Diogenes, go take a nap

[Doxy]

@Zeriel

It’d be like me saying “All middle-aged fathers with pre-teen/young teen daughters who post on message boards OBVIOUSLY want to have pedophilic sex with all their daughters.” and then pretending I wasn’t being personally insulting to you or going after your family. When you know goddamn well there are people on the Dope who are living the lives you so disdainfully find wanting, you’re being personal.

It doesn’t matter what Dio says. If what he says is true, then why get pissed off at him for stating it? If what he says isn’t true, then his mouth-noises (or in this case written word) don’t apply to you and again, why get pissed off at him for stating it?

You can make all the outrageous statements you want. “ALL men who post on forum boards are dickless douchebags”… it doesn’t make it true. And it’s not a direct attack on anyone. Now, if it turns out that someone reading the forum just happens to actually BE a dickless douchebag, how is that the original poster’s problem? Especially when in order to know for a fact that someone is, that DD would have to self-identify. Just like you did when you said “that’s me and my wife you’re talking about!”

If you were to make some outrageous claim about middle-aged, white females it wouldn’t bother me in the least for a couple of reasons:
1.) I know it doesn’t describe me, so I am indifferent to your statement.

Or if, by some odd chance, it DOES describe me I’m still indifferent because:
2.) I know that you don’t know me, so it’s not personal.

@Zeriel

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I haven’t hurt anybody. All I’ve done is disagree with them.

Yeah, if and only if you’re idiosyncratically using “hurt” to mean “actual physical damage”. You hurt people all the goddamn time with your little proclamations.

If he is “hurting” people “all the goddamn time” with his mouth-noises then might I suggest that those people grow a thicker fucking skin?

I mean really, people!! Blaming others for YOUR emotions?? What are you? 3rd graders??

(This is why I could never counsel adults… I want to slap the fuck outta them too much for not owning their own bullshit. Kids have no say in their circumstances and are in the process of learning how to be responsible and have personal integrity, so they have a legitimate excuse for not yet being in control of themselves.)

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I didn’t say a word about you or your wife. That’s your own inference.

@Bosstone

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I didn’t say a word about you or your wife. That’s your own inference.

Hey, now. You have to be a tax lawyer to weasel like that.

But, he’s right. He didn’t say anything about Z or Z’s wife.

[Malthus]

@Nzinga_Seated

I don’t see it as a conflict at all.

I understand that there is a difference between the two responses she pointed out.

If someone says you hurt their feelings, and you say:

“No I didn’t” Well that is just dumb. You don’t know how their emotions work. Maybe their feelings are hurt, even if for a stupid ass reason.

If someone responds:

"Well, I hurt your feelings, sucks to be you’ well that at least makes sense. The person isn’t pretending to be able to read another’s emotions at all.

So her point was very clear. My mom’s feelings get hurt if the mailman doesn’t sit and talk with her on the porch for a minute when he is dropping the mail. That is dumb, and the mailman has no responsibility to soothe her feelings, but it is retarded for him to tell her “your feelings aren’t hurt.”

ETA: You folks lose the nuance in posting sometimes. Her point should have been clear to you as it was to me. Every disagreement isn’t black and white. You can disagree with her overall point and still see her other points.

(I figured you were talking to me. I didn’t see anyone else around)

Way I see it, hurt feelings have a subjective and objective component to it.

Subjective to the person whose feelings are being hurt - and that may be by literally anything. Some things may be “objectively” reasonable and others not - for example, the mailman not talking for a minute.

Objective, in that a reasonable bystander would see that doing some things would hurt anyone’s feelings (like a non-joking insult directed at one’s loved ones).

Now, where this gets tricky is when the first person knows that something is subjectively hurtful to the other, but not objectively.

Take your mailman. His duties of politeness clearly encompass not doing anything objectively hurtful - like saying “Good morning Ms. N., I think your kids are all ugly assholes” for no reason (though it would be sorta funny :D). Obviously, he can’t be tasked with not doing anything subjectively hurtful - like not talking for a minute - if he doesn’t know about it.

