waffles November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 To Mistgod/Melian side: You don't have to agree with an argument, but at least acknowledge it. Don't just ignore something brought to your attention. I actually agree with Mistgod here. He has given his views and justifications, and I hope below is gonna be a response to that. Also, 'acknowledging' is kind of what I was railing against before. On the subject of agreeing with Mistgod, I guess agreed on the reply to STeeK, although I somewhat suspect that the original post wasn't serious. How is it helpful to be rude to make a point or get a response? You can make a point very effectively without being rude at all. Rudeness fosters anger and resentment and malicious conflict. The responses to rude statements are more than likely not going to be constructive in any way. [...] Why not? My views are valid. I have also backed them up. Rudeness fosters anger, anger foster conflict which is destructive and NOT helpful in the long run. Alright, here we go. Yes, you can make a point effectively without being rude. In a perfect world, this would probably be the best way to go. Probably. But people aren't perfect and don't always listen to points. They don't have to respond to what you say, they don't have to think about it, take it on board, think about why it's wrong, tell you what they really feel about it. This is what I'm claiming is the core value of getting angry, of making people angry: they will listen. They will pay attention, they will respond, God knows what that response may be, but you're getting one. It's not that it's the ideal form of discussion. Maybe. There's a lot to be said for it. But that it's a very effective one, in some cases. Sure, some people respond better to being polite. I'd rather try politeness first. And it varies from issue to issue within people, too. So consider anything I say below to be conditional on me talking about such a person and issue: In some cases, you can't get through to someone by telling them why you think they're wrong in plain prose and calm reason. Because they don't have to pay attention. Because they can step away, they can ignore it, they can dismiss it, as long as it's dry. But when the adrenaline starts to flow, when you get angry, when you see red, then you're hooked. You'll read what they've said, you'll spill yourself and let them know what it is you have issues with. In some ways, people should get angry. There's a great tradition of debaters getting angry. Everyone does it. Ancient Greek philosophers. Great scientists. Some modern parliaments devolve into physical fights, which I think might be taking it a little too far. But still, it's not totally unfair to say that a history of great discourse includes a history of anger. And sure, sometimes it's counterproductive. A lot of the time. Anger clouds the mind, obscures reason. Yes. It does. But there are two things here. Firstly, you're trading off a bit of reason for actually getting a response. Maybe you don't have the friendliest of discussions, but by God you're discussing. Secondly, it's useful to be able to be angry and still argue. Arguing lucidly while angry isn't too hard, once you notice you're angry and decide to keep being angry. It might save you in other situations, where you can deal with being angry without becoming irrational, resisting the urge to throw punches or insults when your blood boils. And it's not like you can't cool down. Anger doesn't have to foster conflict, and that's really another thing that's lacking if you don't get angry much. That you can get angry with people without having to hate them. That being angry isn't something to be ashamed of. Besides which, conflict without anger is really the worst kind of conflict. The one that only simmers, cool jabs, snide remarks. No resolution, no production. Conflict is hugely productive. Human progress is built significantly on conflict. Yeah, not, like, a lot, because, well, technology and science is pretty cooperative for the most part. And I'm not gonna say that everyone should be fighting all the time, or even a lot. But there are some problems where it's the right tool for the job. So anyway. TL;DR: Being rude is useful because it will get a response, because it's engaging. Because it makes things more interesting. If you're doing it right, anger doesn't lead to resentment, and it doesn't breed out-and-out hostility. But it will definitely bring you further in some kinds of discussion.
Vos November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 And allow me to stop this endless banter. I haven't seen any nagging in this thread yet and Jake hasn't even posted here.
Yuki November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 To Jake/Yuki/Waffles side: Quit nagging Mistgod on their every flaw, send it in a PM, don't fill up a thread with it. -There should not be singling out of members in new threads, leave that to PMs, others don't need to get involved with your beef. Play by your own rules. Stop calling me out. Send it in a PM. You've been continually whining about what Dutch and I have been saying, these last few days, yet my PM inbox is still empty. As far as the rest of this topic. Things were fine these last days. Things were quiet, and now drama pops up again, and guess who's back? I love it. Feel free to ask me anything. Suffering is self-imposed. Don't let it control you.
Guest Anonymous November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 So anyway. TL;DR: Being rude is useful because it will get a response, because it's engaging. Because it makes things more interesting. If you're doing it right, anger doesn't lead to resentment, and it doesn't breed out-and-out hostility. But it will definitely bring you further in some kinds of discussion. That sounds like a more rational approach to rudeness than I had in my mind. Perhaps you mean being direct, abrupt and aggressive. I have done that myself many times on this forum and in that definition I am often very rude waffles. I say what I believe to be true flat out. I don't pull punches. People have found my directness and willingness to be contrary to be irritating and exasperating. BUT... it stimulated debate in many cases. Many have told me .. MANY .. have told me they like what I write and how I think. But how I think, and my willingness to say it PISSES PEOPLE OFF. Socrates was rude. He asked a lot of rude, probing questions. He disrupted a lot of "threads" with questions that derailed things quite effectively. For that, he was forced to drink poison for corrupting the youth. Am I a corrupting influence? Rudness for the sake of intolerance or from a sense of superiority is just being rude and snobbish and elitist. I have encountered genuine snobbery many times on this forum. As far as the rest of this topic. Things were fine these last days. Things were quiet, and now drama pops up again, and guess who's back? I love it. Hi Yuki! Read the above post about Socrates! I haven't seen any nagging in this thread yet and Jake hasn't even posted here. Good point.
