You know what I don't get?

[Gopher Gary]

 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Stinky gopher, I'm not forgetting our food (misspellings for authenticity).

Event thou I'm allmost out of groper memes.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

[Gopher Gary]

Hey. What happens in the gopher hole, stays in the gopher hole. 

[rock hound]

The arrogance of some twat waffles is beyond belief.  Friendship with one hand and stab in the back with the other.  Judgementals R' us.

[DirtDawg]

The alignment of issues/ideology with personal animus.

I understand how a discussion can get heated over a handful of threads, and people can escalate them
into hateful attacks. I don't see why the hell it spills out into every other conversation that is had.


It's as though these folks allow their views on a handful of issues to taint every fucking interaction they have, and it's boring as hell.

Yeah.
You and I have had a few arguments on a few threads and seconds later one of us was responding to the other in another thread where we were joking around about something or comparing dicks or blades or something all in good fun, then another  "escalated"  comment in the argument thread or some such.

I kind of get this.

I lean toward the idea that not all intelligence is evidenced by how people interact. I also suspect that not all elegant interaction is inherently confirming of intellectual processes.  Separations between true distrust or outright disgust or innate hostility and undefined doubt or simple questions should be clearly checker-boarded in ones mind before a discussion begins.  Then talk about things.
NO one is always wrong about everything.
...... generally.

[DirtDawg]

Quit looking at my personal animus, Calandale. 

I think you should keep you animus to yourself.

[Calandale]

Yep. I mean, I dislike what Odeon does in terms of what I see as over-moderation, but I don't see that
as, a priori, reducing the discussion to nothing else. Scrap and I are probably pretty diametrically opposed politically,
but it doesn't seem that we get into these matches.

Maybe it's because I don't care enough about the external ideology though to want to punch someone
for not seeing it my way. The closest that came to that for me was the unwillingness to seriously
undertake running the site democratically, with appropriate checks - because I 'knew' too much
about what goes wrong in such cases. In some ways though, that was still a matter of play or experimentation,
with a curiosity as to just how far people would denigrate stated ideals - at least as it played out.
The shitty part (for me) was the <rodent hole> it generated towards me.

[DirtDawg]

Well, I frequently visit a site that uses Gorts (remember Gort?), Twelve or more of them, usually, to keep the site "positive."  Dead fucking serious!
You get shitty, the Gorts ditch the entire argument.

We are going to have to disagree about Odeon.  He mainly wants to find ways to keep this site up and running without having to find a new service every week or so when one of us can't find our big girl panties over some nonsense (I plead Guilty!) and goes off like a balloon that that someone just let go.


Sorry, I did not explain the Gort thing well. They are real human beings, not Gorts,  but the Community has named the administrators of perfect linear justice as if they were aliens just meeting humankind for the first time. It was a funny joke at first, then it FUCKING stuck, because it FUCKING fits!
I am in frequent contact with four of the Gorts and if I go off on some kind of pyro panty panic, I usually get a PM about WTF before any of my posts are deleted.

Pretty sure Odeon's Gorts would offer a similar courtesy.

[DirtDawg]

Yep. I mean, I dislike what Odeon does in terms of what I see as over-moderation, but I don't see that
as, a priori, reducing the discussion to nothing else. Scrap and I are probably pretty diametrically opposed politically,
but it doesn't seem that we get into these matches.

Maybe it's because I don't care enough about the external ideology though to want to punch someone
for not seeing it my way. The closest that came to that for me was the unwillingness to seriously
undertake running the site democratically, with appropriate checks - because I 'knew' too much
about what goes wrong in such cases. In some ways though, that was still a matter of play or experimentation,
with a curiosity as to just how far people would denigrate stated ideals - at least as it played out.
The shitty part (for me) was the <rodent hole> it generated towards me.

Now see, we are in agreement, philosophically, and I really wish all my leftist "friends" had a similar attitude toward discussion with an opposing viewpointed person.

It seems that I run into so many who literally HAVE to shut down a challenging question and not allow any intercourse.

[Calandale]

We are going to have to disagree about Odeon.  He mainly wants to find ways to keep this site up and running without having to find a new service every week or so when one of us can't find our big girl panties over some nonsense (I plead Guilty!) and goes off like a balloon that that someone just let go.

Motives aren't the issue. I can't see those. It's actions.

Silencing and using administrative tools to abuse those you disagree with is inherently suspect though.

[odeon]

The closest that came to that for me was the unwillingness to seriously
undertake running the site democratically, with appropriate checks - because I 'knew' too much
about what goes wrong in such cases. In some ways though, that was still a matter of play or experimentation,
with a curiosity as to just how far people would denigrate stated ideals - at least as it played out.
The shitty part (for me) was the <rodent hole> it generated towards me.

You generated most of that all by yourself.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Scrap and I are probably pretty diametrically opposed politically, but it doesn't seem that we get into these matches.

From my point, I think that's because I always saw you as a necessary Devil's advocate. I felt that many times you were espousing opinions you didn't necessarily agree with but put forth for the sake of argument. When done in good faith, this is a beneficial exercise. Your input, even when I disagree with it, is usually helpful.

BTW, in regards to the fall of the Roman Empire, I re-watched Victor Hansen's (Hist Prof at Stanford) lecture on the subject and I was right, mass immigration prior to the attacks weakened the empire to the point that they couldn't mount an effective military response.

Yer wrong, Mr. History guy.