Two perfect examples of simple respect: disagreeing with a point of view while completely understanding it.
So, not to dredge this back up again, but what’s the rest of the story? Did the charity run for awhile, then fizzle out (or is it still running in some form)? Did it ever even really get started?
Well maybe, but right now I’m laughing at you and your delicious aptitude for unintentional irony.
I will try not to get into the whole back-and-forth, but the major problem I’ve had with Lib is that he seems, to me, to post with very little integrity–at least as far as concerns his own motivations and responsibilities. I do not question the sincerity of his political or religious beliefs.
His explanation of his motives behind paying off prr is an example: from my perspective, the explanation morphed subtly over the last week or so until it ended up with his paying $500 to eradicate his own ignorance, an explanation I find wholly implausible, an explanation that appears to be crafted to place himself in the best possible (if completely unbelievable) light. He may be sincere, but that sincerity comes at the price of self-honesty.
That’s how it looks to me, anyway, and it’s something that makes debate with him nonproductive. I have had similar encounters with him repeatedly on the boards in the past, until I eventually decided that engaging with him on an issue where I disagreed with him did me more harm than good.
Daniel
And yet that’s exactly what he did – he took a post that was not about him, distorted what I said and distorted the situation I was talking about, and proceeded to attack me – viciously – when nothing I’d said was about him personally. You really don’t see that?
I can understand why you’d see it that way, and eradication of ignorance is a good summary. But it hasn’t changed. The explanation was originally detailed here. I wondered what it would take for him to abandon his convictions, and I found out. Eradication of my ignorance… and everyone else’s.
Anyone can make themselves into a caricature, and that’s what I’ve come to see Liberal as. An internet persona. He wears his principles and beliefs on his sleeve. It does not take that long for a poster to figure out this guy’s bag. He’s a Christian. He’s a libertarian. He’s into philosophy. He’s got a trace of Cherokee ancestry. He likes to argue and create a raucus. When he’s in GD or the Pit, the guy is a two-dimensional character. The predictibility and one-note-johnny nature of his postings makes him less interesting than he could be, IMHO, but occassionally he’s entertaining. However, I don’t see anything inherently respectful about a caricature. Anyone can create an identity espousing a certain philosophy. That doesn’t make that poster any more important or special than a poster who comes here to post in MPSIMS.
But he does contribute. He knows how to conduct himself and not everything he posts is polemic or attention-whoring. I HATE when he does attention-whore and I have said so in previous iterations of this topic, but I think he’s only feeding us what we want. Drama and craziness. We enjoy the show, and he in turn gets the satisfaction of matyrdom and gentle stroking from his friends. And then round and round we go…
So to the newbies that don’t understand, there is PLENTY of reason to dislike Liberal. There may be a contigent who unfairly hates the guy, but that doesn’t mean he’s blameless or unobjectionable. He sometimes comes across as that kid in class who does irritating shit and then cries when the bullies tease him. It’s hard to feel pity for someone like that.
But I think those of us familiar with Liberal’s history should maybe chill out a little. I’ve noticed a difference in the guy, and even factoring in this latest episode with prr, I think it’s been positive.
It wasn’t vicious. It was sarcastic and I know that some people don’t like sarcasm at all, particularly when it’s aimed at them. To me, it was a bit of a poke to get you to pay attention to what you were saying, and how selfish it sounded.
Well, the closest I find there to an “eradication of ignorance” explanation is:
Given the rest of that explanation, this sounds a bit like the question of Henry II about Thomas Beckett (“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”) I’d be similarly skeptical of a claim that old Hank was seeking an eradication of his ignorance. Obviously I can’t read minds, but I have difficulty accepting that as a straightforward explanation: a wish to “make this son of a bitch shut up” seems the clearer explanation.
Daniel
Nobody has yet explained in any way how a person typing some words which end up on people’s screens, which they choose to read or not, can be construed as ‘attention-whoring’.
Um. No. Your reasons for disliking something or someone are not necessarily mine, nor will they necessarily ever be. I’m not sure why people think ‘you have to not like X because I think he’s a poopy-head’ could possibly be persuasive.
I can’t speak for him, but I certainly don’t buy this. Understand that I am informed by buddhism and by its secular equivalent, Ellis. Basically, it’s not irritating unless you allow it to be. Which is nobody’s fault but your own.
That’s decent of you. Maybe some folks will follow your lead.
Above, you encourage people to read what is in the post and react to that. What he did was distort both what I said (I said I was not delighted that my friend wanted me to visit him on a particular night, not that I wasn’t going to go) and what the situation was (I said that my friend was having surgery, not that he was dying). Thus he did not pit me based on what was in the post, but rather on his projection of what was in the post.
According to you, this is okay behavior from him, but not okay behavior when it’s directed toward him.
Whatever. Apparently you’re not interested in seeing that contradiction, so I’m gonna bow out.
