# The Ryan, you are NOT cute! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2001, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928 "2001-01-26T22:35:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/41 "2001-01-29T19:52:42Z")
**gadarene** I sorta see what you’re saying there (post toward posters not what they say) but many times I find myself debating with the same person in different threads. It does help to know that person (as much as you get to know someone here). Does this person get into semantics? Is this person a formalist? Does this person believe that reality is subjective? etc Knowing the tactics some people tend to stick to helps you either understand their arguments and agree, or understand their arguments and defeat them, or realize the two of you can never reach a resolve. :shrug: No one I absolutely hate yet, even though **spiritus mundi** and **collounsbury** took my ass to the cleaners in an Ayn Rand thread (arl at his worst :(). **The Ryan** has a way, I feel, of taking people literally. Since most people aren’t always as clear as they think they are he finds contradictions in what they say. They, of course, just think he’s stupid, but I always seemed to see what he was getting at (even if I disagreed). :shrug part II: And line-by-line rebuttals do suck, but I do them too. ☹ Can’t help it sometimes!!! ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/42 "2001-01-29T20:16:05Z")
> [@](#): > > In the thread in question, Jodi was using the term “express” to refer not simply to the statement of a belief, but to the implementation/ enactment of that belief. This is incorrect, as anyone who bothers to read the thread in question will discover. Action can be a protected form of expression. If I refuse to shake THE RYAN’S hand because I think he’s an idiot, I am expressing a belief through conduct. This “expression” is similar to, but not the same as, the “implementation” of a belief. Expression is expression, and implementation is implementation, and Jodi is not the one confusing the two. > [@](#): > > That is, she was claiming that the purpose of the BSA’s ban on homosexuals was not to discriminate against homosexuals, but to express their belief that homosexuals should be discriminated against. Wrong again. I said the BSA’s ban on homosexuals in positions of leadership was an expression of their belief that homosexual conduct is morally wrong. I never said, and do not believe, that the BSA has a “belief” that homosexuals should be discriminated against. > [@](#): > > She claimed that the discrimination that resulted from the ban was simply an effect, and not a goal, of the ban. Correct. Just as discrimination against thieves is an effect, not a goal, of the belief that thievery is wrong. > [@](#): > > I hope you can see how this is very sort of hair-splitting and word games that my detractors accuse me of. I leave it to anyone who cares to determine whether this point is “hair-splitting” and “word games,” or an important distinction. I won’t refer to that thread any further in this one, except to say that if THE RYAN had exhibited any ability to maintain civilized discourse, I would have been happy to clarify these points for him there. > [@](#): > > To phrase “keep your brain on track” means “to pay attention”. Ergo, I was asking her to pay attention. The phrase “you are a dickhead” means "I think you are offensively sarcastic and prone to obscure your so-called point by pissing off those you claim to wish to discourse with. No insult there! > [@](#): > > “Yes, I’ve seen before how intolerant you are of the mention of your flaws.” This is a statement of fact, not an insult. You have an unpleasant tendency to be a sarcastic ass. This is a statement of fact, not an insult. > [@](#): > > I was pointing out that her statements were not helping her credibility, another statement of fact. I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or if you’re obtuse. “You are not helping your credibility here,” while critical, lacks your unique brand of asshole-ism found in “would you like to embarass yourself further”? If you truly claim not to understand the difference, then we’ll have to settle on “obtuse.” GADARENE: > [@](#): > > But I followed his argument from the beginning–indeed, it raised points that I was preparing to mention myself–and I thought that Jodi and others were a bit too hasty in jumping on him. Actually, GAD, if you review the thread you will find that I at no time “jumped on him” except to advise him that I would not talk to him any further in that thread if he continued his sarcastic form of address. Which he did, so I sent him to Coventry. In _this_ thread – which I did not start – I am happy to state that I found him to be an obnoxious jerk in that other thread. If I’ve jumped on him at all, it’s been here. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2001, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/43 "2001-01-29T22:12:47Z")
