I mean, of course any criticism can be interpreted as persecution, but at least the term isn’t misogynistic and I think it more accurately describes the behavior.
I also mean the term as a general descriptor and not applying it to a specific person. There are attention junkies everywhere.
I was referring to those unnamed folk who would deliberately drop the “attention” part of the phrase and claim that you called them a “junkie”…even after being corrected.
I’m saddened that you’d post something like this. I look forward to reading your posts, but this almost makes we want to put you on ignore.
(Underline added for emphasis; large quote maintained for context.)
The attitude expressed here is toxic. The goal of this site is not “respect” or “persuasion”. We are not in a competition here.
What a bizarre post. The post you responded to was about respect for ideas not respect for people. Isn’t the principle underlying the free exchange of ideas that we can all evaluate them on their relative merits, that bad ideas will be exposed by criticism and that good ideas will flourish?
I’m glad I’m not the only one who had an issue with this. I found it pretty disturbing.
Yes, exactly. Things like “respect” and “persuasion” are irrelevant when evaluating facts. And it’s the facts in competition, not the posters.
And LHoD was very obviously talking about respect for ideas, not respect for people. Whether ideas are persuasive because they are good ideas.
You’ve lost me, quite honestly. No idea what you are talking about.
Had I talked about a competition, maybe that would be relevant. But I didn’t. Whne a person advocates for a certain public policy, such as, oh just speaking hypothetically firing a public employee for their off-hours behavior, that advocacy is persuasive writing. When they’re doing it in a context of a conversation, their persuasiveness is gonna get evaluated. There’s nothing toxic about that at all.
If someone comes into a thread on pizza and says, “I don’t like bell peppers on my pizza,” there’s no need to persuade anyone of anything. But preferred pizza toppings is a different ball game from public policy that can ruin someone’s career.
Edit:
What the crispy Jesus??? Beck has said, and I just counted but feel free to double-check my math, three bajillion times that she’s posting opinions. I was talking about tying those opinions to facts. In what godforsaken Lovecraftian twisted dimension is that related to what you’re critiquing here?
I’m gonna gently suggest you may have misunderstood what you quoted, and may want to reread it.
@BigT , I’m not contentious by nature. I just don’t want to be told I can’t have my opinion. Being called numerous ugly names(not just attention-whore, I’ve heard that plenty) but names that cast aspersions as to my intelligence. And my age and where I live. Because I’m rural in Arkansas I must be dumb. It’s infuriating.
I can be mad at this. It’s putting me in a category that makes it easy to dismiss me. Placist. Is that a term?
IDK. But I feel it. What’s next? I’m a dumb blond?
All because my opinion didn’t jibe with a bunch of men.
Hah! Yup, no women disagreed with you there, good call!
Maybe they stayed in their place.
Once again I’ll say it…I never said she should be fired. I said she probably would be. But no she resigned. All moot. Again.
What’s the point of all this? Beck has written some stuff that many (myself included) disagree with, and in a far from perfect manner. Okay. You’ve made your points. Some have made them in a terribly mean and frankly abusive way. Let it die.
That’s not how I read it. It was a personal critique.
And I find that toxic when it becomes personal sniping.
So?
I disagree with most of what I’ve read of @Beckdawrek. Including the endless self-justification of their opinions. But that doesn’t justify the endless complaints about the opinions. The whole culture of disagreeing and then personalizing the disagree is toxic and makes this site just another internet shitshow.
We don’t have to fulfill the “someone on the internet is wrong” meme.
On preview, this!
Riiight…so everyone who disagrees with you is a man, or a woman who is staying in their place, is that your claim?
Keep digging.
Trying to put me in my place again? Are we?
Not working for you.
Okay, that’s your opinion, and absent any attempts to persuade me, I’ll regard it much as I regard your pizza topping preferences.
You could not possibly be more ridiculous, but I have no doubt you’ll try.
I agree. To be contentious implies interaction of some kind, it requires the passage of at least some information, at least a cursory understanding of what you are disagreeing with.
You have such condescending sanctimonious dimwitted moral certainty in your own bigotry that you even hold the preposterous belief that everyone else secretly knows you are right, or will soon come to know you are right as they gain wisdom and insight to equal your own.
So I agree, the correct term for your dysfunction is not “contentiousness”. I’m sure we can come up with a few other suggestions.
I need to know on which side I stand.
What is your stance on pineapple?
I’m on the “don’t fire a teacher because they eat pineapple pizza” side.