Confessions of a Thread Hijacker

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

Uh…what Gaudere said (and she’s hungover; damn eloquence.) My feeble attempt at hijacking above didn’t come off for several possible reasons:

  • it was lame to begin with
  • one person’s “hijack” is another’s consistent statement of belief
  • a messy all around failure to communicate
  • all of the above.

Translating topics into terms of deeply held beliefs may be hijacks, annoying or illuminating depending on the beholder. I’m not saying that you’re a hijacker, Lib, or that others are wrong, dragging your dogma onto the topics.

Now that I think about it, I deeply regret even dipping a shell-pink toe into these roiled waters.

Outta here, guys,
Veb

22

[Hijack]

Gaudere said:

Too bad nobody told inertiacakes that last night… :wink:

Oh, and regarding your belly button ring, again, all I can say is, “Ouch!”

[/hijack]

23

David: The needle was
thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis long. Sharp, shiny steel. grin

24

Well, I hope it was sharp and shiny! I’d hate to think you got it pierced with a dull, rusty needle!

25

Gaudere, I don’t want to talk about your belly button ring; I want to see it! :slight_smile:

Yes, but should they be allowed to do so in public restaurants? And would “peaceful honest people” be a good name for a rock band?

Getting back to topic, one of the problems I mentioned in my ‘magnum opus’ on the ‘Radical Centrists’ thread, at least concerning political threads, is that of implicit assumptions. (Thanks again to Little Nemo for making the idea clear.)

When there’s a debate concerning some aspect of American politics, we generally assume that we’re arguing inside the envelope of our constitutional system. For instance, if we’re arguing flat v. graduated taxes, we’re still all in agreement that the USA has the authority to tax, based on majority vote of our elected representatives. We just want to debate tax structure, not the underlying legitimacy of taxation. Except Lib.

Lib doesn’t believe that majority rule of any sort has any legitimacy. That’s his prerogative, certainly. But it means that he’s interested in a vastly different sort of debate than was usually intended by the OPer. And, for reasons I went into in my ‘magnum opus’, it’s a reasonable expectation that he’ll usually be able to get his debate going at the expense of the original/intended debate.

For instance, in the ‘radical centrists’ thread, Lib’s assertion that “Centrism is the lubricant of tyranny” isn’t part of a claim that conservatism or liberalism isn’t tyrannical. Unless I’ve totally misread him, he views any -ism that condones majority rule as tyrannical.

As such, this statement has zero connection with centrism; rather, it’s the assertion ‘democracy is tyranny’ couched in different words. But one or two posters rose to the bait, and from there, it was all downhill. Centrism, as such, never was discussed; I think the OPer gave up.

Since Lib’s “world view deals with how people relate to one another,” including voluntarily, I am sure he has no objection to purely voluntary discussions among posters as to whether this constitutes a problem. And if so, whether there’s a (non-tyrannical?) way of handling it so that Lib has more than enough room to expound on libertarianism and critique democratic ‘tyranny’, yet allowing people who so desire to debate, say, the problems of education in the US, without automatically having to defend the legitimacy of democracy itself, every last time.

Does that make any sense?

26

Well, I could belly flop on my scanner… When ya gonna come out ot one of our Illinois Dopefests?

Public? What is “public”? If a restaurant owner wishes to allow fondling of condiments on his premises, he has a right to do so. If the patrons are offended by this (not being aware that this was a mastutbatory-ketchup area) they are free to leave. The free market will determine whether groping innocent bottles is “right”, without government interference.

And he has the right to flame my arse (“vice assistant undercomplainer”? “snide”? And who’s the executive undercomplainer if I am only vice assistant to him? I demand a recount!) if he likes. He sees everything as having a bearing on libertarianism–that’s why it would be hard to get him to stay away from, say, threads about flat v. graduated taxes; he’ll think that of course his opinion that taxation should be abolished is needed. And that’s perfectly reasonable, from his viewpoint, and often annoying as heck from ours. It’s like someone popping into my “Why Pray?” thread to say God doesn’t exist. To them, it’s legitimate–but I would have said, “stay within the assumption that God does exists and does answer prayers, or we’ll get way off-topic!” BTW, he made a libertarianism allusion right in the beginning of that thread. :smiley:

I suspect a sort of natural selection will take over; if people get pissed enough, they’ll start snapping at him every time he does it (started already, IMO), and he may end up shunned. I fear it may be to late to rescue his image in some people’s eyes; one has even said to me that s/he avoids posting in GD because of him. I was, honestly, trying to rein Lib in before he really pissed some people off (arrogant as that sounds). It’s his life, and as I have said before, if he tells me to stop I will—not by stopping saying it’s annoying, but by moving my annoyance threshold to where it is with others, like C#3 or Lionel. I let them alone until they become real assholes because they don’t care if they annoy people. I thought he did.

