The Newly Departed thread: announcements (departures)

[LadyForCamus]

You know, Tibs and I were talking about this and he said there's a lot of victim blaming. I was like, "Come on. I'm not a victim. It's not a big deal." Then we talked about it, and I thought about it like this. Would you tell a woman who just got punched in the face by her abusive husband after calling him an asshole that "He shouldn't have done that, but you should have been nicer to him, since you know he has anger issues."? Now, I 100% realize it's an inflated analogy. Ham didn't hit anyone here, but the principal stands. You think everyone should be nicer to him so he won't fly off the handle because he has issues. It's not that you think he's a nice guy that's a problem. I don't think he's a bad person, either. It's the "but" you put at the end of "He shouldn't do that." that rankles. No buts, dude. No buts. There are things I shouldn't do. I shouldn't do them. Period.

I guess it seems that way because I’m talking about two separate issues at the same time.  A man should not insult a woman by calling her a cunt.  Ever.  That’s my opinion, anyway.  No excuses.  No ‘buts’.  Hammy was wrong.  End of story.  ShellB, if you meant to instigate him, that in no way gives him the right or an excuse to say that to you, just as that in no way gives a man the right to punch you in the nose.  It’s a good analogy.  People choose what they say here, and that’s on them.  More broadly speaking though, what I’ve noticed around here over the past several years is a pattern of intentional provokation of Hammy, and then what appears to be satisfaction in the fall out.

Poke.  Poke.  Poke.  ‘Well, Hammy flipped it again!  Figures he wouldn’t be able to keep it together. Lather, rinse, repeat!  See you in three days, Hamz!  *popcorn*

The other thing I see is people accusing him of picking fights when he’s just having a normal conversation with someone. I’m just wondering how productive it is to set someone up for failure like that, especially when it’s painfully obvious, at least to me, that he’s trying very hard to do better.  I’m perplexed by motive is all.

[brewer]

And yet he kudosed the post. He got that one. Try again.

Ok, here's another: https://atheistforums.org/post-1762654.html#pid1762654

I think you need to go back and re-read all of the posts in that interaction. Here are the post numbers, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, and finally 559 which he neglected to respond to (gosh, I wonder why?). 

Tell me, who provoked who? It seemed to start with him sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. And in the end being incorrect.

And I note that you did not correct him.

[Shell B]

You know, Tibs and I were talking about this and he said there's a lot of victim blaming. I was like, "Come on. I'm not a victim. It's not a big deal." Then we talked about it, and I thought about it like this. Would you tell a woman who just got punched in the face by her abusive husband after calling him an asshole that "He shouldn't have done that, but you should have been nicer to him, since you know he has anger issues."? Now, I 100% realize it's an inflated analogy. Ham didn't hit anyone here, but the principal stands. You think everyone should be nicer to him so he won't fly off the handle because he has issues. It's not that you think he's a nice guy that's a problem. I don't think he's a bad person, either. It's the "but" you put at the end of "He shouldn't do that." that rankles. No buts, dude. No buts. There are things I shouldn't do. I shouldn't do them. Period.

I guess it seems that way because I’m talking about two separate issues at the same time.  A man should not insult a woman by calling her a cunt.  Ever.  That’s my opinion, anyway.  No excuses.  No ‘buts’.  Hammy was wrong.  End of story.  ShellB, if you meant to instigate him, that in no way gives him the right, or an excuse to say that to you, just as that in no way gives a man the right to punch you in the nose.  It’s a good analogy.  People choose what they say here, and that’s on them.  More broadly speaking though, what I’ve noticed around here over the past several years is a pattern of intentional provokation of Hammy, and then what appears to be satisfaction in the fall out.

Poke.  Poke.  Poke.  ‘Well, Hammy flipped it again!  Figures he wouldn’t be able to keep it together. Lather, rinse, repeat!  See you in three days, Hamz!  *popcorn*

The other thing I see is people accusing him of picking fights when he’s just having a normal conversation with someone. I’m just wondering how productive it is to set someone up for failure like that, especially when it’s painfully obvious, at least to me, that he’s trying very hard to do better.  I’m perplexed by motive is all.

Yeah, none of that was me. We’ve disagreed before, but this is the first time we’ve ever argued.

[Joods]

And yet he kudosed the post. He got that one. Try again.

Ok, here's another: https://atheistforums.org/post-1762654.html#pid1762654

How is mh baiting or provoking H in that post when he was just responding to H's post? H made an assumption and told mh how mh felt. If anyone was provoking anyone, I'd say it was H. I swear CL you're reading into things and injecting meanings that aren't even there. Why? To keep on protecting H? From what exactly? Getting his feelings hurt? Maybe he should have thought about how he's treated others, knowing it could come back to bite him in the ass.

[Shell B]

Looks like a mutual argument to me.

[SaStrike]

Brutal honesty and criticism all the way, unless it's about me then please walk on eggshells.

