Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Homosexual activism completely ignores the question of what this behavior tends toward (telos) in favor of insisting that it's equal to heterosexual behavior. Well no, they're demonstrably different. of
So...mind explaining what the difference between this argument and the one Glenn described on page 9? Aside from the fact that you peppered yours so freely with Greek, that is?
I should think so. I've been poking the individualist group-think with a style of paradoxical hyperbole imbibed from the likes of Swift and Maistre.
Far from being condescending, the idea of the style was to jump in among the Quakers, make a Cavalier observation, and carry on a conversation as equals with anyone erudite enough to get it. It's the verbal equivalent of when I wear a tie and braces with the fleurs-de-lis on them: occasionally someone gets it and the reference acts as a conversation starter.
You'll note there was never any drama with those who could express their philosophy intelligently, regardless of what it was. Never a problem with Tribune, always a problem with people who regurgitated fashionable leftist cliches from the university.
Then people started insulting me for not replying to every single statement addressed to me, then attacking me for making long posts... damned if you do, damned if you don't. What was happening was that progressives who didn't get it were reading their strawmen of what a Christian is onto me, and as Chesteron said, all sticks are good enough to beat Christians with.
Regarding the question of tone, do you perceive there to have been anything wrong with your tone (not your opinion) during the following exchange between Glenn and yourself (for which neither party was thumped)?
Yeah, the tone there was very sassy. It was a flippant way of packing "You don't get to believe that humans are mammals when Darwin makes a handy stick to beat theism with, but ignore the implications of evolutionary biology when it would contradict feminism" into a few words. I was being condescending toward people who believe everything they're expected to without noticing the contradictions, and clearly I shouldn't have been.
> I should think so. I've been poking the individualist group-think with a
style of paradoxical hyperbole imbibed from the likes of Swift and
Maistre.
Translation: I am using exaggerations in order to point out what I believe are flaws in others' logic.
(And I have no idea why Swift and Maistre even have to be mentioned. Also, by "imbibed" you mean "derived". And also, individualism contradicts group-think.)
> Far from being condescending, the idea of the
style was to jump in among the Quakers, make a Cavalier observation, and
carry on a conversation as equals with anyone erudite enough to get it.
It's the verbal equivalent of when I wear a tie and braces with the
fleurs-de-lis on them: occasionally someone gets it and the reference
acts as a conversation starter.
Translation: I am going to say things that no one will understand, except a select few, and then disregard the lot of you who don't understand it.
> You'll note there was never any drama with those who could express their
philosophy intelligently, regardless of what it was. Never a problem
with Tribune, always a problem with people who regurgitated fashionable
leftist cliches from the university.
> Then people started
insulting me for not replying to every single statement addressed to me,
then attacking me for making long posts... damned if you do, damned if
you don't. What was happening was that progressives who didn't get it
were reading their strawmen of what a Christian is onto me.
> Yeah, the tone there was very sassy. It was a flippant way of
packing "You don't get to believe that humans are mammals when Darwin
makes a handy stick to beat theism with, but ignore the implications of
evolutionary biology when it would contradict feminism" into a few
words. I was being condescending toward people who believe everything
they're expected to without noticing the contradictions, and clearly I
shouldn't have been.
You know what? Here's an amazing thing. These three paragraphs did NOT require a translation for me to understand their. Can you write like this the rest of the time?
Well, except for the bit about being a Christian. You don't act anything like any Christian stereotypes.
He does not realize that people have no principles.
style of paradoxical hyperbole imbibed from the likes of Swift and
Maistre.
Far from being condescending, the idea of the
style was to jump in among the Quakers, make a Cavalier observation, and
carry on a conversation as equals with anyone erudite enough to get it.
It's the verbal equivalent of when I wear a tie and braces with the
fleurs-de-lis on them: occasionally someone gets it and the reference
acts as a conversation starter.
You'll note there was never any
drama with those who could express their philosophy intelligently,
regardless of what it was. Never a problem with Tribune, always a
problem with people who regurgitated fashionable leftist cliches from
the university.
Bobby was right, this is part of your problem. Stop doing this.
Going into a debate with a style that you know will cause misunderstandings and drama among all but the select few who "get it" is a recipe for ban-flavored disaster.
> Then people started insulting me for not replying
to every single statement addressed to me, then attacking me for making
long posts... damned if you do, damned if you don't. What was happening
was that progressives who didn't get it were reading their strawmen of
what a Christian is onto me, and as Chesteron said, all sticks are good
enough to beat Christians with.
