Subject:
|
Re: The Silliness Goes On and On and On and....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:41:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1089 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 corrected" and left it at that. However, I would say that
it's my IMPRESSION that most of the time when someone in these forums (or
online in general) get's corrected they respond with a "curse" not with a
"thanks".
> > 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.
Those were the same conclusions I came to also - it had been mentioned once
and obviously it was not going to do any good to try and argue the case
further. However, that particular misuse of language happens to be one of
the ones that REALLY drives me crazy. But for once I actually restrained
myself...
> > 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 take this to mean that you belive I was sloppy in the wording of my first
post and while this make me wince and I feel the hackles starting to rise I
guess the proof that you're right can be found in the response I received.
I do still believe though that if someone is going to respond to me by
calling me "racist" that they should at least do me the courtesy of stating
exactly why that it is the case. To simpy hurl charges and then run away is
pretty cowardly (to me at least) but as I've expressed in other forums
there's never been another tool in human history such as the Internet that
allows one person to insult another with the absolute impunity that comes
from knowing that they are essentially anonymous and that the well deserved
punch to the nose will not be forthcoming (I'm not saying that anything said
here on LUGNET warranted violence I'm just generalizing to an extreme).
> > 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.
Doesn't the evidence prove though that this exactly what's going on? Not
only with the thread started by my "Made In China" post but in so many
others that have popped up here in the last couple of years. But I guess
you're essentially right in that there's no reason for me to generalize
about LUGNET users with these little digs.
> > 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.
You can take that up with the folks at Webster's then. The nearest
dictionary I have at hand from them defines a bigot as "one obstinately and
unreasonably wedded to a particular belief or creed." There is no mention
at all that bigotry has anything to do with racist beliefs. I think this
definition is essentially the same as the definition I set forth. Feel free
to point out why I'm wrong though.
I'd be interested in hearing what you think the correct definition of a
bigot is.
> > 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.
Believe me I am desperately trying to "get over it." I think that what's
even more upsetting to me about the various postings of the last few days
than their actual content has been the fact that I've been bothered by them
to the extent I have. I've become very much aware of my lack of
self-restraint when it comes to responding to posts that I believe are
attacking me. I'm seriously thinking about just "dropping out" for a while
until I feel restored to my former state of mellowness. As I mentioned in
another post I also now realize that in the future I should stick to more
mundane topics related to LEGO.
> > 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.
Again you're right about the "attack count". However, don't go giving me
too much credit...I might just truly be the crotchety old misanthropic crank
that I've shown myself to be the last couple of days here on LUGNET.
> Chris
Thanks Chris - once again I appreciate someone taking time to not only just
read what I've written but also respond with some constructive feedback and
fodder for more thinking on my part (even though sometimes I wish I could
just turn the old brain off for a while).
Greg
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Silliness Goes On and On and On and....
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
