In fact, I want to take my own thoughts a step further: I think what happens is that lissener insults other people’s taste from a position of authority. If my mother insults my taste in movies, I don’t much care, because she doesn’t know anything about movies. Lissener, on the other hand, holds himself out as an expert, as someone who really knows what he is talking about. If someone like that insults my taste, it raises the possibility that I really am a philistine, a hopeless bourgeoisie. So people lash back by attacking his credentials–so we get the attacks on his job, the attacks on his celebrity list, because the real question is whether or not lissener really is giving a more informed, more knowledgeable opinion on film–if he is an expert in the field, someone who has a vast knowledge base and moves in circles where film as art is discussed on a very advanced level by very exceptional people, I’m a plebe, but if he’s just a poseur pimply-faced pretentious videostore clerk whose opinions are based on his own neurotic hang ups, my taste is still good and a reflection of my own specialness.
I think the truth lies in the middle–lissner’s opinions are very well informed, but still the reflection of a certain set of biases and hangups (like everyone), but this explains why people get so very angry with him. Near as I can tell, his pretentiousness is well within normal limits for the board (which, let’s be honest, is fairly pretentious all the way around).
Justin_Bailey said: “This is kind of why I think Henry Rollins must be straight even though the rumors have circulated for years. If anyone would get up and say “I’m gay, you got a fucking problem with that?” It’s Henry Rollins.”
[That’s a reasonable post, but JB seems to have a problem with the fact that someone had a different opinion]
lissener said: “I disagree; he’s a hollow, posturing macho shithead, and a closeted homosexual.”
[We should probably forgive the lack of “OMG!! IMHO OF COURSE!” from lissener. It’s not his style]
Darth Nader said: “Possibly true. He’s also smarter than you, and seems to have his shit together.”
[An insult, but lissener didn’t take the bait]
lissener said: “He’s not nearly as smart as he wants you to think he is. And I know two guys who’ve claimed to have had sex with him, one of whom I’ve known for 25 years and believe absolutely.”
[An opinion, and a personal anecdote]
Larry Borgia said: “Trig Palin is smarter than Henry Rollins.”
[Ah, someone else who doesn’t think Rollins is so smart]
Justin_Bailey said: “lissener, I would love a comprehensive list of all the celebrities you know or your friends know. It must be out of this world impressive.”
[lissener responsded in this thread with the list that JB asked for in that thread]
lissener said: “Dude. First of all, this thread isn’t about me; you should stick to the subject at hand. Second, I’m 45 and have worked in various arts-related situations for my entire adult life, so have met once or twice a great number of people that other people have heard of. That coupled with the various degrees of separation of having a cousin and two school friends who are well known actresses, and one friend who’s a bestselling author, and a family member who played professional sports, means, yeah, I’ve met a few people over the years. The Rollins thing is I worked in a Chicago record store in the eighties that was the club DJs’ go-to place for bootleg 12-inches, so I knew a lot of gay clubbers and music people. Not really that unusual; I met most of the eighties acts, with various instores and show passes. I saw Billy Idol naked; I can tell you what Lena Lovich smells like; I can tell you which member of the Romantics is gay, and which member of Frankie Goes to Hollywood is not. Collateral career trivia. I don’t usually like to get that specific, but I also don’t like being called a liar.”
[lissener was provoked by JB’s snark, though admittedly JB didn’t call lissener a liar. Yet. Wait a few posts, and then it happens. JB outright calls lissener a liar]
JB said: Liar, liar, a Pit Thread on fire.
[gives a link to here, and here we are]
Now, maybe I missed something, but I don’t see where lissener “name dropped” ANYONE’S name, let alone Rollins’, until provoked by JB. He never even said he knew or had ever even met Henry Rollins, because he never explained what caused him to say that Rollins was a “hollow, posturing macho shithead” (which was backed up by the first-hand experience of Sleeps With Butterflies, but I notice she hasn’t been pitted). Maybe he did meet him and Rollins was a dick, maybe he didn’t but heard that Rollins was a dick secondhand. We don’t know. He didn’t give his reasons for saying that, only that the opinion about Rollin’s sexuality came from a long-time friend, who, sure, could have been bullshitting, but do we all avoid saying ANYTHING unless it’s backed up 100% by stone-cold fact?
I look forward in the future to seeing others who “name drop” or who give a less than flattering opinion and/or gossip about a celebrity pitted in the same manner. But that won’t happen, will it? No, of course not.
Funny how people didn’t react the same way to Eve then, especially considering that she had a much better claim to the title of “film expert”. As I recall, some posters have said words to the effect that Eve made them feel like real plebes, but this was said with admiration. This board is not generally hostile to people who have specialized knowledge, not even when they express strong opinions.
Yeah, I read the thread. I even posted in it.
So what? Name-dropping when provoked is still name-dropping, isn’t it? And I read Justin Bailey’s request for a list as being a response not only to that thread, but others in the past. I don’t know how much name-dropping JB might have seen or thought he’d seen lissener do previously, but I’m pretty sure that thread wasn’t even the first time he’d claimed to have special knowledge about the sex life of Henry Rollins.
Look, it’s nice that you want to stick up for your friend, but I don’t think your approach is helping much. In fact, you’ve highlighted the element of lissener’s posts that I suspect set JB off.