Not to jump into that issue, **Jodi** , since I wasn’t an active participant in the other thread, but I should clarify my post. What I meant–and thank you for showing me that I was unclear–is that you questioned **The Ryan** initially on a distinction he was making between forbidding homosexuals and forbidding homosexual behavior. It didn’t seem as if you understood his point, which surprised me–I followed **The Ryan’s** logic easily, and I usually don’t. From my vantage, then, I was able to see him getting more and more annoyed as he tried to explain what seemed to me (and obviously to him) to be a pretty straightforward objection to the proposal of the OP–that outlawing all expression of sexual behavior in the BSA would work for neither side, since it wasn’t the behavior itself to which the Boy Scouts objected so much as it was the fact that a scout or scoutmaster could be gay, period (and, given that, such a policy would clearly run into the same sorts of self-defeating problems as “don’t ask, don’t tell”). So he got sarcastic because you weren’t grasping his point–and for once I could sympathize with him, because I felt he had expressed his point pretty well. It was at that juncture that the asperity came out on both sides. Then y’all got off on the sort of stuff you’re referencing here, with regard to expressions and hypotheticals and all. I don’t feel qualified to comment on the rest of the exchange. My observation, for what it’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/44 "2001-01-30T04:56:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > Now he’s following me around from thread to thread accusing me of hypocrisy. Rather paranoid, aren’t you? And just how are you surprised at being called a hypocrite when you call for more civility in debates, yet repeatedly insulted me? Monty: > [@](#): > > Actually, expressing a belief is merely expressing a thought. Please see my post following the one you quoted. Jodi: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In the thread in question, Jodi was using the term “express” to refer not simply to the statement of a belief, but to the implementation/ enactment of that belief. > > This is incorrect, as anyone who bothers to read the thread in question will discover. > [@](#): > > And society as a whole cannot make you say (by word or action) something you do not believe (like, “homosexuality is okay”) without violating your First Amendment right to free expression. You see to be clearly stating that action is a form of expression. > [@](#): > > Action can be a protected form of expression. Yes, it can. And notice that you once again referred to action as a form of expression. > [@](#): > > If I refuse to shake THE RYAN’S hand because I think he’s an idiot, I am expressing a belief through conduct. This “expression” is similar to, but not the same as, the “implementation” of a belief. If the belief that you are expressing is that I am an idiot, then the expression is different from the implementation. However, if the belief that you are expressing is that I do not deserve having my hand shaken, then the expression and the implementatation are identical. > [@](#): > > Wrong again. I said the BSA’s ban on homosexuals in positions of leadership was an expression of their belief that homosexual conduct is morally wrong. I never said, and do not believe, that the BSA has a “belief” that homosexuals should be discriminated against. The BSA believe that homosexuals should be banned from leadership. Banning homosexuals from leadership is a form of discrimination. Therefore, the BSA believes that homosexuals should be discriminated against. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > To phrase “keep your brain on track” means “to pay attention”. Ergo, I was asking her to pay attention. > > The phrase “you are a dickhead” means "I think you are offensively sarcastic and prone to obscure your so-called point by pissing off those you claim to wish to discourse with. No insult there! Are you trying to compare these types of reasoning? I think that “this means to pay attention, so I was asking her to pay attention” is very different that “this means a bunch of offensive stuff, so it’s not an insult”. The first is perfectly rational, the latter is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > You have an unpleasant tendency to be a sarcastic ass. This is a statement of fact, not an insult. If this truly is simply a claim made to further an argument rather than to annoy me, then it is indeed not an insult. However, the context, along with inflammatory terms such as “ass”, pretty much rule out the “statement of fact” possibility. Please note that my statement, unlike yours, contains no profanity. Furthermore, since the main issue of this thread is to establish, among other things, whether I have a tendency to be a sarcastic ass, it would definitely be begging the question. > [@](#): > > “You are not helping your credibility here,” while