Lessons of SnakeSpirit: The burden of patience is on the majority.

[Aeschines]

@Bryan Ekers

Meh, we were nicer to him than he deserved. Schmuck.

Joke, right?

[Starving_Artist]

@samclem

Perhaps, but if they can’t get their message across in a way that the listener can understand, comprehend, and feel unthreatened by, then their post is useless. It’s preaching to the choir.

No disrespect, but I disagree. Diogenes and lissener certainly haven’t been preaching to the choir during many of their engagements with me.

And if people could understand them easily, there would be no need to learn how to do it. Therein lies the challenge in finding value to their posts but it doesn’t mean they have nothing of value to offer. To those who can see past the detritus there is much to be gained from them; to those who either can’t or don’t want to go to the trouble, it would be better to just ignore them.

I was really sorry to see lissener and SnakeSpirit go. Thankfully, Dio’s still here.

[Zoe]

There is another choice somewhere between telling someone off and keeping your anger bottled up all day. I’m not always able to choose that route, but often I just decide not to let something get under my skin.

Snakespirit managed to yank my chain quite a bit at first. Then I just stopped being angry with him. I hope that he gets some help with his own problems with rage. And several people did respond to him and wish him well in a Pit thread, of all things.

Aeschines, I find your observations on human nature to be very perceptive and cogent. Much to agree with and much to think about.

My thoughts on the nature of perception of reality are not all that out of sync with your own. Also, I think it was the author of Awakenings, Oliver Sachs (?). who had a similar experience with a certain shade of blue and spoke of it in a way reminescent of the green you described. Perceptions of reality can be so easily altered by brain chemistry – a stroke, for example – that I marvel how people assume that whatever they are perceiving is “standard.” But I will respect your desire not to discuss it further and I understand why.

Pax

[Aeschines]

Thank you, Zoe.

[moriah]

@Starving Artist

How come this post is single-spaced? I never knew you did that.

You should read GQ more often, then. It is the heart of the board, next to Comments on Cecil’s Columns.

I would also posit that, given what he’s sacrificed for this country, physically and emotionally, and how he’s dealt with it, probably demonstrates more maturity than you know exists.

And you are likely wrong in yet another regard as well. Regarding your comment that he’s terrorizing another message board right now, I would say, based on some of the things I’ve known of him to say, that he’s actually somewhat relieved to be freed from his addiction to this one.

1. I didn’t know SnakeSpirit (that’s who we’re talking about, right?) served his country. (I don’t follow IMHO and GD.)

2. I don’t care.

3. I don’t believe it.

You see, you’re bringing in a person’s personal life into the whole mix. But what do you really know of a person’s personal life on this board? We’ve had our doozies of people pretending to be something they’re not. This wouldn’t be the first time that some minor pretended to have a military history or some work experience or some academic degree which was just a fabrication.

And even if SS’s personal stories were true… so what? We have to treat people differently, allow for immaturity because of their personal life? Do I have to keep a scorecard next to my computer tracking people’s backgrounds so I know how much slack to cut them or how much I’m supposed to be deferential to them?

Fuck that.

And we can do with more single sentence paragraphs anyway… long paragraphs are difficult to read online.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Aeschines

Joke, right?

Absolutely not. He heaped scorn on people in GD and he received more than enough patience and forebearance (and Mod warnings) in return (at least, in the threads I was involved in - I can’t say I traced his entire posting history). As for me, I only cut loose on him after he started a Pit thread calling me “ignorant”. In the GD threads, he just barely skirted the “no direct insult” rule (personally, I think he broke it more than once) and was a jerk overall. That he could not or would not reign in his own assholery does not in the least make him a martyr or a victim.

[Aeschines]

Seems like there are some people here who enjoy the give and take of negativity.

That’s too bad.

[andros]

'Cuz, like, the vibes are soooooo nongroovy.

[Czarcasm]

@Aeschines

Seems like there are some people here who enjoy the give and take of negativity.

That’s too bad.

Even more than that, they enjoy the give and take of verifiable evidence and logical thinking.