When I say something like “So-and-so is a jerk” then I mean I have personal experience with this person and have observed them behaving like a jerk. Otherwise I’d say “I heard so-and-so is actually a jerk”, “So-and-so seems like a jerk”, “I’ll bet so-and-so is a jerk”, etc. If I said “Zack Braff is a jerk” with no further explanation, I wouldn’t expect you to understand that I meant “My friend’s sister went to college with Zack Braff and my friend told me that her sister said he was a jerk.” I can’t think of any reason why I’d phrase my second- or third-hand opinion as simply “Zack Braff is a jerk” unless I wanted to give the false impression that I knew Mr. Braff socially.
This wouldn’t actually be a lie, as I didn’t explicitly claim to move in the same circles as the star of TV’s “Scrubs”, but I could see how that sort of thing might irritate other posters. If I were in the habit of bringing up my minor connections to celebrities, I wouldn’t be surprised if I were Pitted over it. It would probably be a pretty weak Pitting, but THIS thread has already been called a weak Pitting several times. Even I think it’s pretty weak. I just think your response has been weaker. You’d have done better to let your friend defend his own words.
Now I must go and see some more people who you’ve probably never heard of.
I admit this isn’t anything to get hugely riled up about, but it was really the straw that broke the camel’s back. I think lissener is annoying. This is no secret to anyone that’s seen the two of us interact in almost any thread.
Between the lame second hand name dropping, the Rambo thread and the constant threadshits in multiple threads that lissener has no business in (if you hate the thing being discussed in the title of the thread, stay out of it) I’m just tired of him.
Fine, the pitting is lame, I don’t give a shit. I just think lissener is annoying and petty and condescending.
And Equipoise, I know you think I have a problem, but I don’t. My playful teasing about Happy Rhodes is just that, playful teasing.
I’m quite certain this is not true. As I recall, he was suspended after a meltdown in a thread in which he was lecturing Spanish-speaking Dopers on what something written in Spanish meant even though he himself does not speak Spanish. It was one of the more surreal threads in board history.
I tried to search for it but failed, but I’m 98% certain he is not forbidden from talking about a couple of movies. If he is, it’s stupid.
Here is the resulting Pit thread, containing pertinent links in the OP, including the original thread in which lissy the hissy (fit) made his bold assertions.
That’s pretty much my point; something I say, which “might seem innocent were it not made by lissener,” gets reinterpreted after the fact, simply because of the cycle. Sometimes I feel like I honestly can’t say anything without someone responding, basically, “well, lissener said it, so it must be jerkish.” And viola, self-fulfilled.
I’m pretty sure he was actually banned before that thread for insulting another poster in Cafe Society about Showgirls. He convinced the mods to let him return, though.
For the record, there are no limits on my posting. The reason people get moderated for trolling me on such subjects is simply because they’re obviously trying to pick a fight for the fight’s sake. I.e., trolling.
I’m always willing to have a serious discussion on any of these subjects, but I’ve learned to ignore the obvious stickpoking that some people have used them for.
Again, a non starter. I ended up arguing with hijackers about their hijack, but I readily engaged in discussions of movies, even when I disagreed. Every bit of friction in that thread was about hijacking, not movies. So you’re still coming up empty.
Um, that was a pit thread. Where have I said that I’ve never insulted a poster in a pit thread? The meme we’re tracking down here is the one that says that I attack people simply for disagreeing with me in arts discussions.
This is the closest I’ve ever come, and if I remember right I apologized. In any case, when I typed that, I typed it with a smile; an obvious example of tone deafness. People were dismissing movies that were actually “good for them,” as it were, and I was facetiously expressing sadness that they would never experience the goodness of those movies. If I had expressed it without an attempt at humor, nothing further would’ve happened. Unfortunately, I assumed people would “get” my tone, like they would in real life. WAY more was made of that was intended. And still, it’s the one and only example, in my 13,000+ posts, that even comes close to supporting the meme, and even then it’s a matter of interpretation.
Not true; this was well after my return. I was not suspended for that–not even moderated for it–because I was right, as I proved with, IIRC, ~15 creditable cites. I didn’t lecture anyone; I cut and pasted from Wiki and backed it up with authoritative sources. I was, again, attacked for a perceived tone; the facts speak for themselves and, surreally as you say, became somehow the center of the controversy, despite the simple–and proven–factual nature of initial post. Colibri’s only proof to the contrary was that he anecdotally asked a couple of acquaintances in South America if this made sense to them, and reported their hearsay back as “proof.” This was, again, as you say, surreal, because I was the one with the documented proof, and Colibri is the scientist. A bizarre example of emotion trumping reason, but whatever; I eventually got over. (While Colibri brings it up at every opportunity; revenge is sweet.)
I overreacted to someone who insulted me for appreciating movies they’d heard were bad; I maintain I never attacked another poster for a differing opinion. And I didn’t “convince” anyone; I emailed a request, waited a while, and received a reply that I had been reinstated.
–Also, forgot to point out, that Colibri (among others) refused to discuss it anywhere but in the pit, where they could be sure that all reasonable discussion would be drowned out. In GQ, or even GD, it would have been about the facts, not about lissener.