To me, yes.

27

First, my definition of hijacking would not include what Lib is so frequently prone to do. Hijacking is taking a thread in another direction, no relation to the topic at hand. An invented example. The thread is places you have made whoopee (not intended to offend Lib):

Joe: Did it in New Orleans once.

Lib: Hey, Anne Rice lives in New Orleans, do you like Interview with the Vampire Joe?

That is an extreme example, but we see it often when a post reminds someone of something unrelated. As a occasional aside, I have no problem with this, it keeps the tone conversational.

The reason, in my opinion, that so many have a problem with Lib’s “hijacking” is grounded in his profound beliefs. He believes so strongly in libertarianism that he is able to apply it to many subjects. It is a philosophy, and not just a political party made up of a hodge podge of relatively similar positions. Because libertarianism is a philosophy, and because Lib believes in it strongly enough to use it as his name, the manner in which he responds to topics reminds many of witnessing.

If Lib were to ask himself “Celsius or Farenheit?” he would respond by saying “Well, the government should force neither, free people have the right to choose whichever they prefer. I like F, but if you and your friends like C it doesn’t bother me any, do what you like.” He can and does apply his belief system to everyday life. Therein lies the rub, because this brings back memories in some of witnessing for a religion. What he does is not hijacking, it is the opposite. He responds to a post in which he is interested and has an opinion, and that opinion, more often than not, is grounded in and flows from his libertarian philosophy.

I hope this rambling post makes some sense, and Lib I hope you don’t mind my attempt to explain my impression of why so many take offense at your reasoned, thoughtful posts.

28

RTF said:

Been there. Done that. Again I say, “Ouch!” I guess I just don’t see the draw of having a ring through your belly button. Sorry.

29

David:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. . .just thank yer lucky stars that no one got drunk enough to be really demonstrative about their piercings, scars, and assorted other (ahem) things.

Waste
Flick Lives!

30

Oh, really, GL? So what do you have pierced? What sort of “other things”? Tell, tell!

31

Now, now, Gaudere. . .to simply blurt things out is so…ungentlemanly. Although, I could very probably be bribed. 'Twould require an awful lot of brown liquor though, so you might wanna talk to your banker now.

Waste
Flick Lives!

32

Joe

Just as everybody does. Thanks, Joe. You’ve read me like a book.

People who believe in compromise will apply compromise to everyday life. People who believe in God will apply God to everyday life. People who do not apply what they say they believe to everyday life simply do not believe what they say they believe.

To borrow from a great ethical Teacher, a tree is known by its fruit. Where your treasure is, there your heart is also. People do whatever it is they believe. They find whatever it is they search for. We all hear whatever it is that we listen to. We all see whatever it is that we look at.

In fact, it always does.

Though Gaudere and the others are most irritated by the libertarian-ness that they see everywhere I post, it is essentially the same as my faith-in-Jesus-ness and my objectivism-ness. I would as readily say, “Jesus will allow any man to choose whichever he likes best, celcius or farenheit,” or “It is in everyone’s self-interest, objectively speaking, if we each make our own choices, celsius or farenheit,” as I would to say, “Why not let peaceful honest people decide for themselves between celcius and farenheit.”

They are all the same.

33

I may just have to do that, Gaudere - but I’m traveling a lot on business this spring and summer, so there may not be much room for other traveling for several months. :frowning:

Meanwhile, if you can get a friend to take a photo of your new accoutrement, you could always scan the photo. Much easier than bellying up to the scanner!

David, I’ve known a couple of women with pierced navels. One is a good friend of my wife; another was a student at the small Christian college I used to teach at. Not everyone is turned on by the same things, but I think it looks sexy as hell.

“Living in this complex world of the future is not unlike having bees live inside your head.” - F. Scott Firesign

34

Lib, dear heart, my shining star, light of my life…I understand why you do what you do. I always have. What you do not seem to understand is that “annoyance” is definitely a subjective quality, not to be refuted by quotes and cites. It’s not just me or RT who is annoyed–quite a few people have made comments about your style. The fact that you think it perfectly reasonable to post the way you do in no way ameliorates the fact that some people are, in fact, getting peeved. If you don’t care, that’s fine–I’ll just have to work a little harder to open up new threads so that the OP is not lost so often, and you’ll have to deal with being either ignored or sniped at by those who are irritated.