But what if he knows Ms. N likes to talk? Then, it becomes slightly more complex. To my mind, he’s got the polite duty to at least acknowledge that fact - “sorry Ms. N., can’t talk right now - I’m behind on my rounds” - even if he thinks Ms. N. is silly in wanting a talk – because while he may think “wanting a talk” is silly, he presumably respects Ms. N, or at least, wishes politely to appear to do so.

I think this is part of what inspired this long-ass thread. I don’t dislike Dio in the slightest, but part of his character is that he will not acknowledge any hurtful thing that he thinks is “silly” - like finding unfertitlity a crippling disability, being phobic of cotton, polyamourous marriages, religion, or whatever. In this, he believes he is standing for objectivity and objective standards of rationality. In my opinion he’s missing out in two respects:

1. Often, his standards of what he thinks are objective rationality are more subjective-to-him than he believes; and

2. Even if they are not, part of being polite is to respect others, even if they have quirks you find silly - and even if they are silly.

The latter does not, IMO, mean you have to always tolerate silliness, or not label it for what it is - or what you think it is.

[Bosstone]

@Doxy

But, he’s right. He didn’t say anything about Z or Z’s wife.

Not directly, no. But it’s either disingenuous or an inability to apply basic logic to understand that if someone says X is bad, and you’re X, then they’re saying you’re bad. Or is it like Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack? “Oh, it looks good on you though! :rolleyes:”

[Doxy]

@Bosstone

@Doxy

But, he’s right. He didn’t say anything about Z or Z’s wife.

Not directly, no. But it’s either disingenuous or an inability to apply basic logic to understand that if someone says X is bad, and you’re X, then they’re saying you’re bad. Or is it like Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack? “Oh, it looks good on you though! :rolleyes:”

Granted, but if the premise “X is bad” is flawed then it doesn’t matter if you happen to be X so why get your panties in a twist over it?
And if the premise “X is bad” is correct, and you are X, and you don’t like the thought of being X = bad… then how is that the original poster’s problem?? It would seem to be something you need to fix within yourself.

[Bosstone]

@Doxy

@Bosstone

Not directly, no. But it’s either disingenuous or an inability to apply basic logic to understand that if someone says X is bad, and you’re X, then they’re saying you’re bad. Or is it like Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack? “Oh, it looks good on you though! :rolleyes:”

Granted, but if the premise “X is bad” is flawed then it doesn’t matter if you happen to be X so why get your panties in a twist over it?

Fair point. I, personally, would only be really hurt if it came from someone whose opinion I valued. With everyone else, it’s either recreational outrage or an honest attempt at persuasion to argue with them.

[Zeriel]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I didn’t say a word about you or your wife. That’s your own inference.

You saying “All X are Y” and my wife being a member of set X is for damn sure you saying Y about my wife, since you know damn well my wife is X as are a fairly large number of other dopers. If it assuages your tiny black heart to believe otherwise, that’s your own business, but don’t pretend you’re just spouting insults in a vacuum. It’s insulting to your own intelligence, let alone ours.

@Bosstone

I, personally, would only be really hurt if it came from someone whose opinion I valued. With everyone else, it’s either recreational outrage or an honest attempt at persuasion to argue with them.

Which is the long and the short of it–most of the time, Dio’s opinions are valued, which is why it’s so damnably infuriating when he runs off into the Zone.

@Doxy

If he is “hurting” people “all the goddamn time” with his mouth-noises then might I suggest that those people grow a thicker fucking skin?

I mean really, people!! Blaming others for YOUR emotions?? What are you? 3rd graders??

That “sticks and stones break my bones, but words will never hurt me” thing was bullshit in elementary school and it’s bullshit now. The fact that humans are social creatures is not in dispute.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Zeriel

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I didn’t say a word about you or your wife. That’s your own inference.

You saying “All X are Y” and my wife being a member of set X is for damn sure you saying Y about my wife, since you know damn well my wife is X as are a fairly large number of other dopers.