[Miller]

@Aeschines

Seems like there are some people here who enjoy the give and take of negativity.

I do. Strength and growth come through strife and conflict. The “negative” emotions you decry are as much a part of the human experience as the “positive” ones, and it is fundamentally unhealthy to live your life in such a manner as to wholly exclude either. A balanced life contains love and hate, generosity and jealousy, forgiveness and anger. To exclude or suppress these aspects of your humanity is ultimately counterproductive.

That’s too bad.

Why is that? It’s just another personal philosophy, isn’t? Weren’t you the one who said that all worldviews are equal?

[Aeschines]

@Miller

A balanced life contains love and hate, generosity and jealousy, forgiveness and anger. To exclude or suppress these aspects of your humanity is ultimately counterproductive.

Who says suppress them? I think you should work with them in a way that is productive and altruistic.

Why is that? It’s just another personal philosophy, isn’t? Weren’t you the one who said that all worldviews are equal?

I never did.

[Miller]

@Aeschines

Who says suppress them?

That’s how I interpreted your remark about being “to bad” that people were “enjoying the give and take of negativity.” If that’s not the proper reading, what did you mean by that, then?

I think you should work with them in a way that is productive and altruistic.

I don’t believe in altruism. And wether something is “productive” is entirely dependent on what goals you think are desirable. I think that, ultimately, the trainwrecks that you said should have been shut down earlier had a productive result: they got a thouroughly unpleasant and anti-social poster removed from the boards. Which, I had assumed, is exactly the sort of “negativity” you felt was “too bad.” Am I wrong?

I never did.

Then what did you mean by this?

@Aeschines

Another thing about New Age thought is the belief that our thoughts shape reality; we build our own little system, as it were. So I think the New Agers are likely to say, “We see where you’re coming from, and if that works for you, then so be it.” The skeptic’s perspective, on the other hand, is that there is one and only one reality and that one must, as the saying goes “fight ignorance.”

If “enjoying the give and take of negativity” works for me, then is that “too bad,” or what?

[glee]

@glee

How do you know this (seeing another world) happens?

@Aeschines

It depends on the world. I’ll give you an example, a fun one. I’m fluent in Japanese. I can read at a level quite far above the native level (in several types of Japanese; there are so many…). At any rate, sometimes I look at a Japanese book and think, I can’t fuckin’ believe I can read this. I know how it came about: I remember the pain of studying 12 hours a day for months on end to achieve it. But the effect is now–I’m there. I have access to a world that most Americans do not.

To you, perhaps, the example is both superficial yet substantial. No, there’s not a damn “paranormal” thing about it. But it is like magic and amazing all the same. And it is a genuinely concrete world-like dividing line between myself and, say, my sister, who knows only a few words.

Another example is music. I used to play oboe and cello and still play harp (the mouth kind) a bit. I read music and understand bits and pieces. But that’s really a world that does border on the mystical. Dogs and cats don’t understand music. A pooch could not identify a late Beethoven quartet. Yes, music exists in the world of the mind, and it too seems “normal” because it’s all around us. But there it is.

Now, what if only a few people had dreams or only a few people could create and understand melodies? These things too could seem like “paranormal” or doubtful phenomena. I’m believe that there is a gradation of phenomena from in-your-face to very-very-hard-to-pin-down. Some stuff can be both at once. The powers of idiot savants are concrete, undeniable, but we still have no explanation for them. We say, Ah the brain does it! True, perhaps, but superficial.

I don’t distinguish between normal and “paranormal,” and that’s why I put quotes on the latter word.

You probably won’t accept my “world of music,” etc., as being really different worlds. My other experiences of those really different places have involved my catching glimpses in meditation, dreams, etc. If you wish to label these as “only in my head,” that’s fine with me. I don’t think they produce any of the kind of information that you requested above. I am not a powerful psychic or medium. Those are the people who, they claim, can consistently visit elsewhere and bring back useful information.

