Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

How to make post without pissing each other off (or, a "code of conduct" meta-thread)

1235710

Posts

  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2010
    Some things I've noticed.

    - Dogpiling isn't so much a majority arguing against a minority. Its more when that majority has people who run into the thread, post a "zinger" that insinuates someone is a racist/idiot/whatever. At that point they either proceed to troll by being snarky (if they get noticed) or try to start up sideboards with the majority about how the minority refuses to answer their question and how stupid/racist/whatever the minority is.

    - Posting spurious links, references, or articles as "proof", then walking away from the thread or ignoring any posts that point out that maybe "Black African Militant Cry" isn't exactly the most unbiased source. Several pages later, poster will start claiming that he was right all along based on references from said blog. Also, demanding APA standard references from the minority position.

    - Calling people sociopaths. Fuck yes.

    - Starting pedantic or sophist style arguments. "How can a person be illegally in the US on private property?" for example.

    - Claiming someone is making an "argument from authority". There's a lot of different backgrounds here. I haven't seen a lot of "I did X so I am right you are wrong shut up." I have seen a lot of "You are wrong because of factors X, Y, and Z that you may not have considered due to your inexperience." This was pretty prevalent in the use of force thread near the end, which is how we ended up with "throwing pebbles in china".

    - Arguing from emotion and concern trolling, but that's been brought up already I believe.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Raybies666 wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Let's add "you need to see a psychiatrist" to the list of terrible pieces of rhetoric to sling around in a debate.

    God knows I've done it. I think and hope I've outgrown it, because it's really very obnoxious. Even if the person is arguing in favor of testing for homosexuality in the womb and feeding gay fetuses to the volcano god to appease his anger, it's still not appropriate. He or she may very well need to see a psychiatrist, but it's not for any of us to say.

    And people calling others sociopaths. That also needs to stop. You know when someone gets a wee smack on the back of the head for being a dumbass? Not a beating or anything like that, just a wee clip that guys do to each other in no real violent way?

    Saying that people sometimes need that, and then saying that I can't physically do it myself (due to being a bit of a bull of a man who would inadvertantly hurt people if I did, etc) , made a few pages of me being called a sociopath. Thats right, being afraid to do something not inherently physically harmful in itself, for fear of accidentally hurting someone, makes me a sociopath.

    I have seen psychiatrists, therapists, analysts and counsellers. Most definitely not a sociopath (or anything bad at all, i'm the walking definition of a big pussycat), but I just had to leave the thread in question. Just so bad, I'm just lucky I didn't actually write anything that could be twisted to support the accusations and end up being sigged or anything. It was really a case of just because we are speaking english doesn't mean we're speaking the same language, as someone has already noted in the thread.

    Man, you should have seen the hateful stuff being thrown my way. I think it's the hypocracy of it that got to me the most.

    Forgetful edit: Some people did step in to try and help me out, but it was too late. Much like the time [someone who will remain nameless] stopped reading something I wrote at a comma, quoted me as such and intigated several pages of getting me called a mysogynist for several pages. Again a couple of other posters tried to help, but to no avail. Boo.

    Just remember that a lot of PArs have personal beliefs that are.. far outside of the norm, and their opinion on certain matters doesn't necessarily count for much. I've had some pretty outrageous accusations thrown at me (wifebeater) for some extremely innocuous views (respect personal space).

    You can get upset, or.. you can recognize that the individuals leveling the accusations may have an extremely warped outlook on life, or are intentionally misrepresenting your comments in order to further their argument.

    It's not worth getting upset about, but it is worth refusing to engage further if people are being disingenuous (it happens a lot around these parts).

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    - Posting spurious links, references, or articles as "proof", walking away from the thread or ignoring any posts that point out that maybe "Black African Militant Cry" isn't exactly the most unbiased source. Several pages later, poster will start claiming that he was right all along based on references from said blog. Also, demanding APA standard references from the minority position.

    Oh god yes, this.

    Or, alternatively, posting and misrepresenting a piece of research to further a point, then arguing when it's pointed out that the source you posted contradicts your statements.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Let's do it. Let's put it into practice, Loren. I'm going to risk shooting myself in the foot to see how you'll respond.

    The context: More than a few posters are offended by the idea that straight servicemen may possibly refuse to shower with openly gay servicemen if DADT is repealed. The general feelings are, "Let them resign, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out! Why should we have any sympathy for their discomfort?"

    My response: The celibate pedophile babysitter is going to look after your kids tonight. The celibate pedophile babysitter can't choose who he is attracted to - he was born that way - but he has made a vow to never molest children and is attending therapy sessions for good measure. The celibate pedophile babysitter wants to know whether or not he should give your kids a bath before they put on their pajamas and are tucked in bed. A 'normal' babysitter would give the kids a bath so you can't think of any reason to tell the celibate pedophile babysitter to skip the bath.

    With the babysitter's vow of celibacy in mind, are you going to worry about your kids' safety while you're away from home? If you say yes, how can you not sympathize on some level with the homophobic serviceman who is uncomfortable with showering with gay men?

    My situation: I am prejudiced against celibate pedophiles. I would deny them a job teaching teenage students or babysitting young children based on their sexual orientation. I can see how this would be unfair discrimination, an opinion formed out of mistrust.

    What's your response, LM? Is my post too dumb to bother with or do you need clarification or do you see my point of view?

    I am also prejudiced against celibate pedophiles, but only insofar as their objects of affection are too young to legally consent, and there are power dynamics involved in the most common relationships that may very well lead people to abuse their positions of authority. In general I only trust "celibate" people--pedophiles or otherwise--to a certain extent, and am not about to place them in positions that might tempt them in these ways.

    Essentially, I believe that adult-child relationships are very different from adult-adult relationships, and that's why pedophiles are in a (tragic) class of their own.