And GL–do you require single-malt or will Dewar’s do? Y’know, this is hardly fair–I showed my piercings. Then again, I never said I was a gentleman…

35

Gaudere, RT, Others

I’m sorry. I’m sorry to both of you and all the others who agree with you, whoever they may be and whatever their number, that I hijack threads. I know I’ve gotten pretty mad at both of you (especially you, RT) because I’m a pretty sensitive guy, and it’s just very disappointing when people you like very much (yes, that’s you too, RT) have done their final sort on you and put you in the box that they’ve labled, sealed, and put up on the shelf.

It’s like Joe says, and like I’ve said to you before, this is just who I am. Both of you know how miserably I have failed to take the advice you’ve given me before. Remember the Pit thread? Y’all told me I was too cock-sure, too adamant, and never said that my views are my opinions. So, I started qualifying everything I said, and then that started getting comments.

I just can’t do it. I’m sorry.

I ask nothing of anybody here who doesn’t like me. You’re entitled. But of those who do like me, I would just ask that you recognize in my views and in my style, not something than annoys you, but something that endears you. I really love you guys, and I love this place. This is just the way I am. Please accept me for it. If you will, I promise that when the chips are down for you, I will come running to your aid, and defend you with the same ferocity that I defend my own philosophies.

And if you can’t do that, then I guess I’ll just cross the bridges as they come. God go with you, whatever you decide.

36

Despite the fact that I have no problem whatever with Jesus, I would find it pretty obnoxious if someone referred to Jesus in all their posts, regardless of apparent relevance, and despite the fact that I believe that, at some level, Jesus is related to everything.

I don’t have to go around throwing my Christian beliefs in my friends’ faces every five minutes; after all, I want to continue to have friends. I’ve never seen that as ‘believing in compromise’ in the sense of compromising principle; however, I see compromise as an essential component of human relationships.

37

Lib,

All the people who think it is better for peaceful people living peaceful lives to make peaceful decisions for themselves already have decided to use either Fahrenheit, or Centigrade. Most of them have decided not to mention it. Those who decide to mention it might find it useful to mention the characteristics of the two systems of measurement which they find most appealing, or distasteful.

If the argument is limited to the reasons one might support Fahrenheit out of staunch Christian faith, no argument is offered to those who are not Christians. While it is certainly within the reasonable rights of a free person to make every argument, on every point of view from the basis of Libertarian Christian Objectivism, that free peaceful person is not being reasonable if he fails to realize that his arguments are aimed at a small minority. Violent emotionalist atheists are out of reach of any such argument. If you wish to change the opinions of others, you must speak to them. Those who already agree with you are not your audience, they are your fan club.

** Tris **

38

Okay, RT. I’ll respect your opinion of me because you hold it honestly, and you for damn sure don’t pull punches with me. :slight_smile:

I do not mean to “throw” my beliefs in people’s faces. I wish I had Trish’s gift of offering my beliefs like a flower to an open hand. [sigh] I’m not one to give up. I’ll keep trying to work on my style, I guess, despite my failures so far.

39

Boy, did that come out wrong.

What I wanted to say, Lib, was that there’s a difference between compromising one’s principles and letting an opportunity to refer to them pass by.

As an example, suppose people are discussing the ethics of sex before marriage. I’m quite capable of telling them what I believe as a Christian. But if it’s clear that they have no interest in bringing God into the conversation, I don’t feel like I’m compromising my integrity by acceding to their wishes; I’ll make what contributions I can without talking about God or the Bible. It’s part of being human, part of meeting them where they are.

Lib, I’m not really sure how to meet you where you are (and preserve my own sanity too, what little I have left), but I’m trying. Finding you hard to deal with isn’t the same thing as wanting you to get lost.

I’ll add more to this, but my wife called and isn’t feeling well; I’ve got to take her home. Back to you later.

40

Gaudere: Pfah! You think you can buy me off with Scotch? Well, I never…

I’ll grant you that single malt is not a bad substitute for a fine Kentucky bourbon, but I insist on nothing but Wild Turkey. And a great bloody lot of it.

And I appreciate that you indirectly called me a gentleman. So long as you don’t expect me to live up to any such thing.

Waste
Flick Lives!