waffles November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 Perhaps you mean being direct, abrupt and aggressive. I have done that myself many times on this forum and in that definition I am often very rude waffles. I say what I believe to be true flat out. I don't pull punches. People have found my directness and willingness to be contrary to be irritating and exasperating. BUT... it stimulated debate in many cases. Many have told me .. MANY .. have told me they like what I write and how I think. But how I think, and my willingness to say it PISSES PEOPLE OFF. Well, not exactly. Yeah, being direct and abrupt is good. But in a lot of circumstances, I'd presume a certain tolerance of that, or at least make it clear that I was being abrupt, and then just say that. No rudeness about it, just convenience. I'm really talking about being rude, getting angry. The virtues thereof. Of calling a few names. Of pissing people off. You seem to be in agreement with me here. So one of us is probably missing something, because you said before that you never condoned being rude and now you're saying that you're always rude. I dunno, are you shifting what you're calling "rude" based on what I said? Or have you retrocausally applied my advice? Rudness for the sake of intolerance or from a sense of superiority is just being rude and snobbish and elitist. I have encountered genuine snobbery many times on this forum. Well, sure. Not like snobbery is usually particularly rude, though it might be hurtful. It's not really comparable. Again with the whining though. I never mentioned anything like that; you just brought it up when given the chance. It's a non-sequitur and doesn't lead anywhere.
Guest Anonymous November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 I dunno, are you shifting what you're calling "rude" based on what I said? Or have you retrocausally applied my advice? You caught my attention by spawning the idea that there are different types and definitions to being rude. Socrates was seen as rude and corrupting, but he was just direct and abrupt and maybe tactless. Then there is the snobbish kind of rudeness, that is just plain rude because you think you are so hot when really you're not. Well, sure. Not like snobbery is usually particularly rude, though it might be hurtful. It's not really comparable. Again with the whining though. I never mentioned anything like that; you just brought it up when given the chance. It's a non-sequitur and doesn't lead anywhere. NO I brought it up because I am making a distinction between different kinds of rudeness. IF you haven't noticed, you are making headway with me on this front. Don't lose me. Another thing that could help is to create a new section: a true Off Topic sub forum where people can actually discuss what they want. Posts that feels “empty” because they don’t relate to tulpas would find a home, and people would have a place to let off some steam. Or to simply make friends. Every single forum has it. As it is, the Lounge is cluttered because it doesn’t clearly specify which threads are to be considered superfluous. This would solve it. I would totally support that idea, of course. This forum seems cold at best. I mean scientists have places they go for lunch and talk about a lot of bull shit outside the lab I am sure. BUT, honestly, I thought that was what the lounge already was for. There seems to be confusion and disagreement about what the lounge board is for.
Luminesce November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 Oh god you're all still arguing. Brassow posted a few legitimate but not terribly useful suggestions and now you're doing the same thing again. You are all showing a complete failure to live and let live. There's literally nothing wrong with the forum in my eyes except all the complaining and arguing. If you'd all stop doing that, it'd be great. It's not even a matter of Mistgod being a problem or not, or of people attacking him or not. It's a matter of you all creating problems where there shouldn't be any. I really can't stand or understand it. Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn. Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature. My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us about tulpamancy stuff there.
Guest Anonymous November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 Lumi, I am enjoying the discussion! LOL Waffles is actually very engaging. It think that is the point of all of this, there is sometimes a good thing to argue about a little bit. There is no abuse going on, just discussion. I love it. EDIT: Also, some really good points are being made here.
waffles November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 You caught my attention by spawning the idea that there are different types and definitions to being rude. [...] NO I brought it up because I am making a distinction between different kinds of rudeness. Alright, point taken. Sure, there are different kinds of rudeness. I'm not really talking about snobbery or directness, though. I'm talking about what might be construed as insults. Making people angry. A "Listen up you stupid fuckhead" kind of rudeness. The middle ground? Oh god you're all still arguing. Brassow posted a few legitimate but not terribly useful suggestions and now you're doing the same thing You are all showing a complete failure to live and let live. There's literally nothing wrong with the forum in my eyes except all the complaining and arguing. If you'd all stop doing that, it'd be great. It's not even a matter of Mistgod being a problem or not, or of people attacking him or not. It's a matter of you all creating problems where there shouldn't be any. I really can't stand or understand it. The more I think of a reply to this post the further it slips out of my grasp. I'll get back to you.
Guest Anonymous November 16, 2015 November 16, 2015 Alright, point taken. Sure, there are different kinds of rudeness. I'm not really talking about snobbery or directness, though. I'm talking about what might be construed as insults. Making people angry. A "Listen up you stupid fuckhead" kind of rudeness. The middle ground? Well now that you mention it you stu... oh no.. hah hah. NO I really don't see how that can be useful. Do you mean simply the shock value like a tool used to wake up a brainless rock? The more I think of a reply to this post the further it slips out of my grasp. I'll get back to you. Lumi is a peacemaker thru and thru and we love him for it. :-) I will be forever grateful for the huge support and backing I got this week. I practically had my own defense lawyer. There is probably a bill in the mail though. LOL While we're on it we could create a battleground, where people could just let all the anger flow, so that they're are more relaxed in the regular spaces :D (I admit that would probably turn out very horrible) Oh but it would be entertaining! Bloodbowl Tulpatown? The CAGE? LOL
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.