Quote:Insensitive prickish statements are applauded, if they're made against people we disapprove of.

1. The forum rules would disagree 

2.You keep repeating this too bad you never get around to showing it 

3. But by all means keep chanting this excuse for your behavior

(July 24, 2019 at 7:30 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 24, 2019 at 3:42 pm)Cod Wrote: insensitive prick

Insensitive prickish statements are applauded, if they're made against people we disapprove of.

Welcome to social interactions. If this is your first time, please take and read a pamphlet.

(July 24, 2019 at 10:40 pm)Shell B Wrote: Welcome to social interactions. If this is your first time, please take and read a pamphlet.

Social interactions are amazing, aren't they! Not for the faint of heart.

I've found this exchange particularly revealing, because it addresses the way people justify their behavior in such interactions. 

I reported -- honestly and accurately -- that the guy in question did something which (everyone says) it is OK to do. And everybody flipped out about it. Here are the two kinds of responses I've been getting:

A) It is good to do X.

B) It is slander to say, "he did X."

Obviously, these are contradictory. To hold both views at the same time would require quite a bit of cognitive dissonance.

I’m pretty sure people aren’t saying it’s good. They’re saying he didn’t do what you say he did.

(July 25, 2019 at 12:59 am)Shell B Wrote: I’m pretty sure people aren’t saying it’s good. 

It's been walked back a little bit. Someone said recently that nasty personal insults are "acceptable." 

But by posting lots of them, people demonstrate that they think it's good to post them.

Quote:They’re saying he didn’t do what you say he did.

Now this is almost scary. That the memory hole can be so deep and so efficient is a surprise, even to me, who has seen it in action before. 

Here's what happened:

The guy in question posted a quote from Spinoza in order to make fun of it. It was clear at a glance that there was a mistranslation in the quote, because it contrasted "immanent" with "transient." But that has nothing to do with Spinoza's thought (or anyone else's). The contrasting word is "transcendent." 

So I made a joke about how spell-check apps were primitive in Spinoza's time, and provided a more modern and accurate translation, with the link to the published source. 

The guy in question spent the rest of the afternoon responding with silly personal insults about how "transient" was really the opposite of "immanent," and how I was a horrible person (expressed in more colorful language), etc. 

This is all as clear as yesterday in my memory. 

I believe that no one remembers it because at the time it was considered a good and funny thing to do. 

I didn't intend to go into detail about his failings, because that wasn't the point I wanted to make. I made, and still am only interested in, the point about the shocking double standard of how we treat in-group vs. out-group discussions. I think it is immoral.

So that's what happened, well fucking hell, that is an important story and I can see now how it couldn't wait.

(July 25, 2019 at 1:55 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(July 25, 2019 at 12:59 am)Shell B Wrote: I’m pretty sure people aren’t saying it’s good. 

It's been walked back a little bit. Someone said recently that nasty personal insults are "acceptable." 

But by posting lots of them, people demonstrate that they think it's good to post them.

Quote:They’re saying he didn’t do what you say he did.

Now this is almost scary. That the memory hole can be so deep and so efficient is a surprise, even to me, who has seen it in action before. 

Here's what happened:

The guy in question posted a quote from Spinoza in order to make fun of it. It was clear at a glance that there was a mistranslation in the quote, because it contrasted "immanent" with "transient." But that has nothing to do with Spinoza's thought (or anyone else's). The contrasting word is "transcendent." 

So I made a joke about how spell-check apps were primitive in Spinoza's time, and provided a more modern and accurate translation, with the link to the published source. 

The guy in question spent the rest of the afternoon responding with silly personal insults about how "transient" was really the opposite of "immanent," and how I was a horrible person (expressed in more colorful language), etc. 

This is all as clear as yesterday in my memory. 

I believe that no one remembers it because at the time it was considered a good and funny thing to do. 

I didn't intend to go into detail about his failings, because that wasn't the point I wanted to make. I made, and still am only interested in, the point about the shocking double standard of how we treat in-group vs. out-group discussions. I think it is immoral.

As I expected...someone hurt your feelings.

And your response is to wait till the person dies and then talk shit about them.

And still with the insults.  The man is dead and cannot stick up for himself.  Takes a lot of courage to speak out against someone who can't defend themselves.  Aren't you proud of what you have accomplished?  You think you got the last word and that's what you really wanted all along.

(July 25, 2019 at 5:28 am)arewethereyet Wrote:

(July 25, 2019 at 1:55 am)Belaqua Wrote: This is all as clear as yesterday in my memory. 

As I expected...someone hurt your feelings.

And your response is to wait till the person dies and then talk shit about them.

And still with the insults.  The man is dead and cannot stick up for himself.  Takes a lot of courage to speak out against someone who can't defend themselves.  Aren't you proud of what you have accomplished?  You think you got the last word and that's what you really wanted all along.

...and we all know ho well how well our memory serves us humans.

(July 25, 2019 at 1:55 am)Belaqua Wrote: I believe that no one remembers it because at the time it was considered a good and funny thing to do. 

Err no, the reason we don't remember it is because it really isn't as interesting or as memorable as you seem to think it is. Basically you got mocked a bit for a period of a day and it hurt your feels, so what? A big deal it is not, welcome to the real world, I don't consider that either bullying or anything to write home about certainly not enough to trash talk someone after their death and use them as a dubious example to support making a point, sheesh and I thought I was oversensitive. Just let it go, each time you're pressed and give details the severity of the deceaseds supposed crimes against you decrease in magnitude anyway.
I had a run in with Dritch when I got here first, I was offended but in reality it was frustration and my fault for expecting him to argue honourably and concede points but I followed advice I was given by veterans here and just put him on ignore, I have absolutely nothing to do with the guy absolutely zero interaction but if I found out that he had died even though I find the guy utterly odious I would think more than twice before badmouthing him, I'm not perfect but I have some integrity. It doesn't matter if you are being entirely honest and truthful about what happened (which I still don't think you are) what you're doing is as Shell B said completely "tasteless"

We seem to have become sidetracked. I think critiquing a dead person's actions is okay but ideally nobody should be insulting anybody, alive or dead: it doesn't make for good discourse. I assume I'm allowed to voice my dislike for President Andrew Jackson, for example?

Now, getting back on topic, my day to see Rob has been confirmed. Therefore, I can pass on messages people have in person. Hopefully I can make him feel great!