I think this shows that we have completely different definitions of ‘seeing other worlds’.
I fully agree that speaking another language, or playing music can feel like a dividing line from people who don’t have the training.
I myself ( :o ) am an internationally rated chess player. I can play a game of chess blindfold, or take on 30 club players simultaneously. I know a lot of technical jargon (e.g. zwischenzug; Frankenstein-Dracula variation; corresponding squares) which only another chess player will understand.

But there is nothing paranormal about any of this!

It’s simply a matter of training.
I expect I could learn enough Japanese to buy things from a shop. Thus I enter your world.
I regularly teach children to checkmate with a King, bishop and knight against a King. It takes about 20 minutes, yet is considered mysterious even by some chessplayers.

I agree that idiot savants can do amazing things. But firstly we can observe their abilities (unlike say dowsing). Secondly people can train themselves to approach these levels (see the World Memory Champion).

However when I consider the paranormal, I am talking about things that are not well-known, well understood and accepted.
Are there psychics, let alone powerful ones?
You say they claim to ‘consistently visit elsewhere and bring back useful information’. Indeed they do. Yet their powers are duplicated by the techniques such as ‘cold reading’. So are we witnessing the paranormal, or just an act? (which can be used to make money through fraud).

[Aeschines]

@Miller

That’s how I interpreted your remark about being “to bad” that people were “enjoying the give and take of negativity.” If that’s not the proper reading, what did you mean by that, then?

That’s what I meant. Negativity is, by definition, “bad” (I am not referring, however, to the “negative thinking,” i.e. bitching, that gets beaten up on in the world of group think business).

I don’t believe in altruism.

Why not? It’s the right way to go.

And wether something is “productive” is entirely dependent on what goals you think are desirable.

That’s absolutely correct. My goals for a message board are people behaving themselves and people not shaming and humiliating each other (and not desiring to do so, either). It’s true that SnakeSpirit didn’t always behave. In my book, that doesn’t mean that he should have been shamed and humiliated. As you say, your own goals may differ.

I think that, ultimately, the trainwrecks that you said should have been shut down earlier had a productive result: they got a thouroughly unpleasant and anti-social poster removed from the boards.

Of course, we disagree. I found him to be both social and pleasant.

Which, I had assumed, is exactly the sort of “negativity” you felt was “too bad.” Am I wrong?

SnakeSpirit never attacked to wound. I don’t think there is a single poster on this board that can say Snake really hurt his/her feelings. People got pissed off at some of his “antics,” whereas I found them hilarious (on the whole. The “lying sack of shit”-type pittings were another thing: the flailing of someone who himself was hurt and on the defensive).

Then what did you mean by this?

To explain I’d have to go into my whole philosophy. But basically you are born into a certain world and from there can choose your own world, depending on how self-empowered you are. For example, I don’t know anyone in the mob and would never consider what they do as appropriate methods in my own life. But to the people in the mob, they know a ton of people in the mob and what they do is just a way of life. So it is with all our interactions. The purer we make ourselves, the purer are those around us, and even those who are negative become easier to deal with. Take the negative tack, however, and that’s what you attract to yourself; it just seems like a “given.”

If “enjoying the give and take of negativity” works for me, then is that “too bad,” or what?

Precisely right. Negativity does (it would seem) work for you; this is the reality that you’re creating for yourself.

Another quick example. I play Yahoo chess a lot. If I ask for undo’s after a bad move, then I find that I come to depend on them. Now, however, I almost never request them (only when the mouse actually slips or something, and even then I might ask for once a year). And I find that I avoid those mistakes that make me want to ask for an undo.

[Miller]

@Aeschines

That’s what I meant. Negativity is, by definition, “bad” (I am not referring, however, to the “negative thinking,” i.e. bitching, that gets beaten up on in the world of group think business).

I’m not at all sure what you mean by “negativity” in this context. Can you elaborate?

Why not? It’s the right way to go.

Sorry, I was unclear. Allow me to restate: I don’t think that altruism exsists.

That’s absolutely correct. My goals for a message board are people behaving themselves and people not shaming and humiliating each other (and not desiring to do so, either). It’s true that SnakeSpirit didn’t always behave. In my book, that doesn’t mean that he should have been shamed and humiliated. As you say, your own goals may differ.