    I can understand being creeped out about taking a shower with other people--I have an aversion to showering with other-people-who-are-not-my-girlfriend, be they male or female, gay or lesbian--but this strikes me as not being in the same class as pedophilia, for the above reason, regardless of potential affection/turn-on factors. The power dynamics are simply not there, the uniqueness of adult-child relationships is absent.

    I suppose you might have a different conclusion than is in my second and third paragraphs. Could you please elaborate on that? If I haven't sufficiently explained my own thinking, feel free to ask away.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Some things I've noticed.

    - Dogpiling isn't so much a majority arguing against a minority. Its more when that majority has people who run into the thread, post a "zinger" that insinuates someone is a racist/idiot/whatever. At that point they either proceed to troll by being snarky (if they get noticed) or try to start up sideboards with the majority about how the minority refuses to answer their question and how stupid/racist/whatever the minority is.

    - Posting spurious links, references, or articles as "proof", then walking away from the thread or ignoring any posts that point out that maybe "Black African Militant Cry" isn't exactly the most unbiased source. Several pages later, poster will start claiming that he was right all along based on references from said blog. Also, demanding APA standard references from the minority position.

    - Calling people sociopaths. Fuck yes.

    - Starting pedantic or sophist style arguments. "How can a person be illegally in the US on private property?" for example.

    - Claiming someone is making an "argument from authority". There's a lot of different backgrounds here. I haven't seen a lot of "I did X so I am right you are wrong shut up." I have seen a lot of "You are wrong because of factors X, Y, and Z that you may not have considered due to your inexperience." This was pretty prevalent in the use of force thread near the end, which is how we ended up with "throwing pebbles in china".

    - Arguing from emotion and concern trolling, but that's been brought up already I believe.

    As if on cue, the immigration thread has been revived.

    Such memories from that thread...!

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2010
    Some things I've noticed.

    - Dogpiling isn't so much a majority arguing against a minority. Its more when that majority has people who run into the thread, post a "zinger" that insinuates someone is a racist/idiot/whatever. At that point they either proceed to troll by being snarky (if they get noticed) or try to start up sideboards with the majority about how the minority refuses to answer their question and how stupid/racist/whatever the minority is.

    - Posting spurious links, references, or articles as "proof", then walking away from the thread or ignoring any posts that point out that maybe "Black African Militant Cry" isn't exactly the most unbiased source. Several pages later, poster will start claiming that he was right all along based on references from said blog. Also, demanding APA standard references from the minority position.

    - Calling people sociopaths. Fuck yes.

    - Starting pedantic or sophist style arguments. "How can a person be illegally in the US on private property?" for example.

    - Claiming someone is making an "argument from authority". There's a lot of different backgrounds here. I haven't seen a lot of "I did X so I am right you are wrong shut up." I have seen a lot of "You are wrong because of factors X, Y, and Z that you may not have considered due to your inexperience." This was pretty prevalent in the use of force thread near the end, which is how we ended up with "throwing pebbles in china".

    - Arguing from emotion and concern trolling, but that's been brought up already I believe.

    As if on cue, the immigration thread has been revived.

    Such memories from that thread...!

    And the second 'new' post in that thread falls under bullet point 2. I see we're off to a great start.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    This probably doesn't need to be said, but along the lines of posting spurious links ... plagiarizing stuff from websites and copy-and-pasting it onto here is also not helpful to the discussion.

    If you like an argument on a website, summarize the argument in your own words. The problem with c&ping other people's arguments is that their authors aren't here to respond to counterpoints. And it tends to lead to walls-o-text. Obviously, selective quoting is okay (as it is in journalism), but posting walls of text is the opposite of striking a conversational tone.

    Even worse is when you plagiarize and then pretend that you're actually the one who wrote all that shit. This happened once with a Christian poster, who actually started off the post by saying "wow my fingers are getting tired typing all this!" before preceding to copy and paste from some apologetics website, easily discernable with a Google search. Definitely one of my favorite moments on here.

    Qingu on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    This probably doesn't need to be said, but along the lines of posting spurious links ... plagiarizing stuff from websites and copy-and-pasting it onto here is also not helpful to the discussion.

    If you like an argument on a website, summarize the argument in your own words. The problem with c&ping other people's arguments is that their authors aren't here to respond to counterpoints. And it tends to lead to walls-o-text. Obviously, selective quoting is okay (as it is in journalism), but posting walls of text is the opposite of striking a conversational tone.

    Even worse is when you plagiarize and then pretend that you're actually the one who wrote all that shit. This happened once with a Christian poster, who actually started off the post by saying "wow my fingers are getting tired typing all this!" before preceding to copy and paste from some apologetics website, easily discernable with a Google search. Definitely one of my favorite moments on here.

    On that note, there's a lot of posting of links to walls of text and claiming it supports said argument and taking that as the "final word". Its just that if you get past the tedious first paragraph, either there's a lot more nuance than the poster claimed or it completely contradicts the argument in question.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Let's do it. Let's put it into practice, Loren. I'm going to risk shooting myself in the foot to see how you'll respond.

    The context: More than a few posters are offended by the idea that straight servicemen may possibly refuse to shower with openly gay servicemen if DADT is repealed. The general feelings are, "Let them resign, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out! Why should we have any sympathy for their discomfort?"

    My response: The celibate pedophile babysitter is going to look after your kids tonight. The celibate pedophile babysitter can't choose who he is attracted to - he was born that way - but he has made a vow to never molest children and is attending therapy sessions for good measure. The celibate pedophile babysitter wants to know whether or not he should give your kids a bath before they put on their pajamas and are tucked in bed. A 'normal' babysitter would give the kids a bath so you can't think of any reason to tell the celibate pedophile babysitter to skip the bath.

