Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl: the Markov chain saw
 
PerlMonks  

Re^19: What is "aggressive" argument?

by Argel (Prior)
on Nov 11, 2010 at 23:51 UTC ( #870956=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^18: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

I personally do not like the idea of multiple accounts, save for having an "official" / "admin" type account and then one to post under regularly as a normal user. But I do not make the rules here. :-(

But more importantly, this thread is about you and things you can do to improve your situation. And that's because while you cannot control the actions others you can control how you respond to them! And that is why your sparring partners are irrelevant to this discussion, save for their ability to egg you on and your unhealthy fixation on them. Which brings us back to changes you can make to your behavior.

I think I need to clarify:

[D]o you really think the rest of us care about your inflammatory sock-puppet diatribe?
What I meant was that the rest of us will likely see you being overly abrasive (and thus startign a minor flame war), see you falling for flamebait, or even worse, see you feeding a troll. That doesn't mean we do not notice who you are sparring with. What it means is that an individual's perception of you will be based on your actions, not your sparring partners. Staying above the fray will likely leave a positive impression. Falling/jumping into, or worse, starting the fray will likely leave a negative impression.

Or to put it more succinctly -- we don't care about them, why do you? The Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! thread might offer additional enlightenment.

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks


Comment on Re^19: What is "aggressive" argument?
Re^20: What is "aggressive" argument?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Nov 12, 2010 at 01:39 UTC
    But more importantly, this thread is about you and things you can do to improve your situation.

    No. It isn't! I started this thread, so I reserve the right to decide upon its purpose, and that is not it!

    It might be the purpose you think it should have; or even the purpose you've decided to try and bend it to; but it is not my purpose.

    So let me try (one final time) to clarify my purpose.

    You see, I do not believe written argument can "be aggressive". Words cannot leap off the screen and punch you in the face; nor lie in wait in a dark alley to confront you. If you google "physical aggression", you'll get ~1/4 million hits; "verbal aggression" much the same; but "written aggression" and you'll get a paltry 643.

    But, a tiny proportion of the perlmonks community have taken it upon themselves to accuse me of "aggressive argument". So, in respect to the community, I attempted to get a feel for what, if anything, constituted a "community consensus" on the matter.

    I did this because if there was any such consensus, that could be adequately codified, then I would

    1. Attempt to get it clearly codified.

      For rules to be followed, they need to be defined--rather than made up on the spot at the whim of individuals

    2. Attempt to bind myself to that codification. But with caveats!

      The codification would need to be clear; ie. written.

      The rules would need to be applied universally--with equality of application and sanction--to all participants of this place.

      Not capriciously, by a few self-appointed guardians of morality, to a self-selected few of the rest of us.

    To date. I see a) no consensus; b) no universal application of (even) the capricious, unwritten judgements being applied to me; c) no modicum of realisation by those sitting in judgement, of the arbitrary and capricious nature of their judgementalism.

    When tirwhan used the (widely recognised) most offensive word in the English language, nobody turned a hair. Indeed, he got upvotes for using it.

    I was more than happy to allow IBGS to continue cowardly spewing his tiresome venom in my direction, for as long as he felt the need to do so, because his unchallenged and upvoted fifth was making my point for me, far more strongly than I could have done alone. The fact that you came out to bat for him was just the icing on the cake.

    I've said this (less formally), at least twice before in this thread, but for the sake of completeness, and in the hope of putting this now meaningless dialog to rest, I'll repeat it one last time.

    If, as and when I see you and others applying the same censorship & censure to others--not just my sparring partners, but others too--as you seek to apply to me, then I will take said censoring and censure under advisement. That is, I will attempt to avoid the need for censure, by applying self-censorship commensurate to my understanding of your 'rules', to my writings here.

    But while it remains unwritten, decided arbitrarially by a self-appointed minority of individuals, and applied capriciously, to only me or some small subset of those writing here, I feel no obligation to be so bound.


    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.
      And here we have yet another example of you digging your heels, refusing to concede even an inch, etc. It's amazing how stubborn you get in these debates. And so we get this thread, which it seems has really just been an attempt at proving you are write and whoever called you aggressive is wrong. Ugh!

      So earlier you basically accuse me of supporting (in-effect) IBGS. Me, the person who started the Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! thread!! If you give a troll attention, you are feeding the troll. And there is no better way to support a troll than to feed it. So who was it that was supporting IBGS? Last time I checked I was ignoring him as per SOP. You on the other hand were not only feeding the troll but practically doing the tango with him!!

      As for applying standards, I have different sets of standards to apply, as the occasion fits. In my opinion you do resort to abrasive, confrontational language in heated debates, and I will definitely ding you for it from time to time. So, why didn't tye and ikegami get dinged? Because it's you getting all passionate about threads again, whipping out the inflammatory language again, etc. Geez, it's really starting to wear thin. Is it really that hard for you to argue something just on the technical merits? Apparently so, especially when you do not want to take advice from others.