Hmm. Better to say that we share the same goal, but we see different means towards that end. Shame and humiliation can be powerful learning experiences, when properly applied.

Of course, we disagree. I found him to be both social and pleasant.

How much of that opinion, I have to wonder, was based on your shared beliefs? Would you have found him as pleasant if his flameout had occured because he couldn’t argue the skeptic’s side of the argument with honesty and integrity? Would you be saying this if he’d pitted you and peter morris instead of glee and Bryan Ekers?

SnakeSpirit never attacked to wound. I don’t think there is a single poster on this board that can say Snake really hurt his/her feelings. People got pissed off at some of his “antics,” whereas I found them hilarious (on the whole. The “lying sack of shit”-type pittings were another thing: the flailing of someone who himself was hurt and on the defensive).

I disagree entirely. He absolutely attacked to wound, and took the sort of savage enjoyment in it that almost made me respect him. Unfortunetly for him, he was also comically inept at it. No, I don’t think anyone seriously had their feelings hurt by him, but not for lack of trying on his part.

To explain I’d have to go into my whole philosophy. But basically you are born into a certain world and from there can choose your own world, depending on how self-empowered you are. For example, I don’t know anyone in the mob and would never consider what they do as appropriate methods in my own life. But to the people in the mob, they know a ton of people in the mob and what they do is just a way of life. So it is with all our interactions. The purer we make ourselves, the purer are those around us, and even those who are negative become easier to deal with. Take the negative tack, however, and that’s what you attract to yourself; it just seems like a “given.”

Again, I can’t really rebut this without a better understanding of “negativity.” Are you intentionally using it as a completely subjective term?

Precisely right. Negativity does (it would seem) work for you; this is the reality that you’re creating for yourself.

Which brings me back to my original question: if it’s working for me, what’s “too bad” about it?

Another quick example. I play Yahoo chess a lot. If I ask for undo’s after a bad move, then I find that I come to depend on them. Now, however, I almost never request them (only when the mouse actually slips or something, and even then I might ask for once a year). And I find that I avoid those mistakes that make me want to ask for an undo.

A philosophy I share to a high degree. Which is precisely why I’m opposed to your “cooling off period” proposal. Incidentally, this is also why I’m opposed philosophically (in addition to the oft-enumerated practical concerns) to allowing posters to edit their own posts. Safety nets and second chances encourage sloppy thinking and rules-skirting. Needless to say, this opinion is not an absolute, and should not be applied to all areas of real life, but in an exceedingly low-stakes enviroment like an anonymous internet message board, I find it adds a bit of an edge to the experience.

[Aeschines]

Damn, hamsters ate 1/3 of my post. OK, redo.

@Miller

I’m not at all sure what you mean by “negativity” in this context. Can you elaborate?

It can range from serial killer behavior to letting your anger and aggression empower you, as Lucas portrays the Dark Side (with a lot of insight, I think). Negativity is destruction and invalidation.

Sorry, I was unclear. Allow me to restate: I don’t think that altruism exsists.

Evolutionary psychologists recognize the phenomenon and think it helped survival of the species. You watch someone else’s kids; they pull you out of quicksand. Etc.

Hmm. Better to say that we share the same goal, but we see different means towards that end. Shame and humiliation can be powerful learning experiences, when properly applied.

They are powerful indeed, but they lead to retribution and often outright violence. Bad karma, in a word.

How much of that opinion, I have to wonder, was based on your shared beliefs?

We don’t agree that much on politics. I like several people here I don’t agree with, even those who I think have been nasty to me in debates. Diogenes (nasty to me in debate, but not lately) and Liberal (nothing in common politically). A few people have shown me real hatred in recent threads, but on the whole there just really aren’t any people I’d like to see kicked off the board.

But yeah, Snake and I have a spiritual affinity.

Would you have found him as pleasant if his flameout had occured because he couldn’t argue the skeptic’s side of the argument with honesty and integrity? Would you be saying this if he’d pitted you and peter morris instead of glee and Bryan Ekers?

