LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Final post, as I'm leaving...

Huckleman2000 said:
:D :D

I must admit that I think civility is overrated, but I'm probably in the minority here.

I just find insult to be such a challenging rhetorical device. ;) With the right timing and circumstances, it's WAY more satisfying than righteous indignation.

[edit to add] That's why my AV. :D
Click to expand...


Unless you carry just that little bit too far and then the ones you are taking the rip of realise just how loudly you are laughing up your sleeve and decide to put you on virtual ignore. Particularly when it wasn't them personally that you were actually doing it to. Just playing to the audience. It's very upsetting. Especially when you're one of the most intelectually gifted, witty and above all funny people in the AH and the only reason you do it in the first place is to get them to notice and (hopefully) admire you, and be your friend. And talk to you occasionally. Or maybe PM you sometime with a question about something they're working on. Or say Hi. Or even reference one of your posts in a thread once in a while. Instead of driving you into reading other threads like Story Ideas and suddenly laying into people you don't know, much less have ever spoken to about how miserable and unsophisticated they are when they jump on somebody's back for daring to mention that they have un-salubrious thoughts about friends of their own offspring...
 
gauchecritic said:
Unless you carry just that little bit too far and then the ones you are taking the rip of realise just how loudly you are laughing up your sleeve and decide to put you on virtual ignore. Particularly when it wasn't them personally that you were actually doing it to. Just playing to the audience. It's very upsetting. Especially when you're one of the most intelectually gifted, witty and above all funny people in the AH and the only reason you do it in the first place is to get them to notice and (hopefully) admire you, and be your friend. And talk to you occasionally. Or maybe PM you sometime with a question about something they're working on. Or say Hi. Or even reference one of your posts in a thread once in a while. Instead of driving you into reading other threads like Story Ideas and suddenly laying into people you don't know, much less have ever spoken to about how miserable and unsophisticated they are when they jump on somebody's back for daring to mention that they have un-salubrious thoughts about friends of their own offspring...
Click to expand...
Reinforcing, Gauche's post.

Um, hi, Gauche. I do think you're clever in a somewhat recondite way. And you're intimidating, but other than that, I think you're just nifty. Don't hurt me.
 
yui said:
Reinforcing, Gauche's post.

Um, hi, Gauche. I do think you're clever in a somewhat recondite way. And you're intimidating, but other than that, I think you're just nifty. Don't hurt me.
Click to expand...
*snicker*
ok so im a bit numb to intelligence at this point...


Gauche is far too english...erm...gentle- manish to be anything but kind to you, silly girl.
i, on the other hand...am american enough to take advantage at times like these of chickies like you..
oh and what was the point of this thread?
 
gauchecritic said:
Unless you carry just that little bit too far and then the ones you are taking the rip of realise just how loudly you are laughing up your sleeve and decide to put you on virtual ignore. Particularly when it wasn't them personally that you were actually doing it to. Just playing to the audience. It's very upsetting. Especially when you're one of the most intelectually gifted, witty and above all funny people in the AH and the only reason you do it in the first place is to get them to notice and (hopefully) admire you, and be your friend. And talk to you occasionally. Or maybe PM you sometime with a question about something they're working on. Or say Hi. Or even reference one of your posts in a thread once in a while. Instead of driving you into reading other threads like Story Ideas and suddenly laying into people you don't know, much less have ever spoken to about how miserable and unsophisticated they are when they jump on somebody's back for daring to mention that they have un-salubrious thoughts about friends of their own offspring...
Click to expand...

:confused:
Is this a cautionary tale from your own experience? Or partially directed at me? You had me up until the bit about diving into other threads, and then you lost me. Of course, maybe I should have been lost from the "intelectually gifted, witty, and above all funny people" line, but that's just so damn ME! ;)
 
Huckleman2000 said:
:confused:
Is this a cautionary tale from your own experience? Or partially directed at me? You had me up until the bit about diving into other threads, and then you lost me. Of course, maybe I should have been lost from the "intelectually gifted, witty, and above all funny people" line, but that's just so damn ME! ;)
Click to expand...

What can I say? Caps that fit etc.

