Oh, is that all? Last article I read said we need to nuke the entire world and make sure every human is dead so we wouldn’t have to worry about being tortured by these demons.
Seems to me that if folks really want to discuss what F-P wants to discuss and to discuss what he’s already discussed he doesn’t want to discuss and to discuss what F-P is going to discuss about why he discusses what he discusses, this thread is going exactly the right way.
But if discussing what F-P will discuss about what he’s discussed in other discussions isn’t what you want to discuss, this thread is kind of disgusting.
I for one am perfectly happy to let any discussions about what he discusses about the discussions where he discussed what he’ll discuss and what he won’t discuss drop.
The position you talked about in post #116? Would you rather we thought of you as an idiot, a liar or a troll?
There’s a fourth category–one that lance falls into. It’s “attention whore.” Kind of like a troll, except the troll is aware that they’re just provoking people in order to get attention. Attention whores just lap up the attention without much in the way of self-awareness.
Goddammit, Xenu, this is why we can’t have nice things.
The position I was referring to in post #116 was not my position, it was BigT’s position.
BigT said he could deduce that I departed from that position, and the gist of my comment to BigT was that I didn’t care if he thought that or not. In subsequently explaining this to andros, I necessarily used the word “position”, which seems to have confused you. But I don’t intend to address this position, as I’ve been clear about throughout this thread.
Read the exchange for context. If you still can’t understand it, read it again but slower. Then come back.
Absolutely! 116 is the discussion of what you discussed when BigT discussed what you would discuss; if I read it slowly, I can slowly discuss what you and BigT discussed about what you discussed in a previous discussion!
I cannot possibly imagine something more interesting.
I’m with you, myself. But somehow Czarcasm seems to have an interest in that. There are all types out there.
Apologies; I sometimes fail at clear communication. I mean only to say that I believe you are making a distinction without a difference.
(n.b. Instead of assuming that you are slow, incapable of literacy or comprehension, or ideologically blinded, I assumed that *I *failed to communicate appropriately, based on my understanding that communication always involves two people. It’s difficult, and I fail often, but it’s a practice I highly recommend…if being understood is one’s goal.)
I’m interested in opening a discussion on whether or not you would care to discuss this.
It’s like a one-man circle jerk. Do try to remember which is the typing hand, though.
I bet this inscrutable man of mystery bit is hot with the ladies. Sadly, it’s worn pretty thin around here.
Do go on and explain again how you’re only here to challenge those cool-aid drunk PC lefties by toppling their sacred cows, for your own amusement and all.
OK, well I think there’s a difference. So there we are.
Mind you, I’m leaving open the possibility that you are one of the Great Men of Our Age, or any age, but the acid test is not when someone tells you upfront that they don’t understand something you’ve written. The test is when someone insists that they do understand what you’ve written, and it’s something you’ve not said but which is remarkably helpful for their position and damaging to yours. And when you repeat again and attempt to clarify they refuse to acknowledge it. That’s when you start contemplating that something else might be at work.
Save this line. It might come in useful next time you’re at a similar dead end.
Why? It looks like you understand it already.
Pretty sure nobody here is under any illusions.
Perhaps you’re being dry in your last line, but I think the issue lies in the space between “contemplation” and “conclusion.” I’m sure I don’t need to go back through this thread to pull out examples of your ascribing motivations to posters that are far beyond mere contemplation. But “PC sycophants” comes to mind–that’s some reactionary shit right there, and not indicative of wanting to be understood but to insult and incite.
(Just out of curiosity, do you suppose sarcastic condescension facilitates communication? Your first line seems quite neatly tailored to piss me off.)
.
I said PC sycophants because I was referring to PC sycophants, no more no less. In my assessment, the outpouring of “oh, I’ve learned so much from you, please don’t go” adulation directed at UP was the result of her being an outspoken champion of a very politically correct cause.
I wasn’t specifically trying to insult the other posters themselves - the remark was directed at UP - but I wasn’t too worried about it either. She dishonestly attacked me here, and when the direct reaction to that is a bunch of posts about how great she is, then I don’t overly concern myself with the feelings of those posters, and just let the love flow. (More below.)
I’m somewhat surprised at that. It was a pretty mild line, and IMO when someone holds up their own actions as shining examples for others to follow - as you did here - they have that sort of tweak coming.
But here’s the other part. You’ve been relatively gentlemanly throughout this thread (as far as I can recall), but I’ve seen you in action in a lot of other threads, and you can be a pretty snarky guy. The type of line that I directed at you here was - even leaving aside the context above - tame in comparison to a lot of things you’ve said on these boards. So my assumption is that you’re a guy who can roll with that sort of thing. The notion that a guy can say all the things you’ve said here but that others are supposed to treat you as a delicate soul who might get hurt from a relatively minor jab is a puzzling one. Perhaps you can explain your philosophy here.
