“I'm never ever ever going in for "all viewpoints are worthy of respect."”
Hi Chris, I don’t want you to feel confused about where the line is. I’m certainly not going to ban you for a comment like this.
I called it out because comments like these almost inevitably lead to antagonism further down the chain. There have been a few conversations you’ve been involved in that have become quite negative, and it’s often very clear how a little bit of rudeness turned into a little bit more in the next reply from them and so on.
Even a conversation that ends with you calling somebody a troll or insulting their intelligence is likely to stick in that person’s mind the next time they interact with you. So new conversations are immediately more antagonistic than they otherwise would have been.
Not all viewpoints are worthy of respect. I agree. But all people are worthy of respect. At least until they demonstrate that they aren’t.
Nobody here has demonstrated anything if the sort. As I’ve said many times, I’m extremely happy with the mix of people here and the general thoughtfulness of the comments. So if you disagree with somebody, which is inevitable and not a problem at all, consider the possibility that you’re the one who is missing something, and approach the conversation with some humility. That’s all I’m asking.
Steve. The guy said, "thank you for admitting you're wrong" or something to that effect. I had done no such thing; the intention was to make me sputter that "I didn't admit any such thing!!" and keep me chasing my tail for as long as he could. What he did was pure trollery, nothing to do with viewpoint, but dishonest and intended to elicit outrage. Decades ago I might have kept it up and it took me four years on FC and living in a state of elevated anger to get over it and quit.
OK, conceded, I should have just left his shit on the floor where shat but I thought that one-word response was pretty mild.
In my mind his bait met any criterion of "demonstrating that they aren't" (worthy of respect.).
Sometime you might want to google the iconic Honda Cannon debate on NetSlaves, which was mostly between me and the troll who chased me around for four years, even bribing a sysadmin to let him troll a forum where it was forbidden.
Here we have a conversation where you've made totally unfounded assumptions about Marla because she mentions Antifa, she responds to a great deal of sarcasm from you with politeness. You then claim Antifa simply don't exist (a claim I'm still not sure how you stand behind. I can only imagine how you'd react to somebody who claimed QAnon don't exist), then Jason offers you some (admittedly pretty lukewarm) evidence, you respond with more sarcasm, and then finally, he responds with some in return.
This is the knock on effect I'm talking about. One bit of rudeness or sarcasm makes the next bit more likely, and so on. Especially when talking to strangers on the nameless, faceless internet. I'm not even saying he wasn't trolling. And yes, your response was mild enough in the grand scheme of things.
I'm saying you seem to be overlooking your significant part in the conversation reaching that point. And in making further conversation, where you might have at least partially come to an understanding, all but impossible. If Marla had responded to you with sarcasm or trolling, I wouldn't have blamed her either.
As I said earlier, the way you speak to people impacts the way they speak to you. Your willingness to hear them out or to ask productive questions impacts their willingness to do the same in return. This impact can be positive or negative. I'm aiming for it to be consistently positive from everybody here.
“I'm never ever ever going in for "all viewpoints are worthy of respect."”
Hi Chris, I don’t want you to feel confused about where the line is. I’m certainly not going to ban you for a comment like this.
I called it out because comments like these almost inevitably lead to antagonism further down the chain. There have been a few conversations you’ve been involved in that have become quite negative, and it’s often very clear how a little bit of rudeness turned into a little bit more in the next reply from them and so on.
Even a conversation that ends with you calling somebody a troll or insulting their intelligence is likely to stick in that person’s mind the next time they interact with you. So new conversations are immediately more antagonistic than they otherwise would have been.
Not all viewpoints are worthy of respect. I agree. But all people are worthy of respect. At least until they demonstrate that they aren’t.
Nobody here has demonstrated anything if the sort. As I’ve said many times, I’m extremely happy with the mix of people here and the general thoughtfulness of the comments. So if you disagree with somebody, which is inevitable and not a problem at all, consider the possibility that you’re the one who is missing something, and approach the conversation with some humility. That’s all I’m asking.
Steve. The guy said, "thank you for admitting you're wrong" or something to that effect. I had done no such thing; the intention was to make me sputter that "I didn't admit any such thing!!" and keep me chasing my tail for as long as he could. What he did was pure trollery, nothing to do with viewpoint, but dishonest and intended to elicit outrage. Decades ago I might have kept it up and it took me four years on FC and living in a state of elevated anger to get over it and quit.
OK, conceded, I should have just left his shit on the floor where shat but I thought that one-word response was pretty mild.
In my mind his bait met any criterion of "demonstrating that they aren't" (worthy of respect.).
Sometime you might want to google the iconic Honda Cannon debate on NetSlaves, which was mostly between me and the troll who chased me around for four years, even bribing a sysadmin to let him troll a forum where it was forbidden.
"I had done no such thing; the intention was to make me sputter that "I didn't admit any such thing!!""
Yes, agreed. This is actually a fairly good example of what I'm talking about. Here's the conversation to refresh your memory (https://steveqj.substack.com/p/your-comments-are-fairly-shocking/comment/8101625).
Here we have a conversation where you've made totally unfounded assumptions about Marla because she mentions Antifa, she responds to a great deal of sarcasm from you with politeness. You then claim Antifa simply don't exist (a claim I'm still not sure how you stand behind. I can only imagine how you'd react to somebody who claimed QAnon don't exist), then Jason offers you some (admittedly pretty lukewarm) evidence, you respond with more sarcasm, and then finally, he responds with some in return.
This is the knock on effect I'm talking about. One bit of rudeness or sarcasm makes the next bit more likely, and so on. Especially when talking to strangers on the nameless, faceless internet. I'm not even saying he wasn't trolling. And yes, your response was mild enough in the grand scheme of things.
I'm saying you seem to be overlooking your significant part in the conversation reaching that point. And in making further conversation, where you might have at least partially come to an understanding, all but impossible. If Marla had responded to you with sarcasm or trolling, I wouldn't have blamed her either.
As I said earlier, the way you speak to people impacts the way they speak to you. Your willingness to hear them out or to ask productive questions impacts their willingness to do the same in return. This impact can be positive or negative. I'm aiming for it to be consistently positive from everybody here.