Yes, it is a cautionary tale. I'm just worried what recondite might mean.

Edited to add: I just looked it up and I'm not sure if I should feel elated or insulted. Yui called me Abstruse!
 
Last edited:
gauchecritic said:
Instead of driving you into reading other threads like Story Ideas and suddenly laying into people you don't know, much less have ever spoken to about how miserable and unsophisticated they are when they jump on somebody's back for daring to mention that they have un-salubrious thoughts about friends of their own offspring...
Click to expand...

you too, huh?
 
gauchecritic said:
Unless you carry just that little bit too far and then the ones you are taking the rip of realise just how loudly you are laughing up your sleeve and decide to put you on virtual ignore. Particularly when it wasn't them personally that you were actually doing it to. Just playing to the audience. It's very upsetting. Especially when you're one of the most intelectually gifted, witty and above all funny people in the AH and the only reason you do it in the first place is to get them to notice and (hopefully) admire you, and be your friend. And talk to you occasionally. Or maybe PM you sometime with a question about something they're working on. Or say Hi. Or even reference one of your posts in a thread once in a while. Instead of driving you into reading other threads like Story Ideas and suddenly laying into people you don't know, much less have ever spoken to about how miserable and unsophisticated they are when they jump on somebody's back for daring to mention that they have un-salubrious thoughts about friends of their own offspring...
Click to expand...

This is a classic. A succinct and comprehensive description of the potential negative consequences of this particular brand of incivility. I am very impressed. Touche'!

Are you a lawyer? (No, I don't mean that in any snide, lawyer joke way.)

I think I like you. And also hope you don't hurt me.

PS. In an edit: I just ducked in here to see what the story was about him leaving/not leaving, and - WHAM! - the first thing I see is this lovely bit of prose. What else have I been missing?
 
Last edited:
BlackShanglan said:
I tried that, but I got tired of reading "Peanuts." I decide to brave those who are more clever than I and see if I can learn from them.

I did learn this long ago, and try - sometimes with gritted teeth - to keep to it: one should not bray back at a jackass. It helps one's enjoyment of any forum, I think, to recognize that some people are best neither encouraged nor replied to. Once I acknowledged this and placed a few key players in that category, I found my experience more congenial and more pleasant.

I have, of course, learned this as well. Stamping off of a forum in a huff is really one of the more amusing behaviors on Internet forums, and one I think best eschewed. No one who is sympathetic to one's cause needs the drama, and no one who isn't will react with anything but derision. Better to quietly go one's own way if one feels it necessary. If the forum is really so banal and unpleasant as to warrant leaving it, then who is worth impressing with one's exit?

Shanglan
Click to expand...


As always, perspicacious, pertinent, and right on the ball.

Thank you. I will continue to be amused by the 'jackasses'. They frequently lighten bad days with their comments ;) and have even been known to induce near-hysterical laughter. Always a good thing.

Mat
 
gauchecritic said:
What can I say? Caps that fit etc.

Yes, it is a cautionary tale. I'm just worried what recondite might mean.

Edited to add: I just looked it up and I'm not sure if I should feel elated or insulted. Yui called me Abstruse!
Click to expand...


*chortle*.
Gauche, you are one.
You are awful. I like you. *playful shove*. ;)
(you get a rose and a kiss if you can tell me what TV show that came from. ;) )
 
matriarch said:
*chortle*.
Gauche, you are one.
You are awful. I like you. *playful shove*. ;)
(you get a rose and a kiss if you can tell me what TV show that came from. ;) )
Click to expand...
Dick Emery. (Puckering up)
 
Playing to one's audience and having friends can sometimes be antithetical goals, yes. One has to be cautious not to give the friends the impression that they are easily sacrificed to the goal of diverting the audience. Fortunately, human etiquette has a clever answer to that sort of situation: the apology.
 
BlackShanglan said:
Playing to one's audience and having friends can sometimes be antithetical goals, yes. One has to be cautious not to give the friends the impression that they are easily sacrificed to the goal of diverting the audience. Fortunately, human etiquette has a clever answer to that sort of situation: the apology.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see anyone in an online argument say "So sorry, your superior arguments have convinced me to abandon my previous position, which I now recognize as idiotic." I've yet to hear anyone in competitive sports say, "I'm sorry we won"; and acknowledging that one's opponent has achieved a "moral victory" is viewed as a thinly disguised insult.