    With the babysitter's vow of celibacy in mind, are you going to worry about your kids' safety while you're away from home? If you say yes, how can you not sympathize on some level with the homophobic serviceman who is uncomfortable with showering with gay men?

    My situation: I am prejudiced against celibate pedophiles. I would deny them a job teaching teenage students or babysitting young children based on their sexual orientation. I can see how this would be unfair discrimination, an opinion formed out of mistrust.

    What's your response, LM? Is my post too dumb to bother with or do you need clarification or do you see my point of view?

    I am also prejudiced against celibate pedophiles, but only insofar as their objects of affection are too young to legally consent, and there are power dynamics involved in the most common relationships that may very well lead people to abuse their positions of authority. In general I only trust "celibate" people--pedophiles or otherwise--to a certain extent, and am not about to place them in positions that might tempt them in these ways.

    Essentially, I believe that adult-child relationships are very different from adult-adult relationships, and that's why pedophiles are in a (tragic) class of their own.

    I can understand being creeped out about taking a shower with other people--I have an aversion to showering with other-people-who-are-not-my-girlfriend, be they male or female, gay or lesbian--but this strikes me as not being in the same class as pedophilia, for the above reason, regardless of potential affection/turn-on factors. The power dynamics are simply not there, the uniqueness of adult-child relationships is absent.

    I suppose you might have a different conclusion than is in my second and third paragraphs. Could you please elaborate on that? If I haven't sufficiently explained my own thinking, feel free to ask away.

    My feeling is people either read the buzzwords of my posts and misunderstand them or I am bad at expressing myself. Or both.

    There is an old, tired bit of reasoning that close-minded folks have used for decades to justify their prejudices - if we let them do it, we have to let those other weirdos do it, too. People are frequently confusing this argument with my own and assume I'm saying something along the lines of, "If we trust homosexuals to keep a lid on their urges in the public shower and not peek, we have to trust pedophiles will control their urges and not molest children in their care." I get it. That tired old argument is so well-worn, plenty of people switch to auto-pilot when they see "Gay" and "Pedophile" in the same paragraph.

    I am not comparing gays to pedos in my response. I am not comparing relationship dynamics to say ill will towards gays is fine and dandy. My response is attempting to get people to understand the nature of prejudice by drawing on the prejudices they already have. After all, you can't stamp out prejudices until you understand them and we're all capable of understanding prejudices because we all have them. That said, how can people cast stones at the prejudiced serviceman when they have their own prejudices? The prejudiced serviceman is being extremely rude and unprofessional by snubbing gay servicemen but he is really afraid his ass will be grabbed in the shower. I can get a sense of his fear if I imagine how I'd feel if my kids were being looked after by an openly celibate pedophile. The fears aren't justified but they're still ... pervasive? They hang in the air? You can't shake them easily.

    Point is, sympathy for the homophobe is a very unpopular line of thinking. They're terrible people who are acting really childish right now but they're still people. Please remember you have prejudices, too.

    emnmnme on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    We should probably avoid posting something with the intention of affecting the views of people in the thread without linking the source. Otherwise it's hard for people to form their own opinion independent of the person posting it.

    MKR on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I suspect this thread will be most useful if it explicitly avoids discussing the merits of a particular argument and instead focuses on the effective communication afforded in an argument.

    Emnmmnme, comparing homosexuality and pedophilia is a terrible idea and one you should actively try to avoid if you want anyone with a gay-friendly mindset to listen to you. Just don't use pedophilia as an example of anything other than pedophilia, its the equivalent of Godwin'ing a sexuality discussion. "Straight soldiers being freaked out by showering with gay soliders is like this hypothetical with a pedophile babysitter" is not useful. The comparison is going to be outright offensive to many, and the example does not strengthen or illustrate your point in a way that justifies its use. If your example relies on unfair prejudices, there are dozens of other choices you could use than pedophilia, especially as you explicitly acknowledge that you're aware of the use of pedophilia scares as propaganda against homosexuality.
    Point is, sympathy for the homophobe is a very unpopular line of thinking. They're terrible people who are acting really childish right now but they're still people. Please remember you have prejudices, too.

    This point, taken out of the context of the pedophilia example, would stand better on its own, especially if you went on to discuss the implications of this statement. Prejudice is something we have to live with therefore.... what, exactly?

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I am also prejudiced against celibate pedophiles, but only insofar as their objects of affection are too young to legally consent, and there are power dynamics involved in the most common relationships that may very well lead people to abuse their positions of authority. In general I only trust "celibate" people--pedophiles or otherwise--to a certain extent, and am not about to place them in positions that might tempt them in these ways.

    Essentially, I believe that adult-child relationships are very different from adult-adult relationships, and that's why pedophiles are in a (tragic) class of their own.

    I can understand being creeped out about taking a shower with other people--I have an aversion to showering with other-people-who-are-not-my-girlfriend, be they male or female, gay or lesbian--but this strikes me as not being in the same class as pedophilia, for the above reason, regardless of potential affection/turn-on factors. The power dynamics are simply not there, the uniqueness of adult-child relationships is absent.

    I suppose you might have a different conclusion than is in my second and third paragraphs. Could you please elaborate on that? If I haven't sufficiently explained my own thinking, feel free to ask away.

    I am not comparing gays to pedos in my response. I am not comparing relationship dynamics to say ill will towards gays is fine and dandy. My response is attempting to get people to understand the nature of prejudice by drawing on the prejudices they already have. After all, you can't stamp out prejudices until you understand them and we're all capable of understanding prejudices because we all have them. That said, how can people cast stones at the prejudiced serviceman when they have their own prejudices? The prejudiced serviceman is being extremely rude and unprofessional by snubbing gay servicemen but he is really afraid his ass will be grabbed in the shower. I can get a sense of his fear if I imagine how I'd feel if my kids were being looked after by an openly celibate pedophile. The fears aren't justified but they're still ... pervasive? They hang in the air? You can't shake them easily.