critical, lacks your unique brand of asshole-ism found in “would you like to embarass yourself further”? I never claimed that it was the most polite manner of expressing my feelings, only that it was not an insult. > [@](#): > > Actually, GAD, if you review the thread you will find that I at no time “jumped on him” except to advise him that I would not talk to him any further in that thread if he continued his sarcastic form of address. I found your response to my request that you pay attention (and yes, that was what it was) to be lacking in the very civility that you asked for. Your tone can be best described as “haughty”, and you were **demanding** , not requesting, that I follow your own standards of behavior. I find that rather hypocritical, since in your very post to me on this board, you accused me of telling other people what to say. I think that [xenophon41’s thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57710) is a more appropiate place for me to place the rest of my comments. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/45 "2001-01-30T18:30:43Z")
THE RYAN – If you wanted to discuss with me further the merits of the _Dale_ case and the point I was making, then you (a) shouldn’t have been a dick in talking to me, or (b) should have stopped being a dick when warned to. If you imagine I’m going to pick the discussion back up here, you’re dreaming. > [@](#): > > I never claimed that it was the most polite manner of expressing my feelings, only that it was not an insult. Oh, I see. It’s not an insult, it’s just “not the most polite manner of expressing your feelings.” So there’s some gradient of incivility some of which is acceptable and some of which is not? Right. First, there isn’t, and second, even if there was, it isn’t for you to decide where you are on it. If you find that you have pissed people off, you can confidently assume you’re too far down it. Translation: If you act like an ass, I will not ‘debate’ with you, and if my opinion is solicited I will frankly state that I find you to be an ass. Your taking the time to post, in effect, “I am not!” is fruitless, since it does not change my mind; compel me to associate with you; or stop me from stating my legitimately-held opinion. If you want me to cease to think you’re an ass, then stop acting like one. Otherwise, stop defending yourself to me, because you’re wasting your time. > [@](#): > > I found your response to my request that you pay attention (and yes, that was what it was) to be lacking in the very civility that you asked for. Incivility begets incivility, which someone other than you might take as a lesson on moderating their offensive form of address. I am fully justified in **demanding** that people address me civilly or face the (dubious) penalty of having me refuse to associate with them. I am not required to associate with you or anyone who I deem to be acting like an ass. If that seems to you to be an indefensible demand, well . . . buck up, because there it is. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/46 "2001-01-30T21:48:00Z")
My initial awareness of this asshole occurred in this “abortion – rape or incest” GD. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56881&pagenumber=1](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56881&pagenumber=1) I expressed a couple of comments and questions in a brief post, including, _“Is anyone aware of any group that has tried to effectuate the ‘rape or incest’ exception?”_ The fucking asshole’s entire response to my post was **“You know, the word ‘effect’ works just as well as ‘effectuate’.”** I’m really sorry, dickwad, that I didn’t put more time and effort into the word choice in this very limited post. Didn’t know some asshole was lurking out there to parse my word choice, instead of responding to the post’s obvious content. Thank you for your ceaseless effort to save me from exhausting myself and doubtlessly developing carpal tunnel syndrome by needlessly typing 4 unnecessary letters. And I’m sure everyone who read that thread would be far better off if they had not suffered the eye strain from the unneccessary effort I thoughtlessly imposed upon them. To say nothing of the inexcusable waste of photons and whatever the hell else might be involved in displaying 4 extra characters on a computer screen, and the horrendous waste of toner for the countless folk who printed out my earth-shattering observation. You are a petty waste of space. I know it will not break your heart, but I simply don’t need to waste my time reading anything you post. In fact, you aren’t even worth the time it would take for me to try to edit this into a clever or amusing Pit-worthy rant. What you consider apparently effective debate consists, instead, of fragmenting a party’s statements, examining each portion of the overall statement in isolation, applying whatever standards you wish to each fragment. Some comment about missing the forest for the trees might be appropriate here. I believe this approach clouds the issues, does nothing to further a rational and respectful debate, and I essentially consider it intellectually dishonest whether you are doing this intentionally or out of ignorance. It is an effective trick if you wish to confuse things sufficiently to make an opponent’s position seem faulty. But I have no interest in even reading such efforts, not to mention pointing them out on a case-by-case basis. “Fuck you, asshole!” pretty much sums up my feelings towards you. Or perhaps, to give you something to comment on, “Intercourse thou, intestinum rectum.” ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/47 "2001-01-30T22:32:01Z")