In general: this can be a pretty rough place, especially for someone who holds viewpoints outside the board mainstream. I get my share of attacks, and then some. But I’m not whining about that - I have a tough skin, and I’m used to it, and it’s what I expect going in. But I reserve the right to act in kind. There seem to be a lot of posters who are perfectly fine with themselves or their fellow travelers attacking others but suddenly turn all sensitive when they get a little return fire. I’m not buying that.
In post 124 I clearly discussed whether I would join a discussion of whether or not I would discuss this. Do you need me to discuss the speed at which you should read that previous discussion?
Discuss.
False.
Answer the question which has been repeatedly asked of you: which bathroom do you personally believe should I have a full legal right to use? Two choices, pick one please.
It’s a simple question. Why, a child could answer it. When I do outreach at schools, the kids get it. You on the other hand, cannot. You hide it behind flowering obfuscating words which mean nothing, but it’s prima facie clear you’re a transphobe who doesn’t have the honor nor dignity to admit it on an anonymous online forum.
So now you’re trying to cover up your mendacity by just calling me a liar.
Quite a few Dopers know me IRL at this point, and know I’m not. They also know the work I do and what I do to help my people. If any Dopers want to meet me on the weekend and have me take you to meet transgender persons and hear their first-hand testimony of harassment and abuse suffered in their lives, I’m game.
(One can of course also find numerous accounts by Googling, but F-P probably will dismiss it as all lies, or a conspiracy of some sort. )
Oh. Well, then, allow me to expand on my previous statements about Una. I’m not going to speak for anyone else, but it wouldn’t surprise me if most are coming from a similar place.
Una is intelligent and well-spoken. She is remarkably candid about details of her personal life and experiences when she thinks it can help to educate someone. She generously provides a very unique, first hand perspective on the trials of being a transgender person living in the US. Despite all the shit she’s been through, she still shows patience with a general population that is only just starting to consider caring about transgender issues.
It’s true, not every post she makes is twenty four karat gold, and no one is saying that. But she regularly makes substantial contributions to the discourse on this board. Una has also worked with Cecil himself on the Straight Dope column. She is distinguished. The Straight Dope is objectively better for having her.
None of that means that you can’t disagree with her on this or that issue. But you’re greatly mistaken if you think she hasn’t earned the respect that some of us have for her.
I know none of that is going to convince you of anything, but it’s how I feel. I also feel that this debate is going nowhere and should be deprived of oxygen. But I wanted Una to know that I wasn’t just trying to be nice when I said I enjoyed her posts.
Don’t get discouraged, Una, there’s plenty of us here who appreciate you, not to mention lurkers whom you may also be reaching.
Your assessment, in my case at least, is incorrect. I like and respect Una, and I have learned a lot from her. For you to dismiss that as “PC sycophancy” is silly.
Oh, nonsense. Of course you were.
Sure, it was mild–and, as you say, intended to “tweak.” I’m truly sorry that I got your back up; I was in no way intending to hold up my actions as a shining example for you to follow. My words meant what they meant–remembering that communication is a two-way street is hard for me, but a useful skill to apply. I was certainly hoping to encourage you to consider your apparent tendency to blame others for their failure to understand you. Undoubtedly there was a way to do so more effectively.
Happily: you are seeing what you choose to see. I have not presented myself as a delicate soul; that is your inference. I have not suggested that I be treated as one, by you or anyone else; that is your inference. I have not been hurt by any jabs; that is your inference. I never suggested I cannot roll with your snark, arrogance, or condescension; that is your inference.
Yes, I am a snippy, snarky, gadfly bitch much of the time. And I troll. I have no illusions about these things, and I make no bones about them. But I also do not pretend they contribute to understanding or communication–on the contrary, I know very well that they can be a hindrance, which is why I tend to reserve the worst of my snottiness for the Pit. When I wish to communicate, I try very hard to eschew it altogether.
Do you recognize that you come across as arrogant, pedantic, and condescending much of the time? Do you recognize that those can be a hindrance to communication?
Sure, I get that. After feeling attacked for a while, it can be easy to start off “in kind,” to come out swinging and hit first.
I’m assuming you’re speaking in generalities here, and not making an oblique reference to me. But just in case it’s the latter, I hope I have cleared up that I’ve in no sense “turned all sensitive” due to any “return fire.”