    Point is, sympathy for the homophobe is a very unpopular line of thinking. They're terrible people who are acting really childish right now but they're still people. Please remember you have prejudices, too.

    I think that if your intent is to compare visceral reactions, you have picked a poor example. There is a defensive quality inherent in reaction to pedophilia, a kind of "protect the weak" mentality (that I think is mostly justified) or a "those are my kids!" position. There is an underlying framework (if the visceral reactions are based in a logical argument rather than animal instinct), or a parallel framework (if the visceral reactions are animal, but mirror a logical argument).

    I don't believe any such analogous argument can be made with respect to the visceral negative reaction to gay people showering with other people. There are a variety of attitudes I'm sure, but I believe the majority is fundamentally based in a more primal discomfort, without a logical framework to either underlie it or mirror it.

    I think a better analogy might be the discomfort people might have with being naked in public.

    The pedophile bit also has the disadvantage of triggering, calling to mind the pedophile association that you brought up in the paragraphs I did not quote. This is partially a failing of others to simply work off of key words, as you noted, but it's also, I believe, partially yours for failing to either recognize this in advance and prepare for it by being far more explicit in your intended meaning, or to recognize it in advance and to simply go with a different analogue.

    I think this is somewhat of a rhetorical failing on your part for failing to anticipate your audience and to adjust your words accordingly. It's others' duty to try their best to understand you, but it's also your duty to write with your readers in mind.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Agreed. Civility achieved, LM.

    emnmnme on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    :^:

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Next to the "report" button, there should be a "Civility achieved!" button.

    Qingu on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Agreed. Civility achieved, LM.
    :^:

    Mind blown. Now all we need is a thumbs up from MrMister.*

    I also move that we adopt emn's "Civility Achieved!" as a meme.

    *
    I really wanted to write "a big pedo thumbs up from MrMister." Then I remembered we had achieved civility.

    enc0re on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    Let me offer a practical example from the Primaries thread. I'm picking on AH since he's already aware that we're talking about him.
    enc0re wrote: »
    We should probably have this discussion in the [Economy] thread, but what you are describing is not what I'm talking about. You are talking about how the supply side effect of unemployment benefits (i.e. fewer job seekers) is not a problem during persistent and high unemployment. Agreed, no question about it.
    What I'm talking about is that on the demand side (i.e. number of workers firms want) the real wage needs to fall to eliminate the labor surplus.

    In other words, we have three related problems. 1. Unemployment too high. 2. Imports too high. 3. Exports too low. Lowering wages across the board eliminates all three problems. 1. Firms find it more profitable to suck up the extra labor. 2. Imports become too expensive for workers here. 3. Our exports become more competitive globally.
    Keynesians would argue that the reason wages don't fall "by themselves" to eliminate those problems is their "stickiness" due to asymmetric information in the labor market.

    Usually what (developing) countries do in this situation is devalue their currency. That lowers real wages without the actual currency wage falling. We don't want to due that since we would loose reserve currency status if we did. And sitting on the reserve currency is totally awesome in the long run. Basically, we face a similar situation to Greece, although much less grim. It too cannot devalue to rebalance its economy. Since we don't want to devalue, we need lower wages in the country instead.

    Real wage deflation is the way out.
    You know, I find the whole "we need to lower real wages" talk to be rather offensive. Then again, I'm tired of our societal propensity to privatize profit and socialize losses.

    Hah, yes, that annoyed me too. Drive-by remark. I'm still sad he didn't acknowledge my reply, it took a while to dig up. :(

    More on-topic: has there ever been a non-dismissive use of this emoticon: :lol: ? Something about it just... augh. Maybe it's just me.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I recently used it in a friendly manner, and was immediately jumped on for being rude, snarky, and combative.

    So, apparently not.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    To take this opportunity to go a little more meta, and because I have an aversion to group hugs:

    This kind of outcome is to be expected in this kind of thread. I mean, the environment is ripe for examining what we ourselves are saying and why. I was actually challenged to respond exactly as I did, and the conversation leading up to that exchange almost put an onus on emnmnme to ask someone to do what I did, and for him to respond in similar terms. I set public expectations for myself, and he did for himself.

    I don't doubt that either of us are, or were capable of being meta enough to have done this in the actual gay rights thread. I talk a big game about being able to have this kind of conversation, because I've done it before, but I didn't do it in that thread even though emnmnme seemed open enough to such criticism at the time. emnmnme is a good guy and probably would have been entirely receptive at the time, but we--including he--can't know that for sure.

    I guess... this has been a test, in idealized circumstances. I'm glad the outcome is as it was, but I wish this would happen more often in a context of less favorable circumstances. Or that the circumstances were always this favorable.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    More on-topic: has there ever been a non-dismissive use of this emoticon: :lol: ? Something about it just... augh. Maybe it's just me.

    I've never had a problem with it when I use it, but I guess I just use it for more legitimately funny things, not in a derisive, "your views are silly" kind of way.

    EDIT: (and I guess I can't recall I time that I was confronted with it where I had a negative reaction)

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    To take this opportunity to go a little more meta, and because I have an aversion to group hugs:

    This kind of outcome is to be expected in this kind of thread. I mean, the environment is ripe for examining what we ourselves are saying and why. I was actually challenged to respond exactly as I did, and the conversation leading up to that exchange almost put an onus on emnmnme to ask someone to do what I did, and for him to respond in similar terms. I set public expectations for myself, and he did for himself. [...]