This may be true, but you are more damned if you do respond in such a manner that the thread veer's from "Original Topic" to "Debate On Rott's Views". Now obviously, you can't control the fact that numerous people respond to you, and that numerous people want an answer, but you can control how you react to that situation as it emerges. If you feel like it's getting to that point, my advice would be to respectfully bow out to avoid potential derails.
I know that will seem unfair from your perspective, and I agree that it probably is unfair. However, if Eddie does lift your ban you are guaranteed to be under more scrutiny than ever before, and Eddie in the past has appeared to be especially unforgiving toward those he unbans who appear to be exhibiting "more of the same" behavior.
you are guaranteed to be under more scrutiny than ever before, and
Eddie in the past has appeared to be especially unforgiving toward
those he unbans who appear to be exhibiting "more of the same" behavior.
Confirming my belief that the only way to survive is to leave the circlejerks be. Again, bowing out of threads has gotten me attacked for being evasive.
Justice's Muslim wife has said "They're horrible assholes. Why do you talk to them?"
But on topic...
Rotty, I feel that your last post is actually demonstrative of the kind of tonal problems that seem to be the problem here.
For example, you state that your intent was not to condescend, but to converse with those erudite enough to understand. But consider this:
>Never a problem with Tribune, always a problem with people who regurgitated fashionable leftist cliches from the university.
If true - if true - then this suggests that the problem lies not with you, but with those misinterpreting your words. Now, I can't deny that I never saw Tribune take offence to any of your posts, and nor can I deny that Tribune appeared to be intelligent, or at least well-read, certainly moreso than, say, Josef Bugman.
But then, in your last paragraph, you say something which I find very interesting, and I suspect may reveal the real issue here. You describe your tone as sassy and condescending - toward people who believe everything they're expected to without noticing the contradictions.
Now, I am obviously not Glenn Magus Harvey, so I won't speak for him, but fortunately, he's right here in this thread. So, Glenn, if you'll humour me for a moment, please answer me the following questions: Do you believe that evolutionary biology provides humankind with a specific purpose? And - please forgive me - have you thought about your views, or are you merely reciting what you learned at university?
Rott, I may be completely mistaken here, but it is my perception that you made the assumption that the views of the person with whom you were arguing were contradictory and poorly-reasoned, and adopted a condescending tone on this presumption. I can imagine this being a problem, as while there are certainly people on TV Tropes who espouse quite simplistic seeming views, I have seen your views opposed quite angrily by certain posters, such as Jethro and Bon Sequitur, who appear to me to be highly intelligent and well-read, definitely moreso than myself.
I end this post with an apology and an explanation: I'm sorry if this post is unclear or foolish, but this is very difficult for me. I do not believe myself to be your intellectual equal, and I am certainly not as well read as you are. Part of the reason (other than that blackcat had shared my view that your tone in that thread was not suitable) I identified that post as potentially problematic was because of the gut reaction I immediately had upon reading it for the first time - that is, annoyance.
I was annoyed because your remark about the Linnaean taxonomic class of women appeared, on first reading, to be a red herring designed to confuse your opponents. From my own perspective, which I believe is not uncommon, and which regards purpose as something entirely independent of biology, the remark appeared to be a complete non sequitur masquerading as sharp wit. It was only upon consideration that it occurred to me that this was not necessarily the case, and that you might have had a different intention - which you did, as you detailed above.
The reason for my apology, and for my uncertainty here, is that the class of people whom you describe as "regurgitating fashionable leftist cliches from the university" are people whom I find myself very often in agreement with. It is therefore - and I assure you that this is not a trick or a trap of any kind - with great apprehension that I must confess that I may well be one of this class of people, and this may have left me with a wrong impression of you. Make no mistake, I do not think that I am; I will declare here and now that I arrived at my views only after giving them lengthy consideration (and for that matter, I have found myself in almost constant disagreement with fellow university students for the past year) - but it's possible, and if that's the case, then I'm honestly not sure where that leaves us, as far as this thread is concerned.
Edit: And doubly ninja'd. I suppose that's what I get for typing out such a lengthy and uncertain wall of text.
> Justice's Muslim wife has aptly said "They're horrible assholes. Why do you talk to them?"