My overall strategy is to diffuse conflicts. And I usually end up forgetting who wounded me, anyway, or actually coming to like them. So I don’t know if the logic here really applies to my POV, although I understand what you’re saying. True, if Snake had viciously attacked me, I had probably not liked him much; but it does not follow that I wish those who in fact have attacked me were banned.

I disagree entirely. He absolutely attacked to wound, and took the sort of savage enjoyment in it that almost made me respect him.

This is quite an admission. You do enjoy the battles, don’t you? The wounding and whatnot. I don’t think that’s good.

Unfortunetly for him, he was also comically inept at it.

We disagree on two counts. I’ll reiterate my opinion that he didn’t seek to wound; it’s a matter of interpretation that, to me, isn’t worth arguing as it would require a big exegesis of his posts. But as for ineptitude, all I can say is that he’s made me laugh more than all other posters here combined; and I wasn’t laughing at him either. This, too, is a matter of opinion.

No, I don’t think anyone seriously had their feelings hurt by him, but not for lack of trying on his part.

Can’t agree. I’ve seen him insult bad grammar and go for “you asshole”-type raw invective. But I haven’t seen him go for the really dirty, personal dig.

Which brings me back to my original question: if it’s working for me, what’s “too bad” about it?

That’s a deep and interesting question. Not to say that you’re an evil guy–you’re probably quite nice. But getting into the conflict and one-up-manship on message boards is a kind of vice. And people can have all kinds of vices and it can “work for them.” In my view, this is bad karma: negative energy that will boomerang and cause you problems in the end.

This probably doesn’t match your worldview. But look at it this way: these are patterns you are building in your mind, like the game undoes. They become scripts you follow, and people play along and reinforce them.

A philosophy I share to a high degree. Which is precisely why I’m opposed to your “cooling off period” proposal. Incidentally, this is also why I’m opposed philosophically (in addition to the oft-enumerated practical concerns) to allowing posters to edit their own posts. Safety nets and second chances encourage sloppy thinking and rules-skirting.

I agree with you about editing posts–100%. I also agree with you about the safety nets, actually. And that’s precisely why I said above in this thread that the multiple warnings followed by “you’re BANNED” is precisely the wrong way to go. What that means is that posters on the wrong track can litter the board with poorly behaved posts, setting a bad example and tone. Sure, they’re getting spanked by the mods behind the scenes, often in the threads themselves, but the bad patterns are being built as they go. In the cooling-off system, poor behavior that went beyond what deserves an in-thread wrist-slap (esp. if the poster doesn’t recognize his/her own error and make instant amends) would result in a week or a month off the board. No flame-out, no suicide by mod, no bitching in the pit. Just shut up and cool your heels, as it were.

I could be wrong, but what I know about psychology and operations management (lead time for a cool-off much shorter than for a banning = less work in progress in the form of degraded posts) tells me this would be a much better system.

Needless to say, this opinion is not an absolute, and should not be applied to all areas of real life, but in an exceedingly low-stakes enviroment like an anonymous internet message board, I find it adds a bit of an edge to the experience.

The nature of the “edge” you crave is questionable, IMO.

Still, a very civilized and thoughtful post. Thank you.

[Miller]

@Aeschines

It can range from serial killer behavior to letting your anger and aggression empower you, as Lucas portrays the Dark Side (with a lot of insight, I think). Negativity is destruction and invalidation.

Lucas insightful? Heh. You’ll convince me of the exsistence of spirit photography before you’ll convince me of that.

I don’t believe that destruction or invalidation are inherently negative things. Destruction is a necessary part of creation. And invalidating the invalid is a desirable goal, as well as the purpose of the entire board. Unless you mean something else by “invalid.” These terms are extremely fuzzy as you are using them.

Evolutionary psychologists recognize the phenomenon and think it helped survival of the species. You watch someone else’s kids; they pull you out of quicksand. Etc.

Exactly. It’s all ultimatly based on self-interest. You watch someone else’s kid to make yourself valuable to someone else, precisely because they might later pull you out of the quicksand. And every parent knows how valuable a good babysitter is, so they’re not going to let one go to waste like that.