    This is true; I suppose the benefit is to be able to link back to this thread in a hurry when someone does write something egregiously uncivil in the future.

    re: :lol: huh. I wonder how common negative reactions to it are.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    To take this opportunity to go a little more meta, and because I have an aversion to group hugs:

    This kind of outcome is to be expected in this kind of thread. I mean, the environment is ripe for examining what we ourselves are saying and why. I was actually challenged to respond exactly as I did, and the conversation leading up to that exchange almost put an onus on emnmnme to ask someone to do what I did, and for him to respond in similar terms. I set public expectations for myself, and he did for himself. [...]

    This is true; I suppose the benefit is to be able to link back to this thread in a hurry when someone does write something egregiously uncivil in the future.

    That, or simply making it more socially acceptable and more supported to pursue that line of inquiry. Some kind of socialization has to occur, I think.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Agreed. Civility achieved, LM.
    :^:

    Mind blown. Now all we need is a thumbs up from MrMister.*

    I also move that we adopt emn's "Civility Achieved!" as a meme.

    *
    I really wanted to write "a big pedo thumbs up from MrMister." Then I remembered we had achieved civility.

    Surely, a major breakthrough was had here today. I mean, after all it's not like emn's offensive comparisons are part of a recurring pattern that's been going on since long before this latest incident--
    But polygamy is gross and is a mockery of traditional marriage. It differs from gay marriage because polygamy is widely unpopular and therefore hip to be bigoted against. Maybe in the future, some well-spoken advocate will reform America's views to be more accepting of poly, er...marriage, but that's not today.

    Oh.

    But I mean that was just one time it doesn't mean--
    I want to say this right now to keep perspective - there's no way, not in a million years, this board would get as worked up [as they do about gay marriage--ed] to support a state proposition recognizing polygamy as equal to traditional marriage.

    Oh.

    Well, this time he group hugged Loren, so surely now he understands it's inappropriate and won't do it again--
    I was trying to point out there's a similarity between how a homophobe reacts to the idea of gay marriage versus how you would react to a pedophile but it's not going over so well. From now on, I'll stop comparing homosexuality to ... anything. The struggle for equality for homosexuals is its own unique thing right now and if that struggle ever resembles something else, I won't mention it.

    Oh.

    Just like last time. Surprise!

    By the way, if you want to read the delightful analogy that drew that last apology and immediately-broken promise to lay off it, it's right here:
    I don't know if the irrational dislike is that bad but I'll bet a good number of Texans and Utah-anites still see gays as members of the Sexual Deviants Club, lumping them in with the necrophiles and S&M types and the bovine rapists. If there's a difference, what conservatives feel is more disgust than hate. To help fight the prejudices Texans and Utah-dwellers share, gays would do well to understand that disgust and walk a mile in a bigot's shoes. That's easy to do - just imagine a scenario and swap one minority for another. Here's an illustration:

    It's the year 2010. Meet Gay Gary. Gary is gay. He has a boyfriend, Steve, and he tries to live as he thinks he should. He's supportive of the gay community and takes pride in how God made him. He votes Democrat and pays his taxes on time. He gets blue every now and then from the prejudices he encounters on some days but he bounces back eventually. Like any normal person, he has his own prejudices; it doesn't matter how pleasant someone is, as soon as they identify themselves as a pedophile/Nazi/neocon, Gary doesn't want anything further to do with them but that's okay. The vast majority of the public feels the same way.

    It's the year 2070. Gary has married Steve and they live together in San Francisco. An increasingly progressive society has eliminated the 'big' prejudices of 60 years ago so homophobia, ageism, sexism, and racism are distant memories. But now all the remaining minorities want a chance at equality, too. The pedophiles are holding a pride parade a few blocks away from Gary and Steve's house. They're making a ruckus complaining how they have been legally oppressed for decades and now want the definition of marriage to be changed from 'a union between two consenting adults' to a 'union of two consenting people'. The pedos want an end to discrimination! Gary is shocked that this filth is being paraded around in the streets. He calls out at the pedo parade!
    "You people are crazy!," says Gary. "You can't marry children! That idea is ridiculous."
    The pedo mob responds, "It's not ridiculous. Pedo love is as real as any kind of traditional love and people like you are denying us of our rights!"
    Gary counters, "Children can't give consent for sex. You pedos are raping children!"
    "If a child is given sex education from birth on the mechanics and consequences of sex, they can give informed consent! Here are some papers written by bigwig psychologists backing up our point."
    Gary continues. "Pedophilia is a mental sickness and needs to be treated with therapy.
    The mob objects. "They said the same things about homosexuality a hundred years ago."
    Gary is fuming at this point. "What you perverts are doing is disgusting and ... and unnatural!"
    A ten year old girl from the mob comes forward. "Tell it to the Ancient Greeks. And quit picking on my 40 year old husband, you bigot!" and then she lobs a squishy tomato at Gary.

    So Gary is to the pedophile mob as homophobes are to the gays. Given that illustration, how can you nudge a group of people to be more open-minded without making them resentful? How can you make it so Texans and Utah folk allow gay marriage in their respective states within our lifetimes?

    Jeeps pretty much summarized it best:
    I swear to God emnmnme has an internal chronometer that rings a little bell in his head and compels him to compare gays to pedophiles every so often.

    If you hang around long enough, he will do it again. It's sort of his thing.

    So yeah, I really appreciate how a gaggle of people turned out to white knight for him and everything, but maybe, just maybe, y'all might not know what you're talking about. It's almost like when I said something mean to him it was in part because he has a merry-go-round history of saying incredibly offensive things about my sexual orientation and then acting like he has no idea why anyone might be upset.