Well, do you at least agree, with the debate style you admit to using in mind, that you bring a fair portion of it on yourself? You're setting yourself up for confrontation before you even enter a thread.
And note that I cannot speak for Eddie or any of the mods, here. My last post was based on Smokie's short-lived return to the fora... when he showed signs of returning to his old ways, he was banned again, this time permanently.
Bobby has said that your idea to stay out of OTC is not what Eddie is after. Despite that, and based off of everything you've said in this thread, it may honestly be your safest bet if you want to ensure that you stay. You seem to enjoy winning points against the mainstream masses that you're up against, and I'm afraid the temptation would be too great to avoid taking that one wrong step that will make this ban permanent.
Again, that is all nothing more than my honest non-mod opinion. Take it for what you will. I'm probably going to bow out of this thread myself at this point, as things seem to be on a more productive track. Good luck on getting your ban lifted... as I said before, despite our difference in philosophy, I sincerely do want to continue seeing you around as part of the community.
Well, the record is there to check - he didn't have that many OTC posts. Admittedly, the time spent checking would be an irrationally high cost if being right about this has no effect on Eddie.
But then, in your last paragraph, you say something which I find very
interesting, and I suspect may reveal the real issue here. You
describe your tone as sassy and condescending - toward people who believe everything they're expected to without noticing the contradictions.
Right, I respect people who have read widely and chosen beliefs based on what in their informed opinion is most likely to be true rather than fashionable.
Now don't take the message that I don't respect you because "I do not believe myself to be your intellectual equal." Intellect is just one way to be respectable: you merit it by virtue of courtesy and empathy.
because I don't think Eddie would appreciate the suggestion that the
forum has a political bias, when we do our best not to hold such a bias
when moderating.
Kind of missing your point, but there's more feeling that the forums
have a bias toward rabidly condescending materialism rather than a
political one.
It is good that you recognize empathy, Rott. Making a bigger effort towards cultivating it in your writing would help, though. Surely you can recognize how a particular post will be taken, and locate the more productive phrasing?
Frequently, one can get the impression that you do not actually understand the position of your opposite in a discussion. Is this unfortunate?
The aspect of this which I am questioning is not whether there was drama between you and Tribune, but whether there has truly never been drama between you and an intelligent and erudite troper, and in order to determine that, I would need some reliable means of assessing the intelligence and knowledge of other tropers. The impression I'm getting from your recent posts is that I am ill-equipped to do this myself.
>Right, I respect people who have read widely and chosen beliefs based on what in their informed opinion is most likely to be true rather than fashionable.
Please forgive me for the possibly demeaning question, but, just supposing that a person held fashionable views on several issues, would you consider it possible that such a person had arrived at those views based on an informed opinion, or would you assume otherwise?
>Intellect is just one way to be respectable: you merit it by virtue of courtesy and empathy.
Coming from you, that means a great deal. Thank you.
>Kind of missing your point, but there's more feeling that the forums have a bias toward rabidly condescending materialism rather than a political one.
An epistemological and metaphysical bias, then. But I think you see how implying such a thing to Eddie might cause offence?
Given the premise that God is love, learning to better reflect that would be good.
This is distinct from the false empathy of agreeing with everyone's opinions as "your truth".
supposing that a person held fashionable views on several issues, would
you consider it possible that such a person had arrived at those views
based on an informed opinion, or would you assume otherwise?
"Several" is different from "all". If someone has no beliefs that carry a cost in the court of current upper middle class opinion, yes I'm skeptical. Believe me, having gone from a working class family to university, in a way it would be incredibly convenient to be handed a book that derives from first principles all the beliefs I'd be rewarded for holding and is more logically rigorous and consistent with empirical data than any competing systematic philosophy. At last I would know not only why atheism is true, but why it's ethical to militantly assert it against Christianity but unethical to do so against Islam, and how reverence for Islam is compatible with feminism, and how the ethical imperative to treat men and women exactly the same makes better sense than not in the light of Darwin...
You're welcome.
But I think you see how implying such a thing to Eddie might cause offence?
Of course. Truth hurts. That's why only a fool would speak truth to power over something as minor as an internet forum.
I disagree with all three of these statements, FWIW, though the first more strongly than the other two.
>Of course. Truth hurts. That's why only a fool would speak truth to power over something as minor as an internet forum.
The coward in me is not liking where this appears to be going...
No, they'd be unprincipled, as there is a difference between zero and an empty set.
