
You think your anger and sarcasm is of benefit, and I suppose it has -some- utility, however you serve yourself & those who read you better with simple kindness & restraint and god forbid a little respect.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: (Rakeesh)...the mere application of the label 'bigot' to someone is not necessarily the same mindset as being bigoted towards other people, much less lynching;
This is not an argument...just disagreement & dismissal.
quote: (me) The really real point of labeling Ron (or anyone) a bigot is to dehumanize them so they may be neatly and cleanly catagorized and dismissed.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your message: It's okay to call them names...they are bigots.
Bigots message: it's okay to call them names...they are niggers.
Your message: it's okay disregard anything he says...he's a bigot.
Bigot's message: it's okay to disregard anything he says...he's a nigger.
Your message: He doesn't deserve respect...he's a nigger.
Bigots message: he doesn't deserve respect...he's a bigot.
Whups...switched those last two.
I'll look for it...but boots made this exact point recently as well in a different thread.
posted
christ, stone wolf, stop trying to be a witty asshole about this. i'm genuinely trying to play it on the level with you and for once i'm sincerely trying to take your position into account.
and then you try to make zingers about it, which wouldn't be so painfully embarrassing if you didn't come off as such a 50 year old man going "look at me guys i'm hip too" when you do it.
i'm serious. please give me some reason not to just write you off by acting this way.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To say that their actions were the definition of bigotry is fair. To say they are a bigot, is still fair, however it is HUGELY more* effective for all parties involved to separate the actions of the doer from the human who did them...when a person self identifies with negative believes, those beliefs can not be examined...no perspective...
Earlier you were lecturing others on simply dismissing an argument without making one. Here you've simply said 'it's more effective not to' as though it were a given, when that's exactly the case you're trying to make.
You're mistaken that beliefs one identifies with cannot be examined. It's harder, sure, but people do it. Further you're wrong that to call someone a bigot necessarily means that anything they say ever is ignored and dismissed. You're probably wrong about this, in fact, Stone_Wolf. For all that you've complained of the tone of the objections to Ron's posts, they haven't just dismissed them outright. Giving an argument, much less showing facts, that conclude 'this claim is absurd' is not the kind of dismissal you're referring to, but you're lumping them all together.
quote:Maybe this person you would name a bigot is also complicated, hurt, damaged, loved, loving, sorry, confused, trying desperately to out grow small thinking, redeemable AND a bigot...or what if how we treat this person was a shining example of the very empathy we say he lacks and it* teaches someone else who read our words?
There is NO advantage to condemnation & personal judgement.
Other people as well as myself have discussed potential advantages. Please stop saying there are none, and speaking as though no objections to that claim of yours have been raised.
As for the rest, how exactly is patronizing someone explicitly as you're suggesting more empathetic and likely to change their mind? People tend to recognize when they're being patronized, and when they do it tends to alienate them.
Also, if I call the man who lynches a homosexual for being gay a homophobe, I am not 'stooping to his level'. I've failed to make you understand how stupid and lazy this thinking is, so I'll just repeat myself by stating that your absolute rule, like just about any absolute rule, that 'stooping to their level' is always, irrevocably bad is not true in all cases. Even if it were stooping to a violent bigot's level by calling him a bigot.
You also neglected several of my questions.
quote:On the other end of things, am I somehow ennobled if I apply the label 'heroic' to someone like Rosa Parks? Or is this the sort of rule where one is only diminished by applying bad labels, and good labels are virtue-neutral for the one using them?
Am I diminished more if I were to, say, call Rosa Parks a bigot than I was for labeling the man who lynched a homosexual a bigot, or are they equally detrimental to me?
posted
secondly, if someone came in here and was just going "hey stone wolf, I want people to invade your home and brutally torture and kill you and your family. like, i want groups of people to target you and cut your throats because i consider you little more than animals."
let's say for funsies they were just playing it the way that Ron plays 'civility,' where they were just keeping it to their opinion. they'd say "yes, i want to enact legislation to make it happen, but that's my right as a citizen. this is all just my opinion. i'm not saying i'm going to do it myself, but someone's got to take care of you ****ing animals someday, i think. "
like they're always super polite about it
but they're psychopaths
if you gave anyone crap about calling them a psychopath about that (which I don't think you would, if sincerely someone was advocating killing your whole family and now suddenly this is a PERSONAL issue of marginalization, as opposed to people being bigots towards other groups of people you expect to just suck it up and be polite back so that we are not all 'lessened') it would put into a sort of clear demonstration how just fantastically bizarre your notions of tolerance are.
We have ALREADY had the argument about how being accomodating and deferential to polite bigotry is choosing the side of oppression and how it is important to call out bigotry as bigotry. All of the lessons, apparently now unlearned and forgotten, have already happened.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Could you elaborate?
I think you are Parkour are mad at each other? Or at least being insulting to one another at some level? But I'm not sure why. (A lot of interpersonal nuance flies right over my head.)
I think it's because you both feel passionately about aspects of the conversation but disagree, and I also think that it became a conversation about personal qualities rather than just abstract concepts. But I'm not sure exactly why, and I can't follow the underlying structure of the conversation. It's like watching Depp in the new Alice movie, but through a vaseline-smeared lens -- something is happening, and there are lots of colors, but it doesn't actually seem to have much to do with Lewis Carroll's text?
--- PS: tl;dr -- I'm confused, and it's not a new state for me.
I think it is that Stone Wolf is pretending/mistakenly convinced that he is the grownup here and trying to be the civility police. This despite the cavernous gaps in his own understanding. Some people find that irritating. He is forumsplaining? and that makes people want to smack him.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Sam...those lessons are not forgotten...but it doesn't change that there is a better way.
And if someone did advocate for that...I wouldn't talk to them AT ALL. That's a job for the police...or if they managed to make it into my house...an undertaker*.
Words aren't the only answer...or else we would still be Britts.
But when words are *the method in use, angry ones are harder to hear.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots...that's one explanation...but I think that having identified a pattern of my past behavior, these old friends of mine are stuck on their old conclusions & not really staying on topic.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And if someone did advocate for that...I wouldn't talk to them AT ALL. That's a job for the police
1. i severely doubt you, king of feeling irrationally compelled to respond to literally everything, would not say something about what they are doing
2. should other marginalized people follow your principles if someone comes into a place where they are hanging out and is continuously saying that they think they are subhuman and should be legally discriminated against? is it their requirement to either be polite or be silent?
3. it's not a job for the police, remember, it's ~just their opinion~
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT POLITE TO INDIVIDUALS WHO OPENLY PROMOTE DELIBERATE OPPRESSION AGAINST MARGINALIZED PEOPLE
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. I'm stubborn...and talkitive...sure, however there are simply no words for those who threaten my family...you have never met the person I become when I believe my family are in danger. I'm quiet & serious. I do what must be done without regard for my own hobbies and foibles. This is not a veiled threat. I'm just different than you have ever seen me.
2. Polite or silent is a drastically unfair recap. I never once suggested this. Or implied it.
3. No...that's simply not true & you know it.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT POLITE TO INDIVIDUALS WHO OPENLY PROMOTE DELIBERATE OPPRESSION AGAINST MARGINALIZED PEOPLE
And yet..here I stand...on my little hill..."dying" by most accounts.
*The caps lock (obviously failed) was me trying to show you the huge blindspot you just aren't seeing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
"