And now, ladies and gentlemen, may I present, for one post only, my own inimitable imitation of… **The Ryan**! {ahem} > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Dinsdale** _ > > “Fuck This kind of attack is unnecessary. Please refrain from such petty insults - it is beneath you. > [@](#): > > you Who? Me? Surely if you meant “you” in the more general sense you wouldn’t have directed it at me directly? Or did you mean me directly? 😕 > [@](#): > > , asshole!” Are you sure you mean “asshole” here and not “incredibly intelligent poster with a brain the size of a planet?” Because that’s what I’m reading here. I know you wouldn’t intentionally insult someone in a debate as intellectually stimulating as this. > [@](#): > > pretty much sums up my feelings towards you. I’m afraid I don’t follow you. Can you explain further? > [@](#): > > Or perhaps, to give you something to comment on, “Intercourse thou, intestinum rectum.” Your mixing of Medieval English and Ancient Latin is improper and unintelligible. Furthermore… **{BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!}** 😃 Nope, sorry, can’t do it any more with a straight face. 😃 Thank you, thank you, I’m here all week. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/48 "2001-01-31T00:16:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > [THE RYAN – If you wanted to discuss with me further the merits of the _Dale_ case and the point I was making, then you (a) shouldn’t have been a dick in talking to me, Asking you to pay attention is not being a dick. > [@](#): > > If you imagine I’m going to pick the discussion back up here, you’re dreaming. Translation: Every time I think I can win a point, I’ll debate it. If I think I’m losing the point, I’ll just whine that Ryan was rude, so that excuses me from the burden of having to argue the point. > [@](#): > > Oh, I see. It’s not an insult, it’s just “not the most polite manner of expressing your feelings.” So there’s some gradient of incivility some of which is acceptable and some of which is not? You seem to be confusing a lack of politeness with incivility. “Please pay attention” lacks the politeness of “I humbly ask for your pardon, but I desire a greater portion of your attention than your magnificance has seen fit to bestow upon me”. That does not make the former uncivil. > [@](#): > > If you find that you have pissed people off, you can confidently assume you’re too far down it. If someone is offended, and asks for an apology, there is a good chance I will comply. Simply stating that I am being uncivil, and placing all of the responsibility on me (when **you** were the one that chose to take offense at what was not an inherently offensive request), is less likely to be successful. > [@](#): > > If you act like an ass, I will not ‘debate’ with you, and if my opinion is solicited I will frankly state that I find you to be an ass. Your taking the time to post, in effect, “I am not!” is fruitless, since it does not change my mind; And you posting “yes you are!” does not change **my** mind. Sometimes reasonable people say things that other people take offense at. That does not make them an ass, it just means that they are not being as tactful as they could be. > [@](#): > > Incivility begets incivility, If that is valid defense, then I can rightfully say any incivility that I showed you was justified by the incivility you showed by not paying attention in the first place. You **claim** that your intent was to get me to stop being rude, yet you acknowledge that you are aware that “incivility begets incivility”. Knowing this, why would you expect me to be polite after you had been rude to me? Your behavior makes absolutely no sense. If you had really wanted to put the discussion on a more polite track, the proper action would be to politely point out what you found offensive. Instead you escalated the rudeness, and then used the very rudeness that you had fostered as an excuse to leave the discussion when I found you in a clear falsehood. My alledged rudeness is quite clearly a… what’s that word you used? That’s right, a **pretext**. > [@](#): > > I am fully justified in **demanding** that people address me civilly or face the (dubious) penalty of having me refuse to associate with them. But I am not? You declare yourself to have rights, then complain when others assert theirs. Dinsdale: It wasn’t very tactful, but it was meant solely as a comment on the word “effectuate”, not on you. I’m sorry that you took offense, and that you could not express your offense in a more constructive manner. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/49 "2001-01-31T01:49:43Z")