I know, no one likes a smarty-pants. So how does one deal with an innately superior intellect? People like that do exist, just like talented athletes or musicians. Must they constantly apologize for thinking more clearly than others, so as not to offend them?
 
Huckleman2000 said:
I've yet to see anyone in an online argument say "So sorry, your superior arguments have convinced me to abandon my previous position, which I now recognize as idiotic." I've yet to hear anyone in competitive sports say, "I'm sorry we won"; and acknowledging that one's opponent has achieved a "moral victory" is viewed as a thinly disguised insult.

I know, no one likes a smarty-pants. So how does one deal with an innately superior intellect? People like that do exist, just like talented athletes or musicians. Must they constantly apologize for thinking more clearly than others, so as not to offend them?
Click to expand...
So sorry, your superior arguments have convinced me to abandon my previous position, which I now recognize as idiotic.
 
vella_ms said:
*snicker*
ok so im a bit numb to intelligence at this point...


Gauche is far too english...erm...gentle- manish to be anything but kind to you, silly girl.
i, on the other hand...am american enough to take advantage at times like these of chickies like you..
oh and what was the point of this thread?
Click to expand...
Vella, I just want to keep you in my pocket to play with; it's a bizarre urge and not entirely wholesome.

gauchecritic said:
Edited to add: I just looked it up and I'm not sure if I should feel elated or insulted. Yui called me Abstruse!
Click to expand...
Feel elated. It's what I do when gauchecritic deigns to mention my name. :D

And you are frighteningly clever, Abs#2. :rose:
 
Remind me to never title a thread with such absolutes. How :eek: to have that preserved in perpetuity.

;)
 
Huckleman2000 said:
I've yet to see anyone in an online argument say "So sorry, your superior arguments have convinced me to abandon my previous position, which I now recognize as idiotic." I've yet to hear anyone in competitive sports say, "I'm sorry we won"; and acknowledging that one's opponent has achieved a "moral victory" is viewed as a thinly disguised insult.
Click to expand...

I have both seen people convinced and been the one who has admitted being convinced. The thing I've never seen is a happy agreement that involved the sort of loaded language you use above. That does tend to make people defensive and unhappy.

I don't think the comparison to competitive sports applicable; a reasoned argument is about learning what is true, and in its nature has a single correct answer that in theory everyone could agree upon. The point of competitive sports is for only one team to win; the goal of any serious and rational debate is for both sides to learn. While acknowledging that some people prefer simply to sling abuse, I wouldn't really call that debate. Abuse doesn't require a topic or supporting arguments; it does quite well on its own, at least for such minimal goals as it hopes to achieve.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "moral victory," or how acknowledging someone else's victory could be seen as insulting them. Perhaps you might explain?

I know, no one likes a smarty-pants. So how does one deal with an innately superior intellect? People like that do exist, just like talented athletes or musicians. Must they constantly apologize for thinking more clearly than others, so as not to offend them?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure how we got here. I stated that one should be careful when playing to one's audience not to offend one's friends. I don't see anything in there that suggests that people of superior intellect need to apologize for having it. It only suggests that they should be kind to their friends.

Personally, I find it rarely the case that really intelligent people offend others, at least in personal conversation. People of superior intellect are generally sufficiently comfortable with their knowledge that they are content to speak gently to those who care to listen. I can't think of a single genuinely clever or bright argument I've ever heard put forward in insulting terms or language, at least not in a direct discussion amongst individuals where exchange of ideas was possible. But then, I think that there is a difference between being intelligent and being a smarty-pants; I think the latter term is generally used for persons who lack social graces in the application of their intellect, or who use it for self-glorification. Given that that tends to leave the smarty-pants a little lonely and his or her audience uninterested in what was being said, I think it on the whole a thing to avoid, as it serves little purpose.

