After Hours

General discussion

Locked

Un-Official poll: Is thread-jacking to be frowned upon?

By AnsuGisalas ·
Tags: Off Topic
Follow these guidelines:Peruse the three following zero-level parts of this thread; vote "+" on the one that applies.Try not to vote "-" , it will mess up the count

EDIT : Aaaand... it's (un)official, some people have been putting minuses elsewhere than the equalizer... naughty, naughty! It's not like I can't see who you are. Well, so I can't. But still, you know who you are, put yourselves in the corner and give yourselves a talking to .
I guess having each option be self-contained using both pluses and minuses will be the way to go.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

You could . . .

by apotheon In reply to And

. . . but it would be dishonest. I always try to respond directly to what others say, to bring things back to the core point, to point out others' distractions, or to just drop things when they're beyond hope. Straw men and their ilk are not my stock in trade.

Collapse -

No

by AnsuGisalas In reply to And

It's not dishonest; it's how I see your posting record.
I believe that you try to reply something that you feel is appropriate, but in actual fact it ranges from the appropriate via the so-not-getting-it to out-of-the-blue-unprovoked-flames.
Sometimes you're as erratic as OzMedia, and he's actually a bunch of people.
Sorry.
Besides; your whole "intentional distraction" posturing has become in fact an intentional distraction, as it's so not what we were talking about. And now we're talking about you, all of a sudden.
I'll just make believe that you were just joking, and forget the rest.

Collapse -

no arguing with trolls or defensively uncooperative people

by apotheon In reply to And

I'm going to try it anyway:

> <em>It's not dishonest; it's how I see your posting record.</em>

I don't really believe you're that dumb. I believe that either you get far too defensive about your tactics to actually see what I'm saying or are just a very clever troll, at this point.

> <em>I believe that you try to reply something that you feel is appropriate, but in actual fact it ranges from the appropriate via the so-not-getting-it to out-of-the-blue-unprovoked-flames.</em>

Telling people they are stupid and don't get what you're saying when they're actually asking you to respond to what they have previously said is not a good way to foster discussion.

No flame of mine is unprovoked. If you don't like being called on what you said, say it differently.

> <em>Sometimes you're as erratic as OzMedia, and he's actually a bunch of people.</em>

That's hilarious -- and, I believe, not a meaningful comparison, but I guess if you do not understand my perspective that's on you.

> <em>Sorry.</em>

Frankly, I doubt it.

> <em>Besides; your whole "intentional distraction" posturing has become in fact an intentional distraction</em>

How exactly could it have "become" an intentional distraction? I guess you just have absolutely no interest whatsoever in paying attention to what I've said, including the bit about subject drift.

> <em>it's so not what we were talking about</em>

Are you saying you don't think it's "fair" for someone to bring up related concepts as part of pointing out that the original question was too narrowly defined? Notice that my very first response was to the effect that my answer doesn't fit neatly between the provided options because they were too narrowly defined.

> <em>And now we're talking about you, all of a sudden.</em>

Blame <tt>santeewelding</tt>, who responded to my initial comment with a personal attack on me, thus <strong>making</strong> it about me. Come to think of it, that was a bit of intentional distraction right there.

Collapse -

Allow me to be honest

by AnsuGisalas In reply to And

It seems to me, that you often make a judgment on what other people write without really trying to understand it. If it doesn't make sense to you (without trying), it must be rubbish... or worse.
Similarly, you also tend to hold back on all the cues people use to guide their missive to its target. Sometimes it's like you speak your own private language, like the President of France, not deigning to allow for the possibility that others may not, legitimately, know that language.
It's infuriating. Most other people would just label you an *** and press "ignore"... I choose not to. Which is why I'm saying this, in spite of the cauldron of boiling oil about to be poured on me.
You don't come across as you think you do, nor as you intend to.
Believe it or not.

