I’ve decided that I’m going to stick with a one-punch one-parry rule. I reserve the right to comment on something I see in a thread, whether it was the main thrust of the poster’s intention or not. After all, there’s no real way to know what that is until they tell me. In my AP English classes, I was taught to look for topic sentences anywhere — beginning, middle, or end. How am I to know that the whole point of a three post rant about store operations is not intended to build a case for anti-capitalism until, bam! “I hate capitalists.”
I’ve also decided to be as explanatory as I possibly can, even if I think fewer words ought to be sufficient. Therefore, with those two things in mind, my approach to the two threads in your examples would be different today as follows:
I still would post exactly what I did post in response to the alleged throw-away remark about capitalism. Even Galt said it was appropriate. That’s one punch (capitalism sucks) and one parry (no it doesn’t). However, when Commasense shoots back at me, replacing my whole post with his own paraphrase that it was “off-topic” and “hijacking”, rather than repeat his underhanded method of quoting, I would merely respond that if you’re going to put things in a quote box, they should be quotes. That’s one punch (misquoting me) and one parry (don’t do that again).
In the Cafe thread, I would now quote the exact posts to which I was referring, especially the one about right-wingers. That’s one punch (politicism in Cafe) and one parry (it is out of place).
In either case, if there is continued sniping beyond my parry, I’ll just ignore it. I will already have made my point, and as you say, further engagement will almost certainly devolved into a discussion of something besides the point.
Lib
I just caught the tail end of this, and I have not been compelled to go back and read every post, but I will add my 22 pesos.
I have in the past found your style of conversation witty, frustrating, infuriating, challenging, intriguing, monothematic (well, “bi” really), delightful, hyper-sensitive, thoughtful, condescending, and even (back when I first discovered this board) bordering upon dishonest (in representing others’ views, not your own). What I have never felt, though, is that your style of engagement was intended to be hurtful or that you ever misrepresented your own beliefs or positions. So long as those two perceptions were (and remain) accurate, I would resist the urge to censor your interactions to accomodate the desires of your vocal detractors. Whether they be few or legion is really irrelevant, unless your intent in posting is to have some specific effect upon the majority of readers.
What Shakespeare wrote with irony I repeat with utter sincerity: to thine own self be true.
There’s an old Zen story about the demon who joins the monastery, whose moral (inasmuch as Zen stories ever have morals) is that a demon mustn’t attempt to be a monk.
It’s a great story, and I love it. But just as the demon must be a demon, the decent folk must be decent folk, and that sometimes entails trying to banish demons.
I ain’t saying that anybody here is a demon; that’s not my point. My point is that if being true to yourself means being unpleasant toward others, then I hope the others are true to themselves by trying to remove you from their proximity.
Dude, once again you’re exhibiting an inability or unwillingness to grasp what other people are saying. Try reading the posts from Billdo and Cervaise again.
Conversations on a message board are exclusively consensual. No poster is obligated to respond to (or even read) any post that he finds objectionable, off-topic, or potentially demonic.
If someone comes to your house offering an opportunity you do not desire, by all means chase them away. If you walk into a party hosted by someone else and try to chase away guests that you don’t like . . .well “holy” is not an adjective that I would chose to describe that behavior.
If I’m at a theater and someone is being disruptive to the movie, I’ll let management know, even though I have the choice of leaving any time I want. There’s nothing wrong with that (although I agree there’s nothing holy about it either–I’m not sure where this “holy” word comes from).
That’s just pretty stupid, Daniel. This isn’t like a theater where someone can talk over the dialog or stand between you and the screen. If you’re so holy and I’m so demonic, why bother soiling yourself by reading my posts? That’s what I did when I had a problem with Dewey. I stopped reading his posts. Problem was solved. I didn’t feel like I had to drag other members and the staff into my personal dilemma. Be a big boy and move on.
Late to the thread as always, but let me add my head to the ones pounding on this wall.
Lib, if you see something in a thread that you want to take a stab at that it isn’t the main thrust of the thread*, post a
hijack ‘whatever it is that you simply had to say’ /hijack
No need to try to take the thread to Cuba.