---

Imagine the reaction of luckie when he/she catches up on reading the thread.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok, here's another: https://atheistforums.org/post-1762654.html#pid1762654

I think there's a difference between just making a snarky comment and intentionally provoking someone. I think you may be reading an intent which doesn't exist there. Determining intent from behavior is often hard, but I don't see MH's comments as anything other than innocent. If you're saying one should avoid making snarky comments around Hammy because they might provoke him, then perhaps Shell has a point about you.

Making a snarky comment at someone like Ham for no reason IS provoking him though lol. We all know how he reacts to stuff like that, so why do it is my point. No one has anything to gain from that, except maybe some forum drama to talk about for the next 2 days.

---

You know, Tibs and I were talking about this and he said there's a lot of victim blaming. I was like, "Come on. I'm not a victim. It's not a big deal." Then we talked about it, and I thought about it like this. Would you tell a woman who just got punched in the face by her abusive husband after calling him an asshole that "He shouldn't have done that, but you should have been nicer to him, since you know he has anger issues."? Now, I 100% realize it's an inflated analogy. Ham didn't hit anyone here, but the principal stands. You think everyone should be nicer to him so he won't fly off the handle because he has issues. It's not that you think he's a nice guy that's a problem. I don't think he's a bad person, either. It's the "but" you put at the end of "He shouldn't do that." that rankles. No buts, dude. No buts. There are things I shouldn't do. I shouldn't do them. Period.

I guess it seems that way because I’m talking about two separate issues at the same time.  A man should not insult a woman by calling her a cunt.  Ever.  That’s my opinion, anyway.  No excuses.  No ‘buts’.  Hammy was wrong.  End of story.  ShellB, if you meant to instigate him, that in no way gives him the right or an excuse to say that to you, just as that in no way gives a man the right to punch you in the nose.  It’s a good analogy.  People choose what they say here, and that’s on them.  More broadly speaking though, what I’ve noticed around here over the past several years is a pattern of intentional provokation of Hammy, and then what appears to be satisfaction in the fall out.

Poke.  Poke.  Poke.  ‘Well, Hammy flipped it again!  Figures he wouldn’t be able to keep it together. Lather, rinse, repeat!  See you in three days, Hamz!  *popcorn*

The other thing I see is people accusing him of picking fights when he’s just having a normal conversation with someone. I’m just wondering how productive it is to set someone up for failure like that, especially when it’s painfully obvious, at least to me, that he’s trying very hard to do better.  I’m perplexed by motive is all.

^this

---

Ok, here's another: https://atheistforums.org/post-1762654.html#pid1762654

I think you need to go back and re-read all of the posts in that interaction. Here are the post numbers, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, and finally 559 which he neglected to respond to (gosh, I wonder why?). 

Tell me, who provoked who? It seemed to start with him sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. And in the end being incorrect.

And I note that you did not correct him.

I saw him trying to clarify something you said that I did not understand. He didn't do it rudely or in a nasty way.

---

Ok, here's another: https://atheistforums.org/post-1762654.html#pid1762654

How is mh baiting or provoking H in that post when he was just responding to H's post? H made an assumption and told mh how mh felt. If anyone was provoking anyone, I'd say it was H. I swear CL you're reading into things and injecting meanings that aren't even there. Why? To keep on protecting H? From what exactly? Getting his feelings hurt? Maybe he should have thought about how he's treated others, knowing it could come back to bite him in the ass.

I did not see any ill intention on Ham's part. MH said something to me that I was confussed by, and Ham tried to clarify for me where the confusion was. I didn't get the impression at all that he was trying to be a dick or anything.

[brewer]

---

I think you need to go back and re-read all of the posts in that interaction. Here are the post numbers, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, and finally 559 which he neglected to respond to (gosh, I wonder why?). 

Tell me, who provoked who? It seemed to start with him sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. And in the end being incorrect.

And I note that you did not correct him.

I saw him trying to clarify something you said that I did not understand. He didn't do it rudely or in a nasty way.

How can he clarify something that I said, especially when he got it incorrect. Not rude or nasty? I don't think that you read all of the posts or you've lost objectivity.

---

Looks like a mutual argument to me.

If this is regarding the mh/H interaction it's not really an argument. Just me trying to get the point across to H and CL that H has no business speaking for me. He didn't get it, then when pointed out that he was incorrect, didn't respond.

[Catholic_Lady]

People do that all the time, I don't see it as being a shitty thing unless the person does it in a way that is nasty or dishonest.

But yeah, there's been plenty of times when someone said something to another person, they did not get it, and I responded to try to clear up the confussion.

[brewer]

People do that all the time, I don't see it as being a shitty thing unless the person does it in a way that is nasty or dishonest.

But yeah, there's been plenty of times when someone said something to another person, they did not get it, and I responded to try to clear up the confussion.

Do you end up telling the person that they are wrong and not so smart all the while just trying to clear up confusion?

Maybe you should read post 557 again.