On the other hand, it's brought up whenever your rhetorical style is too obtrusive to stomach, because you're engaging in destructive tactics. It has absolutely nothing with discrediting your post or sidelining the discussion.
I truly don't believe I presented rhetorical style though. I asked questions (that I didn't consider rhetorical... I don't believe the answer was "well known.") Now, this was after what I thought was a very "emotional" response to my opinion:
Are you kidding? He's hardly progressive in any sense of the word.... I'm well aware of his proposed "solutions." Do you really want me to look for a source saying that cutting state funding hurts education and specifically hurts poorer districts? Do you understand I could inundate you with them? I haven't met an educator who likes Kasich and they tend to write... a lot. Additionally your own articles mention the undeniable spending cuts he is making to education. Tell you what, you're from Columbus, how about some from your local paper?
Are you actually calling me out on not having a source for opposing Kasich's education cuts, especially that they hurt poor schools? You can disagree with me if you want, but don't say there isn't an ocean of opposition to him and tons of written sources to that effect....
To me, this feels very confrontational. "Are you kidding?", putting "solutions" in quotes to denote disagreement, "Do you really want me to...", "Do you understand I could...", "Tell you what...", "Are you actually calling me out..."
Then she goes on to do what she claims I was doing: "don't say there isn't an ocean of opposition to him" ... I never said that.
This was the front door for me to this whole disagreement. It was a cold door full of demeaning comments, IMHO.
It was followed up with a post utilizing one of many emotionally filled phrases ("this crap", "Wow, let me spell this out for you", calling people morons in general) and generalizations[/ascribed motives?] ("Instead let's attack teachers along with police, firemen and every other public employee in Ohio, which the governor is expressly against...")
One ironic part to me was: "Public education needs widespread reform in order to be effective." -- How is Kasich's plan not widespread reform?
Look at the OP. It says no derails. We're derailing anyway because we want to argue with you and are having a damned hard time ignoring the little barbs and assumptions we find in your posts. This discussion is evident of that fact, not that we are doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to make it so that your points aren't heard.
I don't think I've made any assumptions up to this point. Feel free to correct me. (Please) On the contrary, assumptions were made about my understanding, my meaning, and my posture. After reading the above, I began to question the motive:
The rest of your post just sounds like you are mad simply to be mad at something (because he's republican? because he's trying to cut the overspending?) You stated yourself that you don't know what the options entail. To [me] that sounds like you are mad at uncertainty.
Now, I specifically stated: "your post just sounds like" (opinion, viewpoint) then I questioned the motive. I didn't say: "You don't like the options because he's a Republican." I asked "Is it because he's a Republican?" You may call that rhetoric, but I call it a question. Same with the overspending question. Then I stated "To you that sounds like..." (Which may have been a match on a fire... but it was an honest mistake) I meant what was shown in my corrected version above. I'm not sure if this is the reason for all this, but if so... sorry.
I don't care if you think Kasich is the biggest ass in the world. The proposal sounds great to me.
Also, what's with the attitude?
Here, I don't believe I ascribed anything. I made a general statement. "you" in this case could mean anybody. English language is fun that way. If this is another match in the fire, again... I'm sorry. That was not the intent.
I attributed this phrase to something like: "I don't care if you think the management in that shop is terrible, they make an awesome chicken salad."
However, this was presented next:
Hey Andir. Try not to ascribe motives to me or put words in my mouth while ignoring my very clear CRAC (Conclusion, Rule, Analysis Conclusion) formulated arguments. You've done this before on this thread and I'm not about to deal with it:
--snip--
Where my questions were sidelined for the ad hominem. One could have looked past the questions I raised or brushed them off with "No, I do not feel that way." and continued the discussion, but it was not carried out as such.
Filling in blanks is not all you can do. Every time you see a blank that could be filled in with an extremist position, either you ask (can still tend to offend people) or you wait for them to provide more information themselves, or you argue in good faith and assume that they think what they are saying and have no Big Scary Positions hidden in the depths.
This is where I asked, inline. I may have asked a specific "guided" question... but a simple response would have sufficed.