In the much-referenced thread, you could simply have quoted the capitalists remark, noted that your response was a brief hijack, posted your comments, then ended the hijack. An apology for the hijack is optional, as is the witty “back to your thread about”, though both are appreciated. Then you let it go. Maybe then commasense wouldn’t have felt compelled to point out it wasn’t the intent of the thread to talk about capitalism and he wouldn’t have felt he needed to stop the possible hijacking of his thread.
If you want to have a long discussion about something you see in a thread–start a new thread, perhaps with a link to whichever thread inspired you (and a link in the inspiration thread in case others what to join your new topic). Don’t try to drag threads to what you want to discuss–sometimes this occurs as the thread evolves but it doesn’t need to happen in every thread you decide to post in.
*I am not buying that you can’t figure out the main thrust of a thread or can’t recognize a throw-away line in a post (such as the capitalists line).
Substitute “monkish” if you dislike “holy”, though you were the one choosing to introduce a contrast with the demonic.
The problem with the theater metaphor is that all interaction on a message board is explicitely voluntary. It si not possible for lib (or anyone else) to force his posts upon you and disrupt your SDMB experience. You must choose to read (and perhaps respond).
[QUOTE=Spiritus Mundi]
Substitute “monkish” if you dislike “holy”, though you were the one choosing to introduce a contrast with the demonic.
[quote]
As I said, I’m not calling anyone demonic; the story is a parable, and it’s not a parable about demons. The word I used was “decent,” and I’ll reject other words such as “monkish” or “holy.”
In this thread, sure–but in other threads, I’ve encountered his posts with as much volunteerism as I’d encounter a loudmouth in a theater. When he disrupts an otherwise interesting conversation, even if I ignore him, the ripples through the rest of the posts are disruptive.
To be fair, I’ve not seen him do that since this thread started, and if this thread keeps him from doing that for a few months, it’ll have served its purpose. I’m just through with expecting demons to make good monks, is all: their horns grow back even when cut.
Daniel, you chose that particular story to illustrate your point. Even though you insist the demon and monks aren’t meant as literal avatars for Lib and the “decent” SDMB posters, your use of the parable is classic demonization of an opponent, in that it charicaturizes Lib as inextricably separate from the rest of us by his very nature.
I have my own “arguing with Lib until only my own head is dented” credentials. I don’t think I’ve ever seriously shifted his perspective in any political discussion, but it sure seemed to me each and every time I’ve dealt with him that I was arguing with another one of “us”, and not some intrinsically unreachable beast. And when I’ve dealt with him on a purely interpersonal relationship level, I’ve found him no worse than any “decent” sort of poster… and frequently much easier to understand.
Perhaps if I’d just stuck to a set perspective from which to view his least attractive aspects, I could more easily help you to banish the demon. But now I can’t see one.
On the one hand, perhaps I should realize that that parable is inevitably tainted and, despite the fact that I love it (and have characterized myself as the demon in it under other circumstances), realized that folks couldn’t see past the word “demon.”
On the other hand, this is a case where I’d like to see him literally be “other,” inasmuch as I think the board would be better were he banned. So while I’ll retract the parable if folks keep insisting I’m trying to demonize him, I’ll agree that I am painting him as an other, as someone that seems uniquely disruptive to the boards.
Your experience in this regard is different from mine.
One cannot disrupt a written conversation unilaterally. If posters choose to respond to lib’s statements rather than to those elements that you personally wish them to talk about, well, your problem is that the rest of humanity fails to conform to your desired standards of behavior.
It is a common problem, but it is a poor reason to ban folks from the party.
Hmm…I disagree, and have explained why at great length in this thread and in others in the past. While I wish others wouldn’t respond to his inappropriate posts, the response isn’t as much a problem as is the initial inappropriate post.
However, I’m not that interested in hashing through this again, so I guess I ought to let it drop.
Just a casual search of the Pit for the last few years of Liberal/Libertarian Pittings. Thought it’d be nice to have a few lined up. These include some weak ones, some solid ones but the funny thing is the variety of usernames doing the Pitting. I’m sure I missed a few as I don’t see a Desmostylus one in there, heh.
Anyway, as you can see there’s no stopping Liberlatarian! Just enjoy the show.
As for me, I personally don’t see a difference between (a) deliberate trolling, and (b) a repeated pattern of behavior that produces exactly the same results as deliberate trolling.
FTR, I like Liberal fine when he’s not in “hijack” mode, but his thread derailing shtick has gotten really fuckin’ old.