**Esprix** , you are a treat. **The Fuckhead** , the only thing I’d like to construct for you would be a soundproof box far from a computer keyboard. Lacking that, I’ll just have to take it upon myself to ignore your helpful “comments,” you worthless prick. ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/50 "2001-01-31T03:13:11Z")
OK, I’ve now had some time to reflect on all of this, and to read **xenophon** ’s thread, and I’d like to expand a little on my impressions. First off, **The Ryan** , I think that you are a very intelligent poster. I think that’s part of why I flamed you, because I see certain behaviors of yours as getting in the way of your expressing your intelligence in a constructive way. The reason I titled this thread as I did was not to get all the flirters to look at it. It was because I have seen others who make reasonable statements in inflammatory ways as a way of getting attention, much in the way that a toddler will yank at an electrical cord while looking over his shoulder at you, to be sure that you see him being “bad” and react. Your posts seem to me to also have that quality to them, although I will acknowledge that with the inevitable shortcomings of a text-based medium, they may not in fact be intended to inflame. After reflection, I now will acknowledge the possibility that when you act in ways that enrage me and others, it may be in all innocence. However, if that is the case, then I would hope you would be interested in finding out what sorts of statements have this unintended effect, so as to refine your debating style. I’ll focus on the insulting aspects of the Boy Scout thread, just to keep the discussion a little more concrete. I ask you, if another poster instructed you to “try to keep your brain on track,” would it upset you at all? Would it strike you as condescending? Please don’t dismiss the possibility by saying that only a stupid poster would say such a thing to you, but think about it. If you can honestly say that it would not offend you at all, then I can only tell you that many would find it offensive, and you may wish to take that into consideration in the future. Think for a minute about what kind of reaction you intended to get from **Jodi** when you made the remark. I find it difficult to believe that you really thought her reaction would be, “Oh, goodness, I must not have been reading carefully. I’d better go back and try to put some more effort into understanding the thread.” If you did, then I think you have an overly optimistic view of human nature. If not, then what _were_ you trying to accomplish? I haven’t been able to think of any possibility except to anger her, which you obviously did. I applaud her restraint in merely telling you that she didn’t intend to have further discussion with anyone who treated her like that, rather than lashing out more strongly. Obviously I myself am not so forbearing; I started a Pit thread. I also have not been able to think of a reason for your comments about her intolerance and unwillingness to debate when she’s in the wrong other than as deliberate attempts to bait her into continuing the discussion. If there is another reasonable explanation, I would like to know about it. I admit that my reactions have probably been colored by my enormous respect for **Jodi** ’s analytical skills; I tend to assume that she’s probably in the right, especially in any legal debate. Further, the difference between expressive and nonexpressive behavior is one of the most difficult to understand areas of constitutional law, and I felt that your treatment of it was rather simplistic. Finally, I’ll echo what other posters have said, that you seem to have a tendency to argue against what people say and how they say it, rather than what they mean. I know that how people say something is important, _especially_ in a text-only medium, but I think your trigger for pointing out imprecise language is set too low. You can’t always be mommy’s little helper in this regard. Besides, if you spent a little more time thinking about what people meant to say, I think you’ll find that many times, their use of language isn’t as bad as you initially think it is. For example, the actual exchange that touched off the exchange between you and **Jodi** was as follows: > [@](#): > > **The Ryan** : The purpose of the policy is to exclude homosexuals. How can that not be discriminatory? > [@](#): > > **Jodi** : I did not say it wasn’t discriminatory, I said it wasn’t formulated for discriminatory purposes; these are two different things. > [@](#): > > **The Ryan** : The purpose was not formulated