He’s “being defensive” because you’re acting like a gigantic asshole to him. I was on the fence if you were aware of how you’re acting, or just naturally clueless, but this sealion bullshit right here has resolved any doubts I had.
Probably a good thing the OP didn’t (I assume) see the just-after-9/11 thread of “Onion headlines” we had here at the Dope. That was some serious gallows humor.
Yeah. I remember the first joke I heard about the space shuttle blowing up…about 10 minutes after the news hit.
No, he’s been clear that he doesn’t have a problem with gallows humor. His objection is, very specifically, discussing serious events in a way that’s even remotely analogous to gambling, even if no actual gambling is happening.
No, it doesn’t make any sense.
Like I understand being upset about gallows humor stuff – that 9/11 thread wasn’t really all that funny in retrospect, and the Challenger jokes were amusing for a couple weeks (to some people). Meh. Dark humor helps many people deal with tragedy. I’m just utterly mystified as to what is wrong with the thread in question in the OP. It’s been explained. I still don’t get it. At. All.
Ah, my attempt to conflate to two is mistaken. I think I understand even less now what the objection is, if that’s at all possible. (Then again, I have bet real money on real life elections before, so I’m just not going to understand, especially as no actual money or gambling is involved here.)
Is that right? Mild expressions of distaste over something and wanting to discuss it is “being a gigantic asshole”? That’s an interesting take. Your own language seems way overblown to me as well.
Twisting around what others are saying and accusing them of trolling for no reason at all is being a gigantic asshole.
Not to mention your almost cartoonish level of ignorance in this thread. If nothing else, it’s very amusing in a “point and laugh” way.
More sealion bullshit.
I have to say, this thread has been eye-opening. I really had you pegged wrong as a poster.
Yeah, it’s moving from “poster has an odd idea, and people are trying to understand it” to “poster is looking to be argumentative for no apparent reason”.
Because you disagree with me over whether a very limited type of activity is distasteful?
And you have said sealioning twice. My understanding is that sealioning is to pester and interrupt someone else’s conversation with repeated requests to address a side issue.
I started this thread. No one had to participate in it. I have not pestered anyone. I have not demanded anything from anyone. Mostly, in this thread all I have done is explain my point of view at the request of others for clarification. I have not used foul language. I have not insulted anyone or even labeled anyone with pejoratives. Certainly many people have disagreed with me. Some have not.
You have reached some kind of negative judgment about my character and my nature as a person or as a poster based merely on disagreeing with me on a very limited subject. That says more about you than it does about me.
Me too. Plus, there’s the whole ‘you really should quit digging already’ aspect.
Which of these two statements is innocuous?
“I really dislike chocolate ice cream.”
“I really dislike chocolate ice cream because it is antisemitic.”
The first statement you might get people who disagree and claim it’s their favorite, others that say they think it’s overhyped, others might say it’s boring, and others might say they hate it.
With the second statement, people are going to say, “What the fuck are you talking about?!” And you’ll almost surely get dog-piled on. Especially if you are using a made-up definition of “antisemitic” that doesn’t match any dictionary definition or common usage. You’ll almost surely be called an asshole at best.
Most especially if your take-away is that people are only attacking you because you don’t like chocolate ice cream.
No one cares if you think it is distasteful. We care that your logic is non-sensical.
Nah.
The disagreement is a minor thing. It’s your behavior that is causing the responsive reactions ranging from befuddlement to disgust.
No one in this thread has identified a lack of logic or misbehavior on my part. You just disagree with my conclusions.
Yes.
There’s nothing wrong with the “sense” of my complaint. You just don’t agree with my conclusion.
I disagree with your conclusion because your argument is pants-on-head stupid.
Really no.
The lack of logic and the poor behavior have been identified multiple times.
I’ll reinforce what I personally find most worthy of this weak ass Pit OP turning into the Pit of you it has become:
You phrased this as an honest question for debate … with the first warning of what was to come: “just a question” …
It was answered, politely explaining why quite a few of us find prediction contests useful, several times, but you clearly have had no interest in the actual answer. My goodness, you went from JAQing to the Godwinizing “same axis as betting on whether your neighbor is going to get sent to the concentration camp” by post three!
You’ve been asked to explain the reason that you view any remote similarity to gambling regarding predicting the outcomes of serious events as disgusting, while discussing predictions without ranking accuracy of those predictions later is just fine. You’ve been asked why “gallows humor” is to you fine while ranked performance of predictions is disgusting. You’ve ignored those questions.
You’ve made very very strange inapt analogies.
BTW how would feel about a group of college women betting on whether or not a particular man of the dorm will be arrested for rape just based on impressions and gut reactions? Predicting? How about a bunch of activists making a bet (a real bet) between themselves whether or not the college administration will follow through on new policy guidelines regarding how reports of teacher sexual harassment would followed in the future? Is that trivializing their concerns?
You are not the first person to become the object of their own Pit thread, but you do seem to have more of a penchant for keeping throwing more charcoal on than many others.
I don’t consider “Godwinizing” to be an automatic crime. When you are discussing a matter it is often very useful to propose the most extreme example in order to test an argument. You can also use it to test where along the line of extremes you prefer to set a limit. It is done in legal analysis all the time.
I would consider such betting distasteful.
I’ve answered them repeatedly. The difference is you are not making a game of the situation and defining winners and losers. That’s an important distinction to me. That’s what I find trivializing. That’s my answer.
Okay, maybe you have half a point to make here. Let’s say I predict Walker will win in Georgia, I don’t want him to win, but it’s my prediction. Then I start routing for him to win, because I want bragging rights on the SDMB. That’s disgusting, since he’s a terrible person and would be a terrible Senator. Thus, making a “game” out of grave matters (the future of the county) trivializes the seriousness of our situation. Is that what you’re trying to say?