    MrMister on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Well, at least Loren Michael's aversion to group hugs has been well met :P

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I don't think saying something someone said is stupid is wrong or overly negative. It is negative, but it must be in order to convey the meaning you want. It doesn't mean that we aren't having a civil discussion. I'll tell my friends, in person, that they said something stupid if they did. We still get along, and we still have great discussions. I think that if a person can't handle the word stupid then maybe they should move to the kiddy pool. The internet is probably not for them.

    Serious disconnects in your post:
    • Comparing discussions with real-life friends, who know you and already like you, with discussions with strangers on the Internet, who don't know you and don't have any history of mutual back-and-forth and understanding of where you're really coming from.
    • Comparing real-life conversations where one can observe facial expression, tone, stance, and voice level to online text posts with a few emoticons sprinkled in.
    • Use of insulting, dismissive terms like 'the kiddy pool' re people who have less of a threshold for insults online than you do for insults from your friends in real life.
    • Confusing objections to a term like "stupid" with being unable to 'handle' having that term used in reference to one's discussions.

    The claim that the alternative to courtesy and a lack of inflammatory terms is "kiddie pool" is a false dichotomy.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Surely, a major breakthrough was had here today. I mean, after all it's not like emn's offensive comparisons are part of a recurring pattern that's been going on since long before this latest incident--
    But polygamy is gross and is a mockery of traditional marriage. It differs from gay marriage because polygamy is widely unpopular and therefore hip to be bigoted against. Maybe in the future, some well-spoken advocate will reform America's views to be more accepting of poly, er...marriage, but that's not today.
    I want to say this right now to keep perspective - there's no way, not in a million years, this board would get as worked up [as they do about gay marriage--ed] to support a state proposition recognizing polygamy as equal to traditional marriage.
    I was trying to point out there's a similarity between how a homophobe reacts to the idea of gay marriage versus how you would react to a pedophile but it's not going over so well. From now on, I'll stop comparing homosexuality to ... anything. The struggle for equality for homosexuals is its own unique thing right now and if that struggle ever resembles something else, I won't mention it.

    It's possible that it's a recurring problem because it hasn't been addressed in mutually satisfactory terms. Someone might promise to lay off simply out of fear of retribution, and someone might promise to lay off because he or she understands the situation in a different light. I believe the latter to be a more lasting and mutually satisfactory outcome.

    I do believe that polygamy is more in the vein of gay marriage than pedophilia, insofar as it's perfectly possible to have polyamorous groupings without anyone being too young to consent. I think it's occasionally an impolitic comparison, but not a vapid one.
    So yeah, I really appreciate how a gaggle of people turned out to white knight for him and everything, but maybe, just maybe, you might not know what you're talking about. It's almost like when I said something mean to him it was in part because he has a merry-go-round history of saying incredibly offensive things about my sexual orientation and then acting like he has no idea why anyone might be upset.

    I guess it perhaps hasn't been addressed in explicit terms, but I think one underlying point to the things that have been said is that the typical mode of discourse around here doesn't really lend itself to actually changing minds and improving dialog. I guess I may simply be reading that in to this whole thing though, and others may not agree. But that's one way to consider what you're talking about.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • MrMisterMrMister Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    It's possible that it's a recurring problem because it hasn't been addressed in mutually satisfactory terms.

    Clearly it has not been resolved to mutual satisfaction. After all, he keeps on doing it. But as someone who has read our many hundreds of pages of gay rights discussion, let me tell you, it is not for want of people having addressed it. It has been explained to him, every single time, why this is a bad comparison, and an offensive one to boot.

    And yet whenever we discuss gay rights he always goes back to the same thing. Mysterious.

    And so no, I give the thumbs up neither to the peanut gallery interested in scolding me for having been mean to enm (the irony is overwhelming), nor to the high-handed demonstration of how this discussion should be taking place. As if no one had ever thought to explain why it was offensive before; as if we hadn't thought to explain why it was offensive every time before.

    MrMister on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Emn did explain what sort of point he was trying to make with the pedo references. Obviously, it's just about the stupidest way to make said point. (Sorry Emn) But as long as the point is "here's how prejudice (justified or not) shapes society" and not "here's how homosexuals are like pedophiles," it has a place in the discussion.

    I suppose the real question is: Emn, do you solemnly swear to never again compare anything to pedophilia? Give us a nice quotable answer so that MrMister can be assured he could easily reference it, if it did happen again.

    enc0re on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    Emn did explain what sort of point he was trying to make with the pedo references. Obviously, it's just about the stupidest way to make said point. (Sorry Emn) But as long as the point is "here's how prejudice (justified or not) shapes society" and not "here's how homosexuals are like pedophiles," it has a place in the discussion.

    I suppose the real question is: Emn, do you solemnly swear to never again compare anything to pedophilia? Give us a nice quotable answer so that MrMister can be assured he could easily reference it, if it did happen again.

    That seems a little unfair to emnmnme - offensive, yes, but presumably he can and should make the point again if he holds it, albeit in a more explicitly careful fashion. And the topic will come up again. This forum has a lot of churn.

    (I may be missing something more obvious here, but I haven't read emnmnme's post history carefully)

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Saying something in real life is very different than saying it on the internet, especially with people you don't know. Comparing the two things is disingenuous.

    And saying that calling something stupid provides 'meaning in a short and succint manner' is just kidding yourself. It doesn't provide any useful meaning. The consensus so far is that it's really only good when provided with additional context, in which case the usage of the word itself is superfluous and unnecessary.
    You can say that some posts are just so dumb that it's not worth responding in depth. Unless the post in question is actually trolling, though, I don't think this makes sense. It's never wrong to try to elevate the discourse.

    I agree completely with this. Being insulting and/or dismissive can only hurt you, the person doing it, by either making you look bad to other people, or assuring that the person you're talking to isn't going to take you seriously. The only time it works in your favor is when you have a large contingent behind you already, and you're not arguing in good faith anyway.