They are powerful indeed, but they lead to retribution and often outright violence. Bad karma, in a word.

Needless to say, I don’t believe in karma as an independent operative force in the cosmos, although it is a convenient shorthand for certain forms of human interaction.

We don’t agree that much on politics. I like several people here I don’t agree with, even those who I think have been nasty to me in debates. Diogenes (nasty to me in debate, but not lately) and Liberal (nothing in common politically). A few people have shown me real hatred in recent threads, but on the whole there just really aren’t any people I’d like to see kicked off the board.

But yeah, Snake and I have a spiritual affinity.

My overall strategy is to diffuse conflicts. And I usually end up forgetting who wounded me, anyway, or actually coming to like them. So I don’t know if the logic here really applies to my POV, although I understand what you’re saying. True, if Snake had viciously attacked me, I had probably not liked him much; but it does not follow that I wish those who in fact have attacked me were banned.

It was, of course, the spiritual affinity I was refering to. And I wasn’t suggesting that you’d be crowing with joy over his banning, merely that you’d be less likely to perceive him as funny, or “basically a good guy” if he’d treated you as poorly as he treated many other posters on this board. Which opinion springs from my general cynicism, not from my feelings about you as a poster, in case you read that as some sort of a slam.

This is quite an admission. You do enjoy the battles, don’t you? The wounding and whatnot. I don’t think that’s good.

Nothing I haven’t admitted to before. And yes, it is precisely the battles that originally drew me to this board. Not so much the wounding: for the most part, I don’t think it’s possible to genuinely wound an emotionally stable, mature poster in this medium. In hindsight, it seems apparent that SnakeSpirit was neither. If anything that happened here caused him tangible emotional pain, that’s regrettable. It is also entirely his own responsibility. He’s an adult. If he couldn’t handle the sort of aggressive interplay that makes up the SDMB, he should’ve found somewhere else to play.

We disagree on two counts. I’ll reiterate my opinion that he didn’t seek to wound; it’s a matter of interpretation that, to me, isn’t worth arguing as it would require a big exegesis of his posts. But as for ineptitude, all I can say is that he’s made me laugh more than all other posters here combined; and I wasn’t laughing at him either. This, too, is a matter of opinion.

You have a really fucked up sense of humor.

I can respect that.

Can’t agree. I’ve seen him insult bad grammar and go for “you asshole”-type raw invective. But I haven’t seen him go for the really dirty, personal dig.

To what extent is it even possible to go for the dirty, personal dig on a format like this? A personal dig requires personal knowledge. For the most part, we don’t even know each other’s names. The lack of personal digs on SnakeSpirit’s part amounts more to a lack of opportunity than a surplus of good character. IMO, of course.

That’s a deep and interesting question. Not to say that you’re an evil guy–you’re probably quite nice. But getting into the conflict and one-up-manship on message boards is a kind of vice. And people can have all kinds of vices and it can “work for them.” In my view, this is bad karma: negative energy that will boomerang and cause you problems in the end.

Isn’t that contradictory? If it will boomerang and cause me problems, then it isn’t working for me, is it?

Again, I don’t believe in karma as some sort of supernatural balancing system, but like I said, I do believe it’s a convenient shorthand for certain human interactions, and I think it applies perfectly well here. SnakeSpirit acted like an asshole. In response, people treated him like an asshole. If he hadn’t been such a dick, he wouldn’t have made so many enemies in such a short time, and he wouldn’t have had his meltdown and gotten banned. That’s the only kind of karma I believe in.

Needless to say, I realize that your interpretation of events leading up to his banning differ from mine.

This probably doesn’t match your worldview. But look at it this way: these are patterns you are building in your mind, like the game undoes. They become scripts you follow, and people play along and reinforce them.

Actually, that’s a fairly major portion of my worldview. I’ve had a whole lot of experience with bad scripts. From a certain point of view, I lost the better part of my twenties to a couple bad scripts. One of those scripts was an absolute fear of confrontation. Breaking out of that pattern involved the recognition that conflict and agression were absolutely necessary prerequisites to growth and change. The superiority of that philosophy, at least to my life, are quite tangible.

