Discussion about acceptable styles of argument in VPT

[think positive]

c'mon now guys stay with me, he said page 7,


i want to see what happens when the mod puts everyone on the ignore list!
























only joking honey!

[think positive]

Go Me!

TOUCHDOWN!

[Pies4shaw]

I'm not sure about any of these namby-pamby rules. I only come here for the violence.

[stui magpie]

gavels at 10 paces?

[Pies4shaw]

I'm ideologically opposed to gavels - too direct and the target can generally see where the hit is coming from. IMO, commercial disputes are typically better-determined by sniping from a distance.

[think positive]

Hehe, that's the spirit!

[Pies4shaw]

A lot of damage can be done to a culture in two generations. Just amazes me the blind spot that all the bleeding heart progressives have for a violent, oppressive, expansionist religion like Islam. They'd be the first on the chopping block in Saudi or Iran.

Is there a more irrelevant, pre-scientific and just plain dumb incantation outside ISIS prayer meetings?

The only amazing thing is how many times people can explain to you the hard, factual, scientific constraints of the Homo sapiens cognitive-emotional-environmental nexus without you grasping it.

It's like explaining the Blessed Trinity to a Mormon: "Yeah, but I still count three, not one."

So, just remind us all again, David, how does this fit in with the "no belittling" policy?

I'm struggling.

[David]

The first sentence is a hard attack on the ball, not the man. Play on.

The second is a little intemperate, but ... I dunno. Do you seriously want me to go through every old post and explain why it should or shouldn't have been moderated? I'm sure you'd find scores of inconsistencies and oversights. Hell, I'm sure you'd find plenty of my posts that break the rules. So consider yesterday's post as a statement of intent and a reiteration of standards, not a holy law that applies retrospectively.

[think positive]

The first sentence is a hard attack on the ball, not the man. Play on.

The second is a little intemperate, but ... I dunno. Do you seriously want me to go through every old post and explain why it should or shouldn't have been moderated? I'm sure you'd find scores of inconsistencies and oversights. Hell, I'm sure you'd find plenty of my posts that break the rules. So consider yesterday's post as a statement of intent and a reiteration of standards, not a holy law that applies retrospectively.

"It's like explaining the Blessed Trinity to a Mormon: "Yeah, but I still count three, not one.""

thats not only a little,


and this:
The only amazing thing is how many times people can explain to you the hard, factual, scientific constraints of the Homo sapiens cognitive-emotional-environmental nexus without you grasping it.
basically says "how damn dumb are you?"

if the reply is "your the halfwit, not me" that gets deleted, and yet there was plenty of provocation

please note i did not write 1/2wit! damn swear filter!

[Wokko]

That's the point of passive aggressive argument, create enough ambiguity to get away with it ("I was only joking, why are you so upset"). What makes it harder is some people see it as the obvious aggression that it is and others have no idea. It's what makes this whole discussion so frustrating for those who see passive aggression for what it is and those who either have no idea or are stubbornly ignorant of it all.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pa ... people-say

8. "You've done so well for someone with your education level."

The backhanded compliment is the ultimate socially acceptable means by which the passive aggressive person insults you to your core. If anyone has ever told you, "Don't worry; you can still get braces, even at your age" or, "There are a lot of men out there who like plump women," chances are you know how much "joy" a passive aggressive compliment can bring.

9. "I was only joking"

Like backhanded compliments, sarcasm is a common tool of a passive aggressive person who expresses hostility aloud, but in socially acceptable, indirect ways. If you show that you are offended by biting, passive aggressive sarcasm, the hostile joke teller plays up his or her role as victim, asking, "Can't you take a joke?"

10. "Why are you getting so upset?"

The passive aggressive person is a master at maintaining calm and feigning shock when others, worn down by his or her indirect hostility, blow up in anger. In fact, the person takes pleasure out of setting others up to lose their cool and then questioning their "overreactions."

And no, I'm not performing a psychological analysis on anyone, I'm trying to explain and demonstrate the beahviour and argument style and why it's so frustrating.

[think positive]

top post
just described my old man to a T

[pietillidie]

That's the point of passive aggressive argument, create enough ambiguity to get away with it ("I was only joking, why are you so upset"). What makes it harder is some people see it as the obvious aggression that it is and others have no idea. It's what makes this whole discussion so frustrating for those who see passive aggression for what it is and those who either have no idea or are stubbornly ignorant of it all.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pa ... people-say

8. "You've done so well for someone with your education level."