      And your hypocrisy wears thin. You claim everyone should be judged by the same standards, but when tye pointed out that you were the one who started yelling, you just dismissed it. But by convention writing in all caps is considered yelling on the Internet, which is exactly what tye was referring to! So I guess the standards should only apply when you find them convenient??

      As for how I apply my standards, you're right -- I am applying a different standard to you. If I thought you were just a troll or just flaming away I would likely just ignore you -- I mean, I started Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! for a reason!! But, because you have contributed so much to the Perl community, especially here on PerlMonks, instead of just writing you off in regards to these heated debates, I am actually devoting a considerable amount of my time an energy trying to get you to see that you can make changes that will work toward your betterment.

      Update 2010-11-12: Sorry if this post came across too strong. The frustration factor finally started to get to me.

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

        And so we get this thread, which it seems has really just been an attempt at proving you are write and whoever called you aggressive is wrong.

        No. It is not about me being right. Or even who is right. It is about what is right; and who decides!.

        I'm not trying to say that your or Tye's judgement is wrong, because you misread me. I'm saying it is wrong because you take it upon yourselves to judge me. Because every individual occurrence is subject to interpretation; many different interpretations. And for you to presume that yours is the "right" interpretation is .... I'll let you fill in the adjectives.

        I'm not rejecting your or Tye's judgement of any individual incident. I'm rejecting the idea that either of you have any right to make any such judgements.

        Of course, as individuals, we make judgements all the time. I don't like the color my neighbour painted his fences and garden shed--a kind of bright 'fake tan orangey-yellow'--but I don't go telling him that he can't do it. Despite that I have to look at it every day.

        So earlier you basically accuse me of supporting (in-effect) IBGS. Me, the person who started the Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! thread!! If you give a troll attention, you are feeding the troll. And there is no better way to support a troll than to feed it. So who was it that was supporting IBGS? Last time I checked I was ignoring him as per SOP. You on the other hand were not only feeding the troll but practically doing the tango with him!!

        Go to SuperSearch and check. I've never interacted with IBGS before. I *do* ignore trolls. Except on this occasion I had a point to prove. And prove it you most emphatically did. You censure me, but not him.

        As for applying standards, I have different sets of standards to apply, as the occasion fits.

        Exactly! Your standards. Applied capriciously, arbitrarily & unfairly. As per your whim.

        Rules I'll abide by, but I will not be subjected to your whim; nor anyone's. Just as I would not expect you to be subject to mine.

        So, why didn't tye and ikegami get dinged? Because it's you getting all passionate about threads again,

        No. Its because you, and others, whimsically & capriciously chose not to apply your arbitrary standards to them. Even Tye himself admits that he sometimes oversteps some mark. The problem is where is that mark.

        And more to the point: who decides where that mark is? You? tirwhan? Other?

        But by convention writing in all caps is considered yelling on the Internet,

        Fact:the written word cannot carry volume. Any such anthropomorphisation of the written word, is applied by the reader, not the writer.

        I didn't shout. You and Tye, and no doubt others, chose to read me as shouting. But that is your choice.

        Should I choose to respect every nonsensical rule anyone in the world might have?

        Some or other Hollywood celebrity turned up on a topical news show stating that he would "only eat animals that have respect for themselves". There is a subset of human beings that won't drive cars. Others who think that the earth is circa 11,000 years old. Others that believe that eating tiger penis is good for their virility. Others that dismember albino children to use their body parts as powerful ju-ju in ritualistic ceremonies.

        Should I respect all these other nonsensical "conventions"?

        I am actually devoting a considerable amount of my time an energy trying to get you to see that you can make changes that will work toward your betterment.

        My betterment? According to your standards? Your unwritten, changeable, applied-when-and-if-you-see-fit standards? You really think I aspire, or should aspire to compliance to such?

        Once again, I am telling you--point blank; in your face; no equivocations; no room for manoeuvre or persuasion or coercion--I will not be bound by, or respect, any form of censorship, decided and applied by individuals, to an arbitrary subset of perlmonks.

        If this community wants to apply some set of rules of censorship, and wants me to respect them, then it must a) codify them; b) apply them universally.

        If I even perceived that your 'standards' were a) something like a consensus; b) were widely applied and respected; I would on this--as I have on other things--fall into line with them. But that is not the case here.


        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.
        Is it really that hard for you to argue something just on the technical merits? Apparently so, especially when you do not want to take advice from others.

        You've completely stopped arguing the merits.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://870956]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-12-20 00:14 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (94 votes), past polls