(my emphasis)
Rather, it is an argument ad populum but that’s not a fallacy in this case.
I’m not really that pedantic, but if I don’t make that point y’all will go 10 rounds.
The Great Unwashed, it’s being a jerk because you aren’t commenting on the argument, you’re characterizing the poster in a certain way–as a little girl, undeserving of respect.
Nope, her size and gender were/are unknown to me and in any case would be wholly irreleveant. I was commenting about her ungraceful (disgraceful) exiting of a debate on a slender pretext (that apparently fooled everyone (the jerks)).
Right. And John Mace’s assertion (SFAICT) was that jerkishness is defined in such a way. Which seems reasonable.
A) His assertion followed his argument: I would call that a juicy rationalization
B) The mob, while they might well get to decide who to hang and who to canonize, don’t ever get to dictate what is true and what is false
Your assertion here follows your argument. Juicy rationalization? Also, funnily enough, this is ad hominem.
Wrong. They most certainly get to dictate what is true and what is false as per their own reactions, by their own reactions. The mob can dictate the truth of “The mob says cats are nice!” by saying that they think cats are nice.
I can even do that by myself. The statement, “Revenant Threshold says this argument is correct” can be dictated true by me alone, thus; I say this argument is correct.
Your behavior here tends to argue against your denial.
Unless you actually saw Dangerosa literally “go off to cry in a corner,” then you are not describing “patently obvious behavior.” You projected a particular behavior on to her, and then chose to describe it a particularly jerkish way. You keep ignoring the fact that you didn’t merely remark on a behavior (whether or not it occurred), you chose to be very obnoxious about it.
Then by your own standard, your words were not a fair comment. You did not see Dangerosa go off to cry in a corner, and your comment was not appropriate.
There was only one jerk in that thread.
I self-edited a few lines about “popular” music and whether the sky is “blue” or “green” (you are smart enough to fill in the blanks (no snipe intended))
The mob might well get to dictate that they are offended by or find undesirable X or by Y (but usually by YY) – this does not mean that X or Y (or even YY) is objectively offensive or undesirable.
They may even elect idiot leaders to cheer them on in their improbable causes and populist prejudices.
Still, none of that gives them any authority over truth.
AFAIK, the definition of jerkishness is not defined on these boards by an appeal to the masses. I might be wrong, maybe there’s a mod note somewhere that says
JERKISHNESS = WHATEVER FLAVOUR OF IDIOT OPINION OUR MEMBERS SEEM TO HAVE AT THIS MOMENT
If I am wrong, I will gladly concede the point.
Society, by definition, decides what the societal norms of behavior are. So if the consensus is that you behaved like a jerk, then that is true.
Beyond that, the mods decide what is and what is not jerkish behavior. Yours clearly was.
I know, fuck me they are multiplying in this thread, right?
The first statement is bollocks, the second tautological. Do keep up.
Not as far as I can see.
From the rules:
As I said, the mods decide what is and what isn’t jerkish behavior. Really, that’s all you have to know.
I see no evidence of that happening.
Moderator Note
Keep the discussion civil. Don’t imply that the other posters in this thread are jerks. Further remarks of this kind may be subject to a warning.
For goodness sake, Dangerosa went off in a huff because I called her on her equivocation. I might have been ever so slightly arch (but considerably less so than a number of posters (including you, bro) have been to me here).
What do can we characterise that behaviour? (see my OP for suggestions) What would be a generous (non-jerkish) interpretation of her behaviour?
There is no such thing as an objective offensive or undesirable thing or subject. Both are entirely definable by the subjective reactions of others. A claim of offensiveness or of undesireability may be well supported by a show of evidence of people’s reactions, because that is what those things refer to to define them.
You’re wrong. Any appeal to jerkishness must be an appeal to the masses, because there is no other place to appeal to but subjective opinion. In this case, that’s the mods, as cosigned by the rest of the board members.
WOW!
Sorry, you call me a jerk, and others pile on, that’s fine.
But if I have the temerity to suggest that perhaps your (plural) jerk-o-metres are miscalibrated then I (again) have crossed a line?!
TGU actually has a point here. Colibri, you can’t call the guy a jerk and then mod him for implying other posters are jerks in the same thread.
You were not “slightly arch,” you made a quite jerkish remark.
None of the formulations in your OP were a generous or civil description of her behavior.
Nor do I think this is the place to get into the right way to describe** Dangerosa’s **behavior. All you have to know is that you shouldn’t be jerkish to another poster. If you can’t figure that out, then there’s no reason for you to post at all. The vast majority of posters understand what being a jerk is and are never noted or warned for it. You shouldn’t have to have it explained to you in excruciating detail.
If you want to call another poster out, and want to be obnoxious about it, then take it to the Pit. Don’t do it in the thread.