I'm not saying that you're in some clique (although I find it interesting that you would ask me that since you were also using the 'groups' argument), what I am saying is that you are usually in the group that shouts the loudest when it comes to WC discussions and that uses practically every tactic to show just how much you dislike the opinions of those who disagree (and by this I'm not just talking about arguing your own point of view- I'm talking about writing off people's arguments completely because of who they are, I'm talking about those of you that decide they're going to smite someone they disagree with every hour on the hour just to show just how much people dislike their point of view,etc).
i'm usually too lazy to engage in anything like this. i've done it with scrap when he had already started doing the same to me.
Silencing the dissenting voice was something you said you considered bullying in your previous post, a point you tried to wedge home with this comment:
see how this works, btw--i just made any one of you that asks me to grow some skin into a bully,
this is an argumentation technique, really, and my intention was just to expose it, but yes, i can see your point.
All I did was show that perhaps your behaviour could also be considered bullying or a way of silencing the dissenting voice using the standards you were applying to that of others.
as i point out below, there is a difference between the arguments confined to certain threads, and pranks done to people who didn't want them.
i'll admit freely that i have engaged in tactics that could be seen as bullying, by staying on the case of some members with whom i
already have an argument. i'll also admit that i am not perfect, that some of my replies were designed to hurt, but i maintain that i don't pick just anyone, and certainly not a member i haven't engaged in an argument with. see the difference?
there is a hell of a lot of difference between arguing in a thread (including the plussing, the remarks and whatnot), and repeatedly changing the profile of someone who hasn't done anything at all, except asking the prankster to not do it again, don't you think? in my book, the latter is bullying while the former is debating.
But that wasn't the only thing you were arguing in your previous post was it and you know perfectly well that wasn't the point I was replying to. You said "free speech isn't--or shouldn't be, at least--about bullying or about some group mentality where it's ok to tell the dissenting voice to grow some skin, stop being such a grumpy old man, or whatever, because you belong to a group that's loud enough."
And that's what I was replying to with my examples of your behaviour that could be considered bullying using your own standards because I think that's where the hypocrisy lies- you say its bullying to tell someone to stop being a grumpy old man or to grow some skin if you happen to belong to what some see as the loudest group on this issue (although really which side is the loudest group is debatable), but its simple debate/free speech when you call people names or use the other tactics I mentioned for disagreeing on other issues when you belong to the loudest group. Either both are covered by free speech or we introduce play nice rules that cover all of it, you can't apply it selectively.
read again, PI. if you don't see the difference between arguing with people
already participating in the argument (and yes, sometimes with not-so-nice comments and tactics), and repeatedly pulling pranks on people who asked to stay out of them (including calling them all kinds of things if the dare protest), there is no point having this discussion at all.
My issue with the no prank list has always been that its questionable whether we ought to start introducing rules (whether we come right out and be honest about this or not that's what they are) to protect people from certain kinds of behaviour on a no holds barred place like Intensity. I just think that perhaps people ought to look at how their own behaviour could come across before they go applying standards to what's bullying and what isn't.
i agree with you in that there's no way we can introduce actual rules. that would be moderation and quickly change this site into something i don't want to be a part of. however, i maintain that there is a difference between what i've done when arguing, and the no-holds-barred pranks i was talking about. i also maintain that if someone repeatedly asks to NOT be the target of more pranks, that should be respected. not because the prankster has to, but because it's the decent thing to do.
(and rather than throwing more vague accusations about my past behaviour, including those plusses designed to bully the opposition into silence, point them out when they occur.)
i'm not perfect, and i'm sure i've been guilty of being unnecessarily cruel, mean, etc, in the past, but does that mean that i am not allowed to comment on the pranks i think are cruel, mean, etc?