for discriminatory purposes? Huh? Let’s try this one more time. This time, try to keep your brain on track. Now, if you’ll look at **Jodi** ’s quote and try to think of a way to make it make sense, you should immediately see that it no longer seems weird if the antecedent of “it” is not the word “purpose,” but the word “policy.” You can still disagree with it, but sarcastic remarks about the poster’s degree of attention no longer seem quite so appropriate. If you had responded to what she _meant_, even with a similar degree of sarcasm, it wouldn’t have felt insulting. But instead, you appear to be deliberately trying to make her look like an idiot, and _also_ being sarcastic about it. Since the sentence makes perfect sense to her (and others), she feels attacked, the whole discussion goes to hell in a handbasket, and people start calling you a dickhead in the Pit. So, I hereby respectfully request that you lighten up a little. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/51 "2001-01-31T18:07:15Z")
> [@](#): > > You seem to be confusing a lack of politeness with incivility. I got this far and I quit reading. Anyone who would post such a manifest inanity no longer merits any attention, much less a response. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/52 "2001-02-01T06:11:44Z")
Well, Jodi, you are certainly free to bail on the whole thing, and I rather think that’s what you ought to do, but not because The Ryan has necessarily done something so outrageous as to merit dismissal. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JODI \* \*\* > So there’s some gradient of incivility some of which is acceptable and some of which is not? Right. First, there isn’t, and second, even if there was, it isn’t for you to decide where you are on it. If you find that you have pissed people off, you can confidently assume you’re too far down it. > \*\* I believe you are absolutely wrong, Jodi. Both about the gradient of civility and about the means of determining where one falls. In the particular instance of The Ryan’s last remark that you felt was not worth responding to, we have more of TR splitting hairs, and I think he’s done so validly, just not well. When it comes to “incivility”, I think there is absolutely, inarguably a sliding scale of behavior. The scale could be understood by most people as ranging from something along the lines of"not very polite" to “gauche” to “impolite” to “rude” to “beastly”. For instance, you bring your boyfriend to meet your folks. You are at an extremely expensive and formal restaurant, and you arrive first. When your parents arrive, your boyfriend does not stand to greet them. Now, some would use the word “rude” to describe this, and they would be right, technically, but not precisely. But I think it would be better understood as perhaps, “impolite” or “gauche”, both synonyms for rude, but certainly having a different shade of meaning, yes?. So then the meal comes, and your boyfriend reaches across the table and plucks a crab claw off your fathers plate and eats it. That would accurately be described as “rude”. The conversation at the table becomes heated… it’s a topic that your boyfriend and your father disagree about, and it culminates in your boyfriend calling your father an uptight motherfucking moronic asshole. That would accurately be described as"beastly" or “abusive”. So I understood TR’s point perfectly. His original remark that caused you such distress was, at most, less than polite. I equated it with him saying “pay attention” or “Don’t get sidetracked” You might assign it the stronger “impolite”. But I don’t think it is possible to fairly characterize it as anything even approaching a personal attack. As for your assertion that pissing people off is the standard by which one should measure one’s offensiveness, it’s a good place to start but it depends on who you are pissing off. There are people who offend extremely easily, and others who have hides like crocodiles. I don’t think that calibrating to the most thin-skinned is really best in a situation lik Great Debates…otherwise no one would ever say anything interesting at all. On the other hand…you evidently find it insulting and offensive to have it suggested to you that you are not tracking the conversation. Which apparently means that you then have the right to become aggressively abusive. This puzzles me a great deal…but I have gone into more detail about it[here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=58137). ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/53 "2001-02-01T19:17:32Z")