Shanglan
 
yui said:
So sorry, your superior arguments have convinced me to abandon my previous position, which I now recognize as idiotic.
Click to expand...

:p Smarty-pants.

BlackShanglan said:
I have both seen people convinced and been the one who has admitted being convinced. The thing I've never seen is a happy agreement that involved the sort of loaded language you use above. That does tend to make people defensive and unhappy.

I don't think the comparison to competitive sports applicable; a reasoned argument is about learning what is true, and in its nature has a single correct answer that in theory everyone could agree upon. The point of competitive sports is for only one team to win; the goal of any serious and rational debate is for both sides to learn. While acknowledging that some people prefer simply to sling abuse, I wouldn't really call that debate. Abuse doesn't require a topic or supporting arguments; it does quite well on its own, at least for such minimal goals as it hopes to achieve.
Click to expand...

Aristotelean, Socratic and Platonic ideals be damned! I want blood on the bricks of the forum! ;)
I appreciate your idea that a reasoned argument should be about both sides learning, and would further point out that your first sentence acknowledges in such a discussion a single correct answer. Much as a sporting event has a single winner.

Often, a debate begins where one of the participants has already ascertained the nature of the truth in question, or at least a close approximation thereof. In such a case, a kind and wise teacher may take the hand of the student and lead them through the arguments and challenges, allowing them to arrive at the truth themselves, and thus share the satisfaction of discovery. An idyllic journey from the cave into the sunlight!

Suppose that the "student" in the above example thinks he is the "teacher" instead. Out of politeness, the actual teacher may play along, then "innocently" steer the course of the discussion around to the actual truth. This would save the face of the actual student - unless the student caught on to the roleplay, in which case he may react with outrage that the teacher did not respect him enough to argue directly.

Or maybe the actual teacher decides to argue directly with the actual student, and points out fallacies in his arguments which embarass him, in his imagined role as teacher. The actual student becomes defensive, not because he has been attacked, but because he has been put in a role he had not imagined himself to be in.

Suppose the actual teacher tries to defuse the situation by using a bit of humor in the argument to lighten the mood, but that only makes the actual student more angry because they think they are being ridiculed? The teacher may have instead been giving the student the opportunity to laugh at themselves and deflect attention from the error in argument, or to even top the teacher with a witty retort of their own. The teacher has bested the student in the argument, but the student has redeemed himself with a witticism, showing he is not a dullard in all respects.

In the above examples, the 'actual teacher' may have a better line on the metaphysical truth in question, and the biggest unknown is how the 'actual student' will react when he realizes that fact. As I tried to point out, there are rhetorical and conversational devices to try and smooth over any embarrassment or loss of face, but if the 'actual student' doesn't pick up the cues, what responsibility does the 'actual teacher' have? Or, worse, if the 'actual student' doesn't even realize he has lost the argument, and tosses the 'actual teacher' a rhetorical face-saving softball? What does it serve "the truth" not to knock the fool's argument into the cheap seats?

To put it in Elizabethan terms,
A thicker skull can wear thinner armor,
yet still require a bigger club to crack.
:D (I have no idea what that means, but it's in the right meter)

[edit to add] I don't mean to imply that I am (or anyone else is) more frequently the teacher or the student in the above examples. I just mean to point out that there are good reasons why arguments go off the deep end, and legitimate reasons for insults or sarcasm in civil discourse.
 
Last edited:
Huckleman2000 said:
:p Smarty-pants.
Click to expand...

She is, isn't she? Let's try to get her out of them. ;)

I appreciate your idea that a reasoned argument should be about both sides learning, and would further point out that your first sentence acknowledges in such a discussion a single correct answer. Much as a sporting event has a single winner.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the rest of the sentence observes that it's a single correct answer that everyone can share and agree upon. It's a mutual win, like cooperative sports in which the goal is to achieve something together - Spanish human castle-building, for instance, or hackysack.

Often, a debate begins where one of the participants has already ascertained the nature of the truth in question, or at least a close approximation thereof. In such a case, a kind and wise teacher may take the hand of the student and lead them through the arguments and challenges, allowing them to arrive at the truth themselves, and thus share the satisfaction of