Instead, I got a prior post shoved in my face and I was being told that I was "ascribing motives."
I addressed your points specifically whereas you sorta glanced over mine and filled in whatever you thought I meant. I made references to your articles, all of which I took the time to read.
(emphasis mine)
This gets into my second point. Truean addressed my points. Great. Then Truean goes on to tell me what I'm doing/thinking. (Isn't this what I'm being called on?)
Your quotation of my well thought out points was simply:
[funding complaints ...]
Yeah, I was shortening the post. It was long.
If you're not going to take the time to deal with my posts I'm not going to take the time to deal with yours, except to say that I understand Ohio law better than most anyone else you'll meet. Look back through my numerous posts on law and you'll see why.... 
. Hint, I argue for a living in Ohio....
Now is where I'm told I'm an fool and obviously this person is more educated and skilled than my dumb self.
It is impossible to figure out which statements you [make?] are accrediting to us, and which you are accrediting to your mental model of us that you're responding to instead of us. Yes, you say "I can only assume that [EXTREMIST POSITION]," but on the other hand that leaves us saying:
"How the fuck did he get that out of my statements, so that it's the fully most logical conclusion?"
I've attempted to use words that denote this I think. I placed the specific questions posed out of the line of thought (use of parenthesis) and I've used words like you've described below.
And again, I am not saying this to attack you. I am saying this because I really want you here and providing your unique experiences and knowledge, but I need you to be able to do that without hurting and annoying the other folks here completely unintentionally. And also, frankly, your argumentative style is driving me a little bit bonkers because it's one that I had not a couple of years ago, so there is definitely a part of me that's going "Aaaaah fix it fix it now or there's going to be Trouble!" Er, it tended to get me in a lot of shit, and I could never understand why I ended up having a billion arguments every day that just got bigger and bigger instead of ever diminishing.
I understand, but I think I've approached this latest issue with more tactfulness than the previous. But I was not given a chance or a margin of error this round. (As described above.)
I want to find out why you have an extreme dislike for the person doing something... anything to fix our debt problems (in a time of financial woe) and our ailing school systems. I want you to realize that your hatred for this man is blinding you to the solution he provided and it's non-conservative roots.
So, for example, you apparently know Truean's motives and ideas better than she does. You can tell her that her hatred is blinding her to solutions. You know her mind better than she does.
I was responding to:
My anger is directed towards Governor Kasich's very conservative and in my opinion counter productive policies, not you. This thread is called "Progressive Rage Thread." One should expect a tad of rage at such policies.
You need to stop making assumptions like this. It is not kosher. I have no idea why you keep on arguing in this manner, and I am not going to try to guess why. All I know is that you are treating her as though she has no way of filtering past a hatred of a person to an acceptance of their policies. It's infantilizing and rude. It assumes a lack of sophistication on her part.
I hope you can see how these are correlated? I wasn't attempting to assume anything with this. (I admit hatred is a strong word to tie to anger... but there is definitely a sense of disfavor.)
You can disagree with her all you like. You can say "See, I think you're missing out on how totally progressive this is! He's trying out a new thing, which is the opposite of conservative, right?" Note that word--I think. That allows you to cover your ass later when she informs you that no, that isn't what progressivism means (or not). You don't assume anything about her interior state. You assume you can stand to learn from anyone you're arguing with.
I believe I touched on that rather well:
Third Statement: (Progressiveness)
I do believe that this is a progressive measure. You may not believe he has a progressive bone in his body, but he's doing something to change and possibly progress the system. Sure, it's new. It's largely untested (except for a few case studies) but you cannot learn ways to positively change a system when all you do it copy another system and change the name of the State. Hell, I think it's a huge step for someone you claimed was "very conservative" to even propose something like this.
I'm looking for opinions on my viewpoint. I realize this is long, but I ask that you look through it and tell me where I'm wrong or mistaken. I'm trying to get past the previous ordeal, but I feel as though I was not given a chance and if this does not get resolved now there may be no moving on for some. (ie: I feel like future posters may go back and drudge up this issue in argument again.)
(Edit: Fixed nesting problem on last quote)
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 870389 times)