I agree with you about editing posts–100%. I also agree with you about the safety nets, actually. And that’s precisely why I said above in this thread that the multiple warnings followed by “you’re BANNED” is precisely the wrong way to go. What that means is that posters on the wrong track can litter the board with poorly behaved posts, setting a bad example and tone. Sure, they’re getting spanked by the mods behind the scenes, often in the threads themselves, but the bad patterns are being built as they go. In the cooling-off system, poor behavior that went beyond what deserves an in-thread wrist-slap (esp. if the poster doesn’t recognize his/her own error and make instant amends) would result in a week or a month off the board. No flame-out, no suicide by mod, no bitching in the pit. Just shut up and cool your heels, as it were.

Ugh. Sounds dreadful. I’d rather be banned than patronized like that. I’m an adult. I understand the rules here. I can either play by them, or I can’t play at all.

The nature of the “edge” you crave is questionable, IMO.

I think it’s human. And I think it’s unhealthy to ignore it. It’s also, of course, unhealthy to over-indulge in it. Which is why I like the SDMB, and the Pit in particular, because it allows one to explore that edge in a relatively safe enviroment. In a real-world context, that edge can be dangerous, but here, the repurcussions are exceedingly mild. For all the heat coming off this topic, all that’s happened to SnakeSpirit is that he’s out fifteen bucks and is disliked by a handful strangers he will never, ever meet face to face. Really: so what?

Still, a very civilized and thoughtful post. Thank you.

Eh. Aggression is a tool, and a specialized one, at that. You don’t use a hammer to drive a screw.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Aeschines, just out of curiosity were you under the impression that your “I’m bowing out of paranormal threads” thread was a baptism of sorts, washing away all your sins and rendering you pure? I see a lot of statements from you in this thread along the lines of “My overall strategy is to diffuse conflicts. And I usually end up forgetting who wounded me, anyway, or actually coming to like them” which paint you as a victim/martyr while conveniently forgetting that in the GD threads where SnakeSpirit blew his lid (prompting him to start Pit threads in which he really lost it), you were quite happy to post some hostility of your own.

And incidentally, if you’re going to defend Snake wth terminology like “Dark Side”, bad karma" and “spiritual affinity”, doesn’t this start to resemble a paranormal thread?

[Aeschines]

@Bryan Ekers

Aeschines, just out of curiosity were you under the impression that your “I’m bowing out of paranormal threads” thread was a baptism of sorts, washing away all your sins and rendering you pure?

It renders me free of arguing in the “paranormal” threads, that’s for certain.

[quote]
I see a lot of statements from you in this thread along the lines of “My overall strategy is to diffuse conflicts. And I usually end up forgetting who wounded me, anyway, or actually coming to like them” which paint you as a victim/martyr while conveniently forgetting that in the GD threads where SnakeSpirit blew his lid (prompting him to start Pit threads in which he really lost it), you were quite happy to post some hostility of your own.

[quote]

I would never claim to be a perfect poster. I wrote a line along the lines of, “O foolish, fucked up children!” Again, this was SnakeSpirit-esque joking. Or Aeschines-esque joking, as it were. I think you’ll find very little seek-to-wound nastiness in my posts.

And incidentally, if you’re going to defend Snake wth terminology like “Dark Side”, bad karma" and “spiritual affinity”, doesn’t this start to resemble a paranormal thread?

I said that I would avoid “paranormal” threads and not argue the paranormal any more. I never said that I would avoid all expression of my worldview, everywhere.

[Aeschines]

@Miller

Lucas insightful? Heh. You’ll convince me of the exsistence of spirit photography before you’ll convince me of that.

C’mon. THX-1138 is pretty cool, insightful stuff, non?

I don’t believe that destruction or invalidation are inherently negative things. Destruction is a necessary part of creation. And invalidating the invalid is a desirable goal, as well as the purpose of the entire board. Unless you mean something else by “invalid.” These terms are extremely fuzzy as you are using them.

