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:
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.
Can’t help it sometimes!!!