    I don't see how the internet and real life are all that different. I expect you people to treat me like you treat people in real life, same as I do. What makes the internet so wildly different?

    Disingenuous: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does

    Are you implying that I am lying or being insincere? Ironic that you used that word against me in this thread in an attempt to dismiss me.

    The use of saying something someone said was stupid is not part of the argument, indeed, however it is useful to point out that next time they ought to think before they speak. Being wrong isn't the same as being stupid, and I would never say that someone who is wrong is stupid, except as a joke.

    Yes, I do think you're lying or being insincere, if you are unaware that your exact purposes and intentions in using a particular word choice are more difficult to discern online than in a real life conversation, especially compared to a conversation with someone who is a friend of yours. Have you never seen a 'broken sarcasm detector' online? We're also talking very specifically about discussions on this forum, so whatever conversations you have with people in real life aren't pertinent anyway. I have lots of stupid discussions in real life I don't hold to this standard, because from the purpose of this forum, I expect more.

    You are, however, very wrong in thinking that it's an attempt to dismiss you. I picked disingenous because it had exactly the meaning I meant to convey. I have also explained my reasoning before I used it. You're attempting to turn my argument back around on me, but it doesn't make sense that way, because I am providing full explanations for each of my points, and also no out and out insults. You may not like being called disingenous, but it has a very particular meaning, and is not just a slur.

    Your final paragraph is somewhat confusing to me. Why would it point out to someone that they ought to think before they speak? If you don't explain what's stupid about it, they're just going to think you're insulting them, regardless of how swell a guy you are. You don't seem to get that uncontextualized insults don't really get people considering their own arguments and choices. If you tell an pro-lifer that saying 'abortion is murder' is stupid, you're not really getting them to think about their statement - you just make yourself look dismissive and insulting, and not worth their time to talk to.

    Basically, all you're doing is arguing that the negative reasons for using it aren't as bad as I'm saying. That might be true, but there's still not POSITIVE reasons to use it. So why do it?

    If you think I am lying in what I think than I am not even sure what to say to you. I truly and honestly think that there is no reason I should talk differently to people on this forum than I do to friends when debating something. Not random stupid discussions, but frank discussions and arguments about debatable topics. I don't think this is an unreasonable standard.

    You might also notice that I specifically said that you should always explain why an argument is wrong, not just dismiss it as stupid. I merely don't see the problem with saying "this is stupid because..."

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Emn did explain what sort of point he was trying to make with the pedo references. Obviously, it's just about the stupidest way to make said point. (Sorry Emn) But as long as the point is "here's how prejudice (justified or not) shapes society" and not "here's how homosexuals are like pedophiles," it has a place in the discussion.

    I suppose the real question is: Emn, do you solemnly swear to never again compare anything to pedophilia? Give us a nice quotable answer so that MrMister can be assured he could easily reference it, if it did happen again.

    That seems a little unfair to emnmnme - offensive, yes, but presumably he can and should make the point again if he holds it, albeit in a more explicitly careful fashion. And the topic will come up again. This forum has a lot of churn.

    (I may be missing something more obvious here, but I haven't read emnmnme's post history carefully)

    It's more than a little unfair to emn to lock him out of an entire line of analogy. But I don't see another way forward for MrMister and emn so that they can have an actual discussion on the merits of gays in the military or [insert other topic here]. Bottom line: I'm getting the vibe from emn's posts that he's more interested in having an actual discussion than in having access to pedo analogies.

    enc0re on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    It's possible that it's a recurring problem because it hasn't been addressed in mutually satisfactory terms.

    Clearly it has not been resolved to mutual satisfaction. After all, he keeps on doing it. But as someone who has read our many hundreds of pages of gay rights discussion, let me tell you, it is not for want of people having addressed it. It has been explained to him, every single time, why this is a bad comparison, and an offensive one to boot.

    And yet whenever we discuss gay rights he always goes back to the same thing. Mysterious.

    And so no, I give the thumbs up neither to the peanut gallery interested in scolding me for having been mean to enm (the irony is overwhelming), nor to the high-handed demonstration of how this discussion should be taking place. As if no one had ever thought to explain why it was offensive before; as if we hadn't thought to explain why it was offensive every time before.

    Those explanations do not appear to have been persuasive. It is an option to get angry and shout him down, but I do think it's a better way to go to keep trying until you get the point across. Especially since, even if you never do him any good, and he never understands, you will do yourself good. You will better understand your own views, and others' objections to them, every time you try to be flexible and find a new tack on something that you already know to be right. And occasionally, (while certainly not in this case since you are clearly in the right) you will find that those explorations will make you aware of things that make you realize you had things wrong. The frustation, and repetition of the same old things doesn't help anyone.

    And like others, I have to openly say that I have been as guilty as anyone, of many of these things.

    And I'm only 51% sure I even should have made this post, since Mr.Mister's objections are very understandable, and he alone among us has not had the time to gain distance from his thread. And maybe distance wouldn't even help, given the nature of the comments. Hmm.... I'll have to review this in a greater state of sobriety and decide if it made sense.

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I am with MrMister.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    And like others, I have to openly say that I have been as guilty as anyone, of many of these things.

    This is the essence of the matter for me. In my short life I've made countless statements that were ignorant, hurtful, derisive, mean spirited, dishonest, disingenuous, and worse. And I've always been grateful for the patience of those that corrected me.

    enc0re on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I am with MrMister.
    In what sense? Because I think all of us agree that he's in the right, so to speak.

    enc0re on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    It's possible that it's a recurring problem because it hasn't been addressed in mutually satisfactory terms.

