Re^8: What is "aggressive" argument?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Nov 05, 2010 at 00:36 UTC||Need Help??|
Dang, you need a geography lesson!!
Was that an American accusing a European of needing a geography lesson?
Poughkeepsie is in New York and Boca Raton is in Florida.
You didn't see the (deliberate, intended, flagged a mile away), irony? Definitely an American!
And yes, those two 'anti-american' put-downs will earn me downvotes. What of it.
And yet, every American comedian that visits or works here in the UK--recently including Rich Hall, Reginald D. Hunter, Ruby Wax, Joan Rivers, and many more going back as long as I can remember--makes jokes contrasting US 'v' UK, with the Americans (themselves) the butt of both those jokes.
Of course, when they do it , it is self deprecating. When I do it, it's stereotyping a whole nation.
But they also apply the American stereotyping of the Brits, to our faces. And we laugh all the louder because it's not personal.
And neither are my two jokes above. Nor's this:
What? Like, is that: the sound of barfing?
By the standards of those-that-accuse, your "Dang, you need a geography lesson!!" would be deemed a personal attack at least as bad as most of "mine".
By their standards, even just telling someone they are wrong--even if they are--is a 'personal attack'.
Or I suppose you could just continue to complain about the situation.
If you read the OP of this thread as a "complaint", you totally missed the point.
But is that par for the course. (Again, not directed at you personally, but at the general reading of my intent.)
And finally, within a few minutes of each other you wrote:
These heated debates are part of the PM culture. To avoid reading them is missing out on part of the sub-culture hereand
Too much heated debate will hurt.
I agree with the first. It is a good part of the point I've been trying to make in this thread.
For the second--besides that it doesn't seem to do /. any harm; you've never heard of a site being PMed--there is a value judgement there.
Just as my accusers believe they are making a value judgements on behalf of all monks. They're are not!
If we take 868831 as an example. It is by far the strongest thing I've ever said on PM. It currently stand at -11(+3,-14). At most, 17 people have been bothered enough by that direct, personal, unredeemed & unredeemable post to even vote on it. Of whom 14 felt strongly enough about it to downvote it. (*)
I'm guessing that about half of those are 'my sparring partners' & their supporters--7 to 9 seems to be about average for the downvotes I garner when I go up against one of my 'regulars'. The rest, people genuinely offended by that particular remark.
Bottom line: My accusers--those would be moral guardians of monkkind--are a tiny fraction of those here at PM.
And for the most part, the majority either reject, or simply can't be bothered with, their moral crusades.
In response to your "Your only practical recourse is to ratchet back on those personal attacks", I'd say I have one more option. And in keeping with one of the monk's quips, I intend to make a virtue of laziness, and do nothing.
(*)I'm guessing that three upvoters have been following the argument closely enough, and understand the subject matter enough. to get the point of the title brackets!
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.