Collapse -

not so quick on the trigger

by apotheon In reply to And

I tend to comment on the distraction practices of others after half a dozen or more comments have been made. I don't think that seems much like I'm rushing to judgment. My main exceptions to that are specific people who have a pattern of such behavior; I tend to give them less benefit of the doubt.

My "language" is that of trying to say exactly what I mean. I try to avoid the kinds of passive-aggressive games others play, hiding their real messages behind layers of indirection that are in fact common code so that everybody knows what people mean, but also know they are not supposed to acknowledge that true meaning. Then, of course, when I say something completely straightforward that has the superficial form of some common form of indirection, people take it as that sort of euphemizing, and accuse me of heinous acts. My opinion of the matter is that I eschew the common BS games that everybody else plays; others' opinion is that I'm either just like them but more of a jackass about it, or socially stunted. If either is true, it's the latter, but "stunted" by choice because I do not much wish to learn to euphemize my way through every discussion in hopes of one-upping others' manipulations.

Yes, I know a lot of people are not setting out to manipulate people (per se) when their commentary follows such conventions -- but whether they intend it or not, their ingrained habits result in much the same result.

I guess I'm kinda like the President of France, except that instead of choosing something obfuscatory, I choose to attempt to avoid obfuscation, which others find confusing.

If I do not come across the way I intend to, it is largely because people choose to view the world through pond scum colored lenses. I find speaking in roundabout, indirect, passive-aggressive and/or deceptive ways difficult to do while still respecting myself in the morning.

I probably do come across exactly as I think I do, either way you look at it. Either:

1. I come across very poorly, because you're looking at it from the point of view of people who have implicitly accepted obfuscation as their normal mode of conversation, whether they realize it or not.

2. I come across very honestly, because if people stopped trying to <strong>interpret</strong> everything I said and just read it as written, it would all be much clearer.

I'm pretty sure my efforts do not result in perfect achievement of my aims as regards straightforward communication. I do have to work at it from time to time, because I'm surrounded by its antithesis just about all the time, and that has its effects on me. I cultivate the habit of bucking that trend, though.

It makes enemies for me. C'est la vie.

edit: By the way . . . far from trying to pour boiling oil on you, I upvoted your comment. You seem to think I'm some kind fo supervillain. I swear, I'm not, and if you took note of the fact that my intention is to be honest and straightforward with people, and to discourage dissembling, misdirection, and the destruction of productive discussion on important subjects, you might start seeing that my methods are not so erratic as you think.

Meanwhile, <tt>santeewelding</tt> is so obsessed with economy of language that he leaves out the important bits. Is it any wonder I find that annoying? Being cryptic is the antithesis of helping people understand things, of helping the world become a better place by spreading the "gospel" (to abuse a term) of autodidactism and free thinking.

Collapse -

So...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to And

You have made a unilateral decision to flaunt the set rules of conversation, going even so far, as to not employ that set of rules to the speech of others, even though you know it.
It's not misdirection, you know. It's using the code for its purpose.
Language is a means to communicate social valuations.
If I say "He's a doodyhead", then that's infinitely different than "Someone's still got some potty-training to do", which again is different from "I guess they come in all kinds".
Assuming that I'd be using these different wordings on the basis of one single feeling of mine, which of these are deceptive? None of them are.
They simply are the appropriate responses to different social situations, each probably inappropriate in the situations in which the others fit.
Every linguistic sign we make (a sign can be anything from a word to a sentence to a text) is understandable because it complies to certain rules, rules of grammar (but these can be flaunted for communicative effect), rules of economy and relevance (but these can be flaunted for communicative effect), rules of allowing for the other person not knowing what we know, and for trying to track their position in the landscape of meaning, trying to help them find their way to where you're at. The last ones are flaunted only for purposes of disrespecting others.
Seems to me, that you follow slavishly the first two sets of rules (the ones that need to be broken at times), while flaunting completely the last set, the one which is only flaunted to show disregard for the value of the other as a participant.
Now, see, Santeewelding flaunts the second and third set a lot; the second, by either being too economical for relevance to be obvious, or in other ways. Relevance, we are to think, is there, but we don't get many clues to getting there.
So, since that's a game he hosts for us, it would be against the grain of the game for him to follow the third set in all things... a game is not deception either, you know.
I think you'll pointlessly and needlessly alienate yourself from your fellows. You're actually misconstruing them. They have every right to speak as they do, and you have no right to deny them your participation in decoding their meanings.
It would be different if you had a specific pragmatics-inhibiting disorder or disability. Some people with Asperger's syndrome for example, have severe trouble navigating pragmatics. I don't however think they usually build it into a personal ethics of "no-pragmatics-allowed". Which is a credit to them, obviously life would be easier to handle, if they could have a pragmatics-free environment.
But other people aren't really capable of providing it.