I guess we ain’t on the same wavelength.

Exactly. It’s all ultimatly based on self-interest. You watch someone else’s kid to make yourself valuable to someone else, precisely because they might later pull you out of the quicksand. And every parent knows how valuable a good babysitter is, so they’re not going to let one go to waste like that.

Except that it’s not really self-interest but species-interest.

It was, of course, the spiritual affinity I was refering to. And I wasn’t suggesting that you’d be crowing with joy over his banning, merely that you’d be less likely to perceive him as funny, or “basically a good guy” if he’d treated you as poorly as he treated many other posters on this board. Which opinion springs from my general cynicism, not from my feelings about you as a poster, in case you read that as some sort of a slam.

I didn’t.

I don’t see, however, too many posters coming forward who say, “I was so pissed off when SnakeSpirit attacked me!”

Nothing I haven’t admitted to before. And yes, it is precisely the battles that originally drew me to this board. Not so much the wounding: for the most part, I don’t think it’s possible to genuinely wound an emotionally stable, mature poster in this medium.

I think it is.

In hindsight, it seems apparent that SnakeSpirit was neither.

Ah, but he wasn’t stable in this medium. Which I readily admit. The question is, What do we do with such insightful but not-quite-tuned-to-the-medium people? I should like to think we can avoid humiliation and banning.

If anything that happened here caused him tangible emotional pain, that’s regrettable. It is also entirely his own responsibility. He’s an adult. If he couldn’t handle the sort of aggressive interplay that makes up the SDMB, he should’ve found somewhere else to play.

I would agree if SDMB set itself up as such a harsh environment. But I don’t see that.

To what extent is it even possible to go for the dirty, personal dig on a format like this? A personal dig requires personal knowledge. For the most part, we don’t even know each other’s names. The lack of personal digs on SnakeSpirit’s part amounts more to a lack of opportunity than a surplus of good character. IMO, of course.

I think it’s possible. You can sense weaknesses or even quote from other posts. For example, I’ve been called a “mad nutter” because I believe that remote viewing/clairvoyance is real. This kind of thing. SnakeSpirit had his war-wound stories turned against him, etc.

Isn’t that contradictory? If it will boomerang and cause me problems, then it isn’t working for me, is it?

Time decides these things. The whole point is that what seems to be working now might not seem to be working later.

Again, I don’t believe in karma as some sort of supernatural balancing system, but like I said, I do believe it’s a convenient shorthand for certain human interactions, and I think it applies perfectly well here. SnakeSpirit acted like an asshole. In response, people treated him like an asshole. If he hadn’t been such a dick, he wouldn’t have made so many enemies in such a short time, and he wouldn’t have had his meltdown and gotten banned. That’s the only kind of karma I believe in.

I don’t disagree! He was an undisciplined poster. I cautioned him myself, and he didn’t listen. Payback was a bitch. But the overarching truth is that the board has lost, not gained, by his banning and the processes that led up to it.

From a certain point of view, I lost the better part of my twenties to a couple bad scripts. One of those scripts was an absolute fear of confrontation. Breaking out of that pattern involved the recognition that conflict and agression were absolutely necessary prerequisites to growth and change. The superiority of that philosophy, at least to my life, are quite tangible.

I wouldn’t disagree. The next step, I should think, is to transcend the manipulation of the psyche that anger and aggression effect. I’m right there learning with you.

Ugh. Sounds dreadful. I’d rather be banned than patronized like that. I’m an adult. I understand the rules here. I can either play by them, or I can’t play at all.

I stand by the original point I made. The current system lets people shit all over the board until they’re finally banned. The proposed system allows far less merde to explode before a “cooling off.” YMMV.

For all the heat coming off this topic, all that’s happened to SnakeSpirit is that he’s out fifteen bucks and is disliked by a handful strangers he will never, ever meet face to face. Really: so what?

It’s a good point. For the longer term, I think improvements could be made.

Eh. Aggression is a tool, and a specialized one, at that. You don’t use a hammer to drive a screw.

For some it is an end in itself. I don’t think that’s you, but there are those who…