Subject:
|
Re: The Silliness Goes On and On and On and....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Sep 2001 17:31:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1140 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Greg Perry writes:
> > c/phenomena/phenomenon (sorry, the editor gene asserted itself)
>
> Once again Lindsay I thank you for your input to this discussion. I'm also
> probably one of the few people in this forum who appreciates being set
> straight on the misuse of particular words, so THANKS.
Actually quite a number of us like to be corrected. It's the only way to get
better. That said, this is the first of multiple attacks against your
readership in general that I think signals some kind of communications failure.
I think you are unlikely to build a connection with your audience when your
stance is seen as being so agressive.
> I wonder if you'd be
> willing to circle back around to another part of this discussion thread and
> explain to another poster why "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less"
> are not statements with the same meaning (I started to but I figured all I
> would get for my trouble was another petulant outburst of name-calling).
I actually thought about that, but I decided that either the poster _really_
doesn't care about communications and thus wouldn't care to think about why the
two are opposites, or is not a native English speaker and the little mistake
can be forgiven. After all, while it was a misuse (and even one that bugs me),
we all knew what was meant. So I figure the best bet is to mention it once (as
was done) and let it go.
> I think you've "hit the nail on the head" with these comments. It appears
> that many people reading my initial post did take it to be racist simply
> because some of the thoughts I expressed are often the same ones spouted by
> racists.
I think you have two logical options. You can say things that are likely to be
inflamitory, and just not particularly care what everyone else thinks, or you
can phrase them so carefully that only the real fools will still scream at you.
To word your controversial ideas sloppily and then to whinge about the flak
seems a bit silly.
> I also appreciate you bringing up the distinction between a "racist" and a
> "racialist" - this difference however is I'm sure lost on many of the
> readers of this thread because their emotions don't allow them to actually
> think about what's being said.
Readership attack #2.
> In this case I purposely chose the word "bigot" to use because of the hope
> that it would carry more weight in its impact. I would argue that its
> definition could be stretched (but only slightly) to cover this situation in
> that I am referring to a bigot as someone who is absolutely convinced of the
> correctness of their ideas even when evidence to the contrary exists. This
> would seem to be the case with those who have leveled charges of racism
> against me.
I don't think that's a bigot.
> They've decided that they are RIGHT(eous) and I am WRONG and
> therefore they are in no way obligated to substantiate their accusations.
> Nothing that could be said or demonstrated to these people will convince
> them that their original perspective on my posting was inaccurate. They are
> RIGHT, I am WRONG.
I agree. They're being wrong-headed. But get over it.
> I think that what this whole discussion thread has taught me is that while I
> might not be a racist I'm definitely developing sentiments that are turning
> me into an Intelligencist or an IQ-ist. I'm becoming completely intolerant
> of those who I consider to be just plain dumb (ooooohhh - I used the D-word!).
Readership attack #3. I bet you aren't actually insensitive to people who
through no fault of their own are incapable of grasping complex ideas. I bet
that it's only people who ought to be able to 'get it,' but just refuse to,
that really get under your skin. But I'm just guessing.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Silliness Goes On and On and On and....
|
| (...) You're right Chris in pointing out to me that I've started lashing out with unwarranted "attacks" and generalizations when I should stick to responding to individuals and specifics. In retrospect I should have just said "I don't mind being (...) (23 years ago, 8-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Silliness Goes On and On and On and....
|
| (...) Once again Lindsay I thank you for your input to this discussion. I'm also probably one of the few people in this forum who appreciates being set straight on the misuse of particular words, so THANKS. I wonder if you'd be willing to circle (...) (23 years ago, 8-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
103 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