Collapse -

pragmatics

by apotheon In reply to And

> <em>Language is a means to communicate social valuations.</em>

When you define it like that, you eliminate a much more important function of language: communicating ideas.

> <em>Seems to me, that you follow slavishly the first two sets of rules (the ones that need to be broken at times), while flaunting completely the last set, the one which is only flaunted to show disregard for the value of the other as a participant.</em>

I do not think you are reading my words. I think you are reading <strong>into</strong> them, which is the whole damned problem.

> <em>Now, see, Santeewelding flaunts the second and third set a lot; the second, by either being too economical for relevance to be obvious, or in other ways. Relevance, we are to think, is there, but we don't get many clues to getting there.</em>

Are we really to think that? A lot of the time, what he says is irrelevant to the discussion at hand because he thinks the subject at hand is beneath him, and wants everybody to talk about something else instead. It's a little like the cosmologist who essentially thinks that engineering is a waste of time, not realizing he would not have the tools of his trade without the efforts of engineers, or the poet who essentially thinks that linguistics is a waste of time, not realizing that without the efforts of linguists the poet would not have a language in which to express himself.

> <em>You're actually misconstruing them. They have every right to speak as they do, and you have no right to deny them your participation in decoding their meanings.</em>

They have every right to speak however they like, but having a right and being right are not the same thing.

I have every right to refuse to participate in whatever I do not like. I have no idea how anyone with half a brain can come to a contrary conclusion without engaging in monstrous self-deception.

> <em>It would be different if you had a specific pragmatics-inhibiting disorder or disability.</em>

Alas, mine is more of a pragmatics-enhancing disorder.

Collapse -

Communicating ideas...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to And

That's a very limited view, and it's irrelevant.
In communicating an idea, we're actually communicating a value: "this is a good idea"...

Collapse -

Here we go again.

by apotheon In reply to And

You're back to discussing things in terms that do nothing but sap the meaning out of the discussion -- using terms like "value" to mean "whatever I want them to mean for the moment so I can be right while you're wrong no matter what either of us actually says".

In any case, there's a big difference between "value" in the generic and "social valuation".

edit: Y'know what? Forget it. I give up. I don't want to waste my time on this line of "discussion", so I give up.

I'm a bad person. You're a good person. I can do no right. You can do no wrong.

Are we in agreement now?

I pointed out that discussion topic drift leads to interesting places, but I did not like sudden distracting changes of subject that serve no purpose but jumping the tracks of the current discussion. You've now convinced me by sheer stubbornness in your aim to blur every line you encounter that I'm a bad person for wanting to actually address topics at hand. I'm not sure how your universal relativism matches up with your judgments that I'm wrong and you're right, but what the **** -- I must just be too stupid to reconcile your absolutism with your relativism.

Collapse -

Bear in close, Chad

by santeewelding In reply to And

"Economy of language"? No. Economy, period.

Blink once at what I write and, yes, you will miss something. With your work product, by contrast, I can take naps. I can be assured I have not missed anything, so expansive are your presentations. You have taken the injunction about "hammering home" to apparent heart.

I see also somewhere above your, "universal relativism". OMG. So near.

Related Discussions

Related Forums