STOID: > [@](#): > > Well, Jodi, you are certainly free to bail on the whole thing, and I rather think that’s what you ought to do, but not because The Ryan has necessarily done something so outrageous as to merit dismissal. Please read my last post again. I did not say he had been outrageous; I said he had been inane. To say I have “confused” two words that are functioning synonyms indicates both inanity and a devotion to hair-splitting that makes it blindingly obvious (at least to me) that further attempts at productive discourse are a waste of time. > [@](#): > > I believe you are absolutely wrong, Jodi. Both about the gradient of civility and about the means of determining where one falls. I will admit I am wrong about the former, but not the latter. Certainly it is less offensive to call someone a name than to slap them across the face. I am not convinced, however, it is less offensive to be snide and sarcastic than it is to call someone a name. > [@](#): > > So I understood TR’s point perfectly. His original remark that caused you such distress was, at most, less than polite. Correct. Which is why I told him address me civilly or face the (dubious) penalty of having me ignore him. If you read the thread in question again, you will find that was _all_ I said. > [@](#): > > I equated it with him saying “pay attention” or “Don’t get sidetracked” You might assign it the stronger “impolite”. Of course it meant “pay attention.” I understood that. But it was also impolite, as you yourself acknowledge. > [@](#): > > But I don’t think it is possible to fairly characterize it as anything even approaching a personal attack. But, of course, I have never so characterized it. > [@](#): > > As for your assertion that pissing people off is the standard by which one should measure one’s offensiveness, it’s a good place to start but it depends on who you are pissing off. There are people who offend extremely easily, and others who have hides like crocodiles. I think you can ask yourself whether the average person would find “next time, try to keep your brain on track” to be a polite thing to read, or whether they would think otherwise. And that a reasonable poster moderates his or her language, and couches his or her points, accordingly. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that calibrating to the most thin-skinned is really best in a situation lik Great Debates…otherwise no one would ever say anything interesting at all. But I have never suggested this be done. I suggest that people endeavor to be polite to each other, under an “average person” idea of politeness. I further contend that such statements as “next time, keep your brain on track” and “would you like to embarass yourself further?” are manifestly impolite by almost anyone’s standard. > [@](#): > > On the other hand…you evidently find it insulting and offensive to have it suggested to you that you are not tracking the conversation. You evidently missed the point entirely, which is that there are ways of suggesting that someone has misunderstood you or failed to take a certain point that do not have the tang of “assholism” (and I use the word advisedly) of the quotes above. Like say, “I think you misunderstood me” or “I don’t think you take my point.” > [@](#): > > Which apparently means that you then have the right to become aggressively abusive. I _never_ became aggressively abusive in the thread in question, and it is simply inaccurate for you to say or even _suggest_ that I did. I do not believe I became “aggressively abusive” even in the Pit, but then I do not personally consider calling someone a dickhead to be “aggressively abusive.” Immature, yes; aggressively abusive, no. In any event, that comment was made in a Pit thread, _not_ started by me, and one I felt I had every right to contribute to if I chose. In short, I found THE RYAN to be acting like, well, a dickhead in that particular Great Debate thread, and I said so. I stand by that assessment, immature though it might be. The fact that _other posters_ then piled on and called him far worse does not mean I am responsible for whatever someone else may post, nor does it mean that I lose the right to post my own opinion. In any event you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was mortally offended by what he said; I was not. I wasn’t even particularly angered over it; I just wasn’t going to put up with it. There’s a difference. The fact is that I do not believe I ask a whole lot in terms of courtesy of address. I do demand, however, that people remain civil or take it to the Pit. With posters who are able to do so, I can discourse for days. You and I, for example, exchanged views for six pages on an issue on which we still do not agree, and clarified points without recourse to such shirtiness as “next time, keep your brain on track.” I expect no less from THE RYAN. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/54 "2001-02-01T19:45:34Z")
AAAARGH! Line by line… quoting… killing me… hurts… **Jodi** , no wonder you and **Ryan** knock heads so often - your posting styles are way too similar. I’ll keep this short so your response isn’t 3 pages long. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/55 "2001-02-01T19:55:07Z")