Twickster, I understand what you are saying, but you did not convey that in your post. It appears to me that he reacted only to what was in your post, which was ‘waah, I have to go see a sick guy when my favourite TV show is on’ which is exactly how I read it. You know what you meant when you wrote it, but what you wrote did not jibe with what you thought you were conveying. It looks like you’re mad because you think he should have reacted to what you meant, not what you said.
Liberal, you liar. Your original words to PRR were
(I bolded the bit at the end, not Liberal)
Note the part I bolded. It’s not “I want to eradicate my ignorance of whether you can be bought off to abandon your convictions”, it’s “You’re pissing me off, how can I make you go away?” You only came up with the obviously phoney “wondered what it would take for him to abandon his convictions” excuse after you were being attacked and you went through like three other excuses/lies in the process. The first one was “Fine, I’ll give you $500.00 after you go away for 2 years but only if you don’t post to give me your contact information so I can send you the check” one. Then there was the “It was only a “possible” offer” and you got jumped on for that bit of chicanary. I’m pretty sure there was a third and maybe even a fourth one in there.
And in NONE of them, not one, did you EVER try to make (or even ask) him to abandon his convictions. To do that, you would have said something like “I’ll pay you $500.00 to post that God is real once a week for two years and in the meantime say nothing on the subject of athiesm.” Every single offer was just to make him go away and take his convictions somehwere else. You didn’t offer him $500 to recant his beliefs, you just offered him $500.00 to “go away” 'cause he pissed you off.
Sheesh. Did you think your past words were invisible or something?
Reply to: ** What Exit**
You imply that my admonition to others is a blanket endorsement of Liberal’s posting habits. That implication is not unique to you. I am accused of being his sycophant at times. I am assumed to be on his side of any argument. (My experiences in discussions with him outside of this venue make that assumption in particular rather humorous, but it is not a board visible matter.) The fact that I don’t correct this bias is not proof that it is accurate. It is fairly strong evidence that I think the accusation implicit in it is uninteresting, and choose not to engage it.
Whatever blame my post might place on others, it in no way absolves Liberal of responsibility for the nature of his interactions with the board in general, nor individual posters in particular. Primarily it does not because I lack authority to absolve such responsibility. It may be that I see the consequences to him more clearly than he does himself, but that is a matter not amenable to proof.
Now I will say without weaseling that I find the frequent blather and uproar over “The Things That Liberal Said” make the phrase tempest in a teapot a gross over exaggeration. The expressed levels of rage are mind boggling. And oddly enough I have interacted with many of those same posters in an entirely civilized way, agreeing, or disagreeing in turn without undue emotion.
Now, about the concept of “enabling” some perceived self destructive or self injurious behavior. The matter was well in motion before I searched my name and found myself mentioned in a thread I had never read. I posted with some degree of amusement that I would be the bagman. This decision has produced more emotion from others than it deserves. The offer, and counter offer were made before I agreed. My agreement was offered in order to make it clear that no subsequent quibbling would be possible. (A vain hope, as it turns out, but not a real problem.) Both parties accept that I am not subject to further supervision on the matter, and my relationship with the SDMB remains unaltered by it.
If you feel that my decision makes me culpable in some way for some ineffable harm done to the social fabric of the SDMB community, you have not convinced me that that is a reasonable assessment. You are free to hold to it, of course, and adjust your impression of my character according to it if you feel it is pertinent.
Tris
You need change only a couple words to be in complete alignment with what’s in my mind: “a wish to”. Change that to “a curiosity as to what would”. Everybody *wished * he’d shut up; at least, that’s what they were saying.
So he should have ignored my post, not pitted me on it, according to your guidelines.
And, yes, it’s two years later and I’m still pissed off about this. Guess I just have further to go before reaching your level of enlightenment.
You’re exactly right. I do take responsibility for my own actions, as I did here.
And that change is at the heart of the explanation that I do not find plausible, given what I’ve read of the explanation. I believe that you are, in some sense, sincere, but I do not believe you are honest with yourself about your initial motivation.
Daniel
Please don’t leave yet. If you’ll look at my post in that thread, you’ll see a vague reference to “a gurgling sound.” At the time he pitted you, Liberal seemed to have been quite disconsolate about a personal situation. I draw an analogy between your pitting and a painful experience in Lib’s life; his desire to warn you may have been the driving force behind the behavior that offended you the most.
If this is an imposition, don’t sweat it. Did his pit-thread response to your friend’s illness change your real-life behavior in any way? I’m only curious, for I too have been to the Church of Liberal, and while the cup runneth over, it is heavy-gilt and warm. 
Um, no. I thought “offer” and “explanation” were two different things. I could check, but I’m fairly confident about that.
I wish I could know whether men are honest with themselves… no, strike that. I’m glad I can’t.