> So, Glenn, if you'll humour me for a moment, please answer me the following questions: Do you believe that evolutionary biology provides humankind with a specific purpose? And - please forgive me - have you thought about your views, or are you merely reciting what you learned at university?
1. I think that evolutionary biology provides a framework that may be helpful in determining a specific purpose for humanity. However, this framework is not the one and only framework by any means, and any judgement of purpose is a normative assessment of a situation anyway, based on certain assumptions.
2. I never learned ANYTHING about the purpose of humankind while in university, so it logically follows that the views about this I that I recite come not from my university education. I just came up with these views myself.
> Rott, I may be completely mistaken here, but it is my perception that you made the assumption that the views of the person with whom you were arguing were contradictory and poorly-reasoned, and adopted a condescending tone on this presumption.
This. On what basis do you assume that people you disagree with are necessarily poorly-informed or otherwise unfit to discuss matters with you?
> Right, I respect people who have read widely and chosen beliefs based on what in their informed opinion is most likely to be true rather than fashionable.
But on what basis do you form the assumption that people who don't read widely necessarily choose their beliefs based on what is fashionable? And what if someone else holds a such "informed" belief most likely to be true that you believe not to be true?
And on what basis do you assume that beliefs that are "fashionable" are necessarily also false?
I think the reason your posts tended to come across as condescending was because you were not treating those whom you perceived to be merely parroting uninformed views as worthy of proper debate.
That is to say, I feel that, when one is debating with another person, one should aim to (a) be open to learning from the person you are arguing with, and (b) aim to educate the person you are arguing with. The impression I get from this thread is that you were not open to learning from people whom you assumed had no worthwhile ideas to express, and were unwilling to inform them of your own reasoning - at most, you might refer them to a volume by another author, most of which were rather lengthy, but very often you wouldn't even do that.
Now, this is obviously preferable to the approach taken by, for example, Grey Human (who, when he could no longer ignore the arguments directed at him by a troper he regarded as beneath him, launched into a direct attack on said troper's maturity, intelligence and religion), but it nevertheless fails to disguise the fact that you don't feel that many of the people with whom you are debating are actually worth debating with in the manner I described above. Do you feel that this is a fair assessment?
It seems to me that there are two possible solutions to this problem, if it is indeed the problem:
1. You can avoid any and all debate threads (or at least, those involving potentially controversial subject matter) involving tropers whom you regard as your intellectual inferiors. (Apologies if this is what you were proposing before, but were too polite to say.)
2. You can assume that any tropers who have not yet said anything stupid or contradictory in a given thread may have a point, and attack the arguments put forward without making assumptions about the reasoning behind them. I would personally prefer this, and I think your input in threads would be much more welcome if you did this, but I can imagine it also being infuriating or tedious from your perspective.
To reiterate - these are ideas which I personally arrived at just now, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Fast Eddie or the TV Tropes staff collectively.
was because you were not treating those whom you perceived to be merely
parroting uninformed views as worthy of proper debate.
Yep. You see the same condescending manner from outspoken atheists there. It just never gets thumped, atheism being fashionable.
Which brings me to my next point. You can get thumped for being a sneering secular bigot, if you, say, come into a thread about St. Augustine and say something like "He was a heartless moron." This protection of threads holders of unfashionable beliefs like Christianity carve out leads me to believe that what Maddy and Eddie want is a forum where all speech is agreeable. So your suggestion 1 (which is indeed what I was proposing) would be safe and 2 still dangerous.
They do not want a forum where all speech is "agreeable", in the never-disagree sense; simply a civil forum.
It's an unfortunate fact of human nature that incivility is more easily noticed coming from a minority, yes. But do you respond by:
As for "agreeable" vs. "civil"... Eddie and Madrugada tend to thump/ban for what you might call harsh remarks towards others. By which I mean, for example, calling somebody retarded/fat/a faggot/etc., attempting to silence people by telling them to fuck off or shut up or something along those lines, or indeed, suggestions involving playing jump rope with other tropers' intestines. Being a sneering secular bigot would probably fall into that same category.
Rott, I'd have to concede that, yes, given that you've already been banned once, debating with liberals probably is something of a risky move. I don't think it should be a problem if you were civil and debated in the manner that I suggested, but I am not in a position to guarantee that.
Tuefel, I recall a survey which was conducted at one point which found that we had a fairly even split of theists and non-theists. However, most of those participating in religion-related OTC threads were the latter.