Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I swear that you've gotten worse on all that in the last little while, too.

Might have to do with the more hostility I am met with the less I actually want to fill you into the specifics.

Neo, dude, it's gotten hostile because asking politely didn't work either.

Ok

Where?

One is New York. The second I'd have to look up again...

If you insist, I mean... I guess that narrative works.

[Putnam]

Asking politely (to get it right the first time)

[Neonivek]

Asking politely (to get it right the first time)

Well I guess that narrative is something

Wtf are you talking about?

Yeah I am getting tired of this spinning.

Are you done nailing me to the wall for every bit of drama not involved here? I can only be apologetic for so long and I am not in the mood to be dragged around right now.

---

Unless you are asking me RIGHT NOW to explain fully the first time... and not correcting the person above.

[Putnam]

Who's spinning?

---

I'm trying to elaborate on what I figure overseer means.

[overseer05-15]

Who's spinning?

---

I'm trying to elaborate on what I figure overseer means.

I mean he reacts to polite questions the same way he responds to rude demands

[Neonivek]

With anxiety and atelophobia?

Or with fear that the """polite""" questions are loaded, leading, or accusatory?

Edit: DANG Atelophobia isn't the right word...

[hector13]

It does seem you dislike being specifically critical of things, preferring vaguely referring to "that thing that does this thing", presumably because you don't want someone saying "well, no, that's not really how it is" or something.

As a personal observation (meaning nothing by it) it's a little odd you say you're worried what people think of you, but consistently get into arguments with folks that express dislike at your - for lack of a better term - vaguebooking. Perhaps that's why you think the innocent questions aren't so innocent?

[Caz]

Wtf are you talking about?

Yeah I am getting tired of this spinning.

Are you done nailing me to the wall for every bit of drama not involved here? I can only be apologetic for so long and I am not in the mood to be dragged around right now.

---

Unless you are asking me RIGHT NOW to explain fully the first time... and not correcting the person above.

I responded in the spirit of the thread. That's rude to you?

[wierd]

*Opens WTF thread to see some WTF.
**Was not disappointed
***Wonders WTF this is all about

If this is about group think being challenged and people getting angry/defensive/passive-aggressive/[emotion here] rather than dispassionately critical, I will be displeased.

[smjjames]

*Opens WTF thread to see some WTF.
**Was not disappointed
***Wonders WTF this is all about

If this is about group think being challenged and people getting angry/defensive/passive-aggressive/[emotion here] rather than dispassionately critical, I will be displeased.

More like:
*neonivek complains about SJW stuff
*some people get confused on something
*neonivek tries to explain
*descan says "quit being confusing, bro"
*then the original subject that sparked the argument from there gets lost

[heydude6]

It's not, it's just people complaining about neonevik being vague about the things he talks about. It started with neonevik ranting about posture in a vague way that people didn't understand, then once it was clarified we had a brief discussion about it. The discussion ended and then Descan made a huge post about neonevik being vague as well as a few other problems he's had with him (points that I agree on tbh) and then an argument started that dragged in other forumites leading us to the mess we have now.

Another way of saying it is like this. Neonevik did a poor job at bringing up a social issue he's noticed, it's briefly discussed and then it devolved into forumites complaining about each other. There's nothing political here, just people fighting each other. Best thing to do is to just calm down and remember the futility of changing a person's mind on the Internet in the middle of a heated argument.

Dammit. Ninjaed

[smjjames]

Not really ninja'd, yours is a fuller summary while mine is a brief barebones sort of summary.

[wierd]

My gut instinct tells me it was a bit of this as well (note, No back reading; this is just my gut instinct/first impression):

Neon dislikes SJWs for nebulous and hard to define (nonspecific, but deeply felt) reasons.
Descan leans SJW; wants specific things he can use to argue against, as he dislikes general anti-sjw sentiments and feels he can 'win'.
Neon does not have specific reasons for his dislike of SJWs, but attempts to give some examples.
Descan thrashes the strawmen, declares them such.
Neon reiterates that he does not have specifics.
People get confused.
Situation deteriorates.

That is very much in line with the "If people are responding with [emotionality] instead of dispassionate criticism" I was meaning, and if true, I am indeed displeased.

Remember, you dont actually NEED a specific reason to dislike something, much like you dont need a specific reason to like something. It is a personal preference, and choice based on said preference.  EG, if I say I dislike asparagus, the reason I have for disliking it (It has that GROSS 'raw sweet-pea' like taste, like raw peas, and raw peanuts. GROSS!), can be a reason somebody else does like it.  Ultimately, it comes down to "It has X, and I dont like X", where there is no real reason for disliking X, other than experiencing a negative mental state when experiencing X.   Somebody else chiming in in dismay that "YOU DONT LIKE X!!?? I LOVE X! HOW CAN YOU DISLIKE X!!??" is not helpful, and forces the person who simply has a negative mental state concerning X for reasons not even they really know into the defensive. (Due to the innately subjective nature of the matter concerning preferences and likes/dislikes, the exact opposite scenario is also possible, where person-A states they love X, and person B demands to know how they can love something nasty like X, and wants specifics.)  That some things are essentially qualia, in terms of like or dislike, is often something overlooked, and not given proper dispassionate evaluation.

It applies to food preference just as much as preference for company and choice of discussion topic, as it does to things like SJWism.

Basically, Neon does not NEED to justify his dislike for SJWs, and anything derived from that line of thinking is logically unsound.

I am displeased that instead of approaching this with a lack of passion either for or against, it appears that our members have instead decided to join sides, rather than dissect the actual situation, and determine it as being absurd to argue about, using pure reason.

[overseer05-15]

I encourage you backread, as the most recent part of the conversation is Neo being vague nearly to the point of incoherence, and how he tends to lash out at anyone who tries to clarify his statements (rudely or not). Or, at least, I believed that that was where the conversation was, and responded as such.

[heydude6]

Weird, normally I find your perspective on these issues to be illuminating, but I think you may have missed the mark on this one a little.

I don't think the most recent discussion has anything to do with Neonevik's opinions on SJW's (or politics in general). I'm pretty sure it's just based on people's personal grievances with Neonevik. The discussion only really started to deteriorate after Descan made his post ranting about everything he doesn't like about him. After he made his post, the two started arguing and the others joined in, sharing their own opinions.

You could argue that Descan's post was uncalled for (and by extension, all the arguementation that followed afterwards), but Neonevik does have problems with the way he presents his ideas on the forum and it's inevitable that it's going to be adressed.