    Clearly it has not been resolved to mutual satisfaction. After all, he keeps on doing it. But as someone who has read our many hundreds of pages of gay rights discussion, let me tell you, it is not for want of people having addressed it. It has been explained to him, every single time, why this is a bad comparison, and an offensive one to boot.

    And yet whenever we discuss gay rights he always goes back to the same thing. Mysterious.

    And so no, I give the thumbs up neither to the peanut gallery interested in scolding me for having been mean to enm (the irony is overwhelming), nor to the high-handed demonstration of how this discussion should be taking place. As if no one had ever thought to explain why it was offensive before; as if we hadn't thought to explain why it was offensive every time before.

    I'll just say that it was the clampi thing that prompted me to make this thread, not the Emm thing.

    I have quite a bit less tolerance for Emm at this point myself having dealt with him for years here and, as you say, it's always the same old shtick, and it's not always about gay rights or whatever. I'm not saying I'm justified in dismissing him, but I usually avoid responding to him at all nowadays. It's like my dealings with Evander. I don't think Evander's a terrible guy. I think he occasionally espouses some bizarre things. But mainly I find it annoying to converse with him. So I don't bother responding to him, even if I disagree heavily. Why subject myself to torment?

    There are some people you just can't "teach" and it's probably wrong to approach conversation from the "I'm going to teach you something" perspective anyway, even if you think you can or should do so. I mean we were talking about "teaching" earlier in this thread, but please don't misunderstand me - I don't think people with more knowledge need to teach newbies the proper way to think in that "sit down and I'm going to tell you how it is" condescending kind of way. I believe learning is occasionally a part of good discourse. As I said before, I've learned a good deal here in D&D. A lot of it went completely against my prior ignorance and biases and I'm glad for the new perspective. But that doesn't and cannot happen with automatic dismissal.

    There's a big difference between Emm who has been here for half a decade or whatever (haven't checked, but I know he's been here for years and years and years) and someone like clampi who just seems a bit ignorant but hasn't been. When you have both people making the same kind of argument regarding a subject that you take very seriously (and are very sensitive to), I can certainly understand why you would react a certain way to both of them but the point I'm trying to make in this thread is that dismissing someone like clampi doesn't really work toward broadening his mindset at all. Not that you are obligated to, no, but wouldn't that be better? You can't know whether or not it'll work until you've tried.

    As you say, multiple people have tried with Emm for a long time and it hasn't worked. It is unfair for me to judge the way you act toward him in this situation. I guess I shouldn't expect you to just roll over and take it. But in my social philosophy, when someone says something mind-numbingly silly and offense, not paying it any credence, even if only to dismiss it, is probably the best way to handle it. It's not like people out there are going to read his post and be like "hmm, yeah, you know what, that makes sense, gays and pedophiles, hmm, wow..." Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see that happening. The only person Emm can harm with his rhetoric is himself and his own reputation. My reaction is "have at it." But again it's not as sensitive a topic for me so perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to judge.

    I do think that my points have merit when discussing someone like clampi though. You don't have to entertain his comments or his illogical logic but you don't have to treat him like Emm either. As you yourself point out, your perception of Emm is based on his years of posting history which have been rather unchanging.

    P.S. I'm not saying you were doing these things to clampi. I don't even remember anymore. I think other people were dismissing him far more harshly than you. I'm just using him as a comparative example here.

    Drez on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I am with MrMister.

    The relationship thread is that way. :arrow:

    (I kid, I kid.)

    Drez on
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Emn did explain what sort of point he was trying to make with the pedo references. Obviously, it's just about the stupidest way to make said point. (Sorry Emn) But as long as the point is "here's how prejudice (justified or not) shapes society" and not "here's how homosexuals are like pedophiles," it has a place in the discussion.

    I suppose the real question is: Emn, do you solemnly swear to never again compare anything to pedophilia? Give us a nice quotable answer so that MrMister can be assured he could easily reference it, if it did happen again.

    That seems a little unfair to emnmnme - offensive, yes, but presumably he can and should make the point again if he holds it, albeit in a more explicitly careful fashion. And the topic will come up again. This forum has a lot of churn.

    (I may be missing something more obvious here, but I haven't read emnmnme's post history carefully)

    I'm pretty sure he's a "dog-whistle" poster who pops up whenever a new thread about a particular subject happens, in his case homosexuality ( for other examples, think Evander and Israel, or the Cat and gender). He just tends to use exceptionally offensive arguments.

    D&D has an absolutely awful tendency to dogpile, partly because it's got a lot of longtime posters and the average expectation of intellect and writing ability is pretty high for a broad discussion forum this size. Unfortunately, this rarely leads to good discussion, because unless someone comes in with an extrordinarily well-thought out argument against prevailing D&D opinion, they're going to get reamed.

    This is part of why I rarely post here any more. There's a big tendency to repeat topics in discussion forums, and as long as people just rip on others nobody ever says anything interesting. Ignorance is defeated, truth prevails, and everyone goes home. Really, the only threads I check out these days are the econ ones, because ronya is an awesome poster and instead of gnashing his teeth whenever anyone says anything stupid he's just like "no this is why that's not true and here are maybe some links or readings you might want to look into." I actually learn things! It's a breath of fresh air, really, and I wish more of the forums were like that.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I am with MrMister.
    In what sense? Because I think all of us agree that he's in the right, so to speak.

    In the sense that group hugs are premature and this seems like largely feel good nonsense (this is how I read MrMr... I might be wrong).

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    In the sense that group hugs are premature and this seems like largely feel good nonsense (this is how I read MrMr... I might be wrong).
    I thought that's what you meant. While I disagree (I'm of the hug now, hug more later school), I understand where he/you are coming from. Ball's in emn's court. Let's see where this goes.

    enc0re on
Sign In or Register to comment.