Thanks ESPRIX, I appreciate it. I will certainly keep in mind that when someone is specifically criticizing my behavior and motivations, I can’t take the time to respond thoughtfully and completely without inadvertantly doing something wrong _again_. I can’t say it will change how or what I post, but I’ll sure keep it in mind. I hope this response meets your requirements for brevity. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/56 "2001-02-01T21:37:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\* You and I, for example, exchanged views for six pages on an issue on which we still do not agree, and clarified points without recourse to such shirtiness as “next time, keep your brain on track.” I expect no less from THE RYAN. \*\* Interesting you should bring that up, especially since you find snideness and sarcasm just as offensive as a direct assault. I am of the opinion that there was quite a bit of more subtle, but no less definite attitude in that thread, coming from both of us. Certainly on a par with “keep your brain on track”. I think there has to be room for a bit of. shall we say “tone”, from time to time. It is the nature of debate that people will become annoyed and frustrated. It is only when it becomes blatant, excessive, or vicious that I feel it becomes objectionable. And then I prefer to see it objected to in a manner which is less ooffensive itself! ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/57 "2001-02-01T22:02:58Z")
STOID: > [@](#): > > Interesting you should bring that up, especially since you find snideness and sarcasm just as offensive as a direct assault. I never said this. > [@](#): > > I am of the opinion that there was quite a bit of more subtle, but no less definite attitude in that thread, coming from both of us. Certainly on a par with “keep your brain on track”. Well, you certainly have the right to judge the relative “tone” of the two threads by merely reading them. I, however, who participated in both of them, are not required to agree with you. > [@](#): > > I think there has to be room for a bit of. shall we say “tone”, from time to time. “Next time keep your brain on track” and “Would you like to embarass yourself some more?” are not, shall we say, tone. If you feel I am guilty of over-emphasizing them – as you apparently do – then you ought to at least avoid the sin of minimizing them. Especially since the comments were not aimed at you and, manifestly, you are not me. > [@](#): > > It is the nature of debate that people will become annoyed and frustrated. It is only when it becomes blatant, excessive, or vicious that I feel it becomes objectionable. And in the phrases quoted above, we have two out of three of your personal criteria for objectionability – which, of course, I am not required to agree with or adhere to in any event. > [@](#): > > And then I prefer to see it objected to in a manner which is less ooffensive itself! Well, thank you for taking the time to share your preferences regarding my posting style. I assure you that I will give them the attention they deserve. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/58 "2001-02-01T22:44:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > **Most of us have, at one time or another, snapped at those who we felt were willfully misinterpreting our words (witness my exchanges with the laughably obfuscatory Jackmanii in the liberal media thread).** Howdy, Gadarene! Sorry you’re still seething over your performance in that debate. I haven’t seen much of The Ryan’s posting style and can’t comment on his overall SDMB-worthiness. I can only hope he doesn’t suffer from the Gadarenian delusion that his arguments are fraught with such magnificence that it is impossible for anyone to simply disagree with him (they must be _missing the point_ or _misinterpreting_ him). Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/59 "2001-02-01T23:19:23Z")
Hi there, **Jackmannii**! Just thought I’d climb aboard your little hijack and speak as a witness to that thread you’re talking about. Hmm. Upon review… yep; **Gad** is still right. “Laughably obfuscatory” is accurate. And your scarecrow still needs a brain. Toodles. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928/60 "2001-02-01T23:29:26Z")
**Jodi** said: > [@](#): > > “Next time keep your brain on track” and “Would you like to embarass yourself some more?” are not, shall we say, tone. If you feel I am guilty of over-emphasizing them – as you apparently do – then you ought to at least avoid the sin of minimizing them. A common-sense approach I try to use is to visualize statements being said in a face-to-face discussion with someone. I daresay that if someone made both the remarks in question without a self-effacing grin or other non-verbal clue as to the levity of the comment, I would reply with a hearty “Fuck you, asshole” on a _good_ day. I applaud **Jodi** for dropping the discussion, rather than replying in kind. I’m quite sure I wouldn’t have shown the same restraint. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ryan-you-are-not-cute/51928.md?page=4)