The backhanded compliment is the ultimate socially acceptable means by which the passive aggressive person insults you to your core. If anyone has ever told you, "Don't worry; you can still get braces, even at your age" or, "There are a lot of men out there who like plump women," chances are you know how much "joy" a passive aggressive compliment can bring.

9. "I was only joking"

Like backhanded compliments, sarcasm is a common tool of a passive aggressive person who expresses hostility aloud, but in socially acceptable, indirect ways. If you show that you are offended by biting, passive aggressive sarcasm, the hostile joke teller plays up his or her role as victim, asking, "Can't you take a joke?"

10. "Why are you getting so upset?"

The passive aggressive person is a master at maintaining calm and feigning shock when others, worn down by his or her indirect hostility, blow up in anger. In fact, the person takes pleasure out of setting others up to lose their cool and then questioning their "overreactions."

And no, I'm not performing a psychological analysis on anyone, I'm trying to explain and demonstrate the beahviour and argument style and why it's so frustrating.

That's a misunderstanding of the problem, unfortunately.

I never said I was only joking. You're searching for some literalistic formula whereby all sarcasm must mean humour, and all humour must be universally, multi-directionally humorous. But, there's no such thing.

Also, there's nothing passive-aggressive about sarcasm and contempt, except if you somehow think John Oliver is passive-aggressive because he has never actually, literally, pushed Donald Trump off a building or set a mastiff on him.

That comment was openly contemptuous of the views you hold to the extent of the speech afforded.

Even so, didn't we rule a line under all that? We can press on if you insist.

[stui magpie]

^

For mine the point here would be this.

Whether intended or not it's patently clear that your style has offended and upset some people who have taken your comments as personal insults.

Your choices in this would appear to be basically:

1. Accept the feedback and make efforts to modify your style so as not to offend, or

2. Continue as you are as you believe you are doing nothing wrong.

It's unlikely that those you've seemingly managed to offend will quickly come around to your way of thinking, so that's something I would factor into the decision.

Please don't take this as either backseat moderating or making authoritarian ultimatums, I'm simply trying to enter into the spirit of conciliation by making some suggestions. Make of them what you will.

[pietillidie]

^No, that's all good. I'm actually willing to be much more generous with my expression if others are willing to be much more cautious with theirs.

In cases of irreconcilable value conflicts like this, a reset and concerted effort from everyone could go a long way.

[think positive]

That's the point of passive aggressive argument, create enough ambiguity to get away with it ("I was only joking, why are you so upset"). What makes it harder is some people see it as the obvious aggression that it is and others have no idea. It's what makes this whole discussion so frustrating for those who see passive aggression for what it is and those who either have no idea or are stubbornly ignorant of it all.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pa ... people-say

8. "You've done so well for someone with your education level."

The backhanded compliment is the ultimate socially acceptable means by which the passive aggressive person insults you to your core. If anyone has ever told you, "Don't worry; you can still get braces, even at your age" or, "There are a lot of men out there who like plump women," chances are you know how much "joy" a passive aggressive compliment can bring.

9. "I was only joking"

Like backhanded compliments, sarcasm is a common tool of a passive aggressive person who expresses hostility aloud, but in socially acceptable, indirect ways. If you show that you are offended by biting, passive aggressive sarcasm, the hostile joke teller plays up his or her role as victim, asking, "Can't you take a joke?"

10. "Why are you getting so upset?"

The passive aggressive person is a master at maintaining calm and feigning shock when others, worn down by his or her indirect hostility, blow up in anger. In fact, the person takes pleasure out of setting others up to lose their cool and then questioning their "overreactions."

And no, I'm not performing a psychological analysis on anyone, I'm trying to explain and demonstrate the beahviour and argument style and why it's so frustrating.

That's a misunderstanding of the problem, unfortunately.

I never said I was only joking. You're searching for some literalistic formula whereby all sarcasm must mean humour, and all humour must be universally, multi-directionally humorous. But, there's no such thing.

Also, there's nothing passive-aggressive about sarcasm and contempt, except if you somehow think John Oliver is passive-aggressive because he has never actually, literally, pushed Donald Trump off a building or set a mastiff on him.

That comment was openly contemptuous of the views you hold to the extent of the speech afforded.

Even so, didn't we rule a line under all that? We can press on if you insist.

So, basically, your not joking and you mean to offend?

Or you don't think your comments are derogatory or offensive?