I didn’t know this at all, actually. I don’t think you’d even posted in the thread before I made that post, and I certainly didn’t know anything about you. I barely recognized your user name.

[Bosstone]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@Zeriel

You saying “All X are Y” and my wife being a member of set X is for damn sure you saying Y about my wife, since you know damn well my wife is X as are a fairly large number of other dopers.

I didn’t know this at all, actually. I don’t think you’d even posted in the thread before I made that post, and I certainly didn’t know anything about you. I barely recognized your user name.

Which is why blanket statements are generally an unwise thing, at least if you have an interest in not inadvertently attacking people you didn’t want to attack.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, one could take the mature route and admit the existence of qualifiers, exceptions, etc. As long as it’s not the familiar pattern of:

A: X is bad.
B: I do X. I’m not bad.
A: X is bad.
B: I’ll explain why I do X and why it’s not bad.
A: X is bad.
B: Look, asshole, are you listening or not?
A: X is bad.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Zeriel

That “sticks and stones break my bones, but words will never hurt me” thing was bullshit in elementary school and it’s bullshit now. The fact that humans are social creatures is not in dispute.

The effectiveness of cognitive therapies lie in the ability of humans to master their distorted cognitive processes. Who is in charge of your brain?

I’ve already made clear that I recognize there exist individual differences such that some people will never prevent themselves from having dramatic over-reactions to even the slightest perceived injury. Most people however can check themselves before experiencing hurt at any slight, and most people can make changes in their ability to do so.

Stop limiting the power of human capacity for self-control and for positive change.

[Doxy]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, one could take the mature route and admit the existence of qualifiers, exceptions, etc. As long as it’s not the familiar pattern of:

A: X is bad.
B: I do X. I’m not bad.
A: X is bad.
B: I’ll explain why I do X and why it’s not bad.
A: X is bad.
B: Look, asshole, are you listening or not?
A: X is bad.

In that case, it sounds as if Poster A is attempting to convert Poster B to his way of thinking… which is nearly always unsuccessful. Much better if it went like this:

A: X is bad.
B: I do X. I’m not bad.
A: Love the sinner, hate the sin. X is bad.
B: I’ll explain why I do X and why it’s not bad.
A: listens We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
B: Agreed. How 'bout those Mets?

[Bosstone]

If only internet arguments were ever so reasonable.

[Doxy]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

@Zeriel

That “sticks and stones break my bones, but words will never hurt me” thing was bullshit in elementary school and it’s bullshit now. The fact that humans are social creatures is not in dispute.

The effectiveness of cognitive therapies lie in the ability of humans to master their distorted cognitive processes. Who is in charge of your brain?

I’ve already made clear that I recognize there exist individual differences such that some people will never prevent themselves from having dramatic over-reactions to even the slightest perceived injury. Most people however can check themselves before experiencing hurt at any slight, and most people can make changes in their ability to do so.

Stop limiting the power of human capacity for self-control and for positive change.

Ok… Where do you teach? I know a psych professor when I read one! LOL

[Zeriel]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@Zeriel

You saying “All X are Y” and my wife being a member of set X is for damn sure you saying Y about my wife, since you know damn well my wife is X as are a fairly large number of other dopers.

I didn’t know this at all, actually. I don’t think you’d even posted in the thread before I made that post, and I certainly didn’t know anything about you. I barely recognized your user name.

And yet, every thread in the Zone is basically like Bryan Eker’s post: in the face of other Dopers saying that your presumptions were incorrect, you respond by reasserting your presumptions. After the approximately nine jillion threads on polyamory on the Dope in which you’ve dropped a turd, you’ve got essentially no excuse to not know that there are people on the Dope who fall into the bins you so charmingly label “scumbag men” and “emotionally fucked up women”.

I suppose we COULD theorize that either marijuana or self-righteousness rot the brain.

Or, you could do as Doxy suggests and modify your approach to acknowledge the existence of people who don’t fit your theories, at which point perhaps a productive discussion could ensue.

[Doxy]

@Bosstone

If only internet arguments were ever so reasonable.

But it takes two to argue and it’s quite easy to walk away from an internet argument. Actually it’s much easier than walking away from a real life one. When (notice I don’t say “if” LOL) someone on here disagrees with me vehemently about something and is unable or unwilling to let it go once the horse is obviously dead… I’ll walk away from the thread. Period.

I think a lot of people worry that walking away from a thread you’ve been arguing in and letting your opposition get the last word, is somehow admitting that they are right. Last word junkies are juvenile. Heh. There’s a unilateral, all-encompassing general statement for you! But I’ll stand by it.

“All last word junkies are juvenile.”

[Zeriel]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

@Zeriel

That “sticks and stones break my bones, but words will never hurt me” thing was bullshit in elementary school and it’s bullshit now. The fact that humans are social creatures is not in dispute.

The effectiveness of cognitive therapies lie in the ability of humans to master their distorted cognitive processes. Who is in charge of your brain?

I’ve already made clear that I recognize there exist individual differences such that some people will never prevent themselves from having dramatic over-reactions to even the slightest perceived injury. Most people however can check themselves before experiencing hurt at any slight, and most people can make changes in their ability to do so.

Stop limiting the power of human capacity for self-control and for positive change.

Having undergone very successful CBT to deal with depression and anger issues when I was in college, nonetheless, I believe that members of polite society have an obligation to moderate their behavior so as not to cause inadvertent or overt insult to those who are essentially bystanders. Dio, in particular, has shown a pattern of continuing to assert his insults in the face of being made aware he’s insulting people actively participating in the threads, which is at the very least uncouth behavior if not outright morally wrong.

[PlainJain]

@Doxy

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, one could take the mature route and admit the existence of qualifiers, exceptions, etc. As long as it’s not the familiar pattern of:

A: X is bad.
B: I do X. I’m not bad.
A: X is bad.
B: I’ll explain why I do X and why it’s not bad.
A: X is bad.
B: Look, asshole, are you listening or not?
A: X is bad.

In that case, it sounds as if Poster A is attempting to convert Poster B to his way of thinking… which is nearly always unsuccessful. Much better if it went like this:

A: X is bad.
B: I do X. I’m not bad.
A: Love the sinner, hate the sin. X is bad.
B: I’ll explain why I do X and why it’s not bad.
A: listens We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
B: Agreed. How 'bout those Mets?

I agree. Too bad Dio won’t participate that way.

[Bosstone]

@Doxy

@Bosstone

If only internet arguments were ever so reasonable.

But it takes two to argue and it’s quite easy to walk away from an internet argument. Actually it’s much easier than walking away from a real life one. When (notice I don’t say “if” LOL) someone on here disagrees with me vehemently about something and is unable or unwilling to let it go once the horse is obviously dead… I’ll walk away from the thread. Period.

I think a lot of people worry that walking away from a thread you’ve been arguing in and letting your opposition get the last word, is somehow admitting that they are right. Last word junkies are juvenile. Heh. There’s a unilateral, all-encompassing general statement for you! But I’ll stand by it.

“All last word junkies are juvenile.”

But where’s the fun in that?

[Dante]

@PlainJain

I agree. Too bad Dio won’t participate that way.

Yeah, Dio’s more of a Post #389 kind of guy, ad infinitum.

[Doxy]

@Bosstone

@Doxy

But it takes two to argue and it’s quite easy to walk away from an internet argument. Actually it’s much easier than walking away from a real life one. When (notice I don’t say “if” LOL) someone on here disagrees with me vehemently about something and is unable or unwilling to let it go once the horse is obviously dead… I’ll walk away from the thread. Period.

I think a lot of people worry that walking away from a thread you’ve been arguing in and letting your opposition get the last word, is somehow admitting that they are right. Last word junkies are juvenile. Heh. There’s a unilateral, all-encompassing general statement for you! But I’ll stand by it.

“All last word junkies are juvenile.”

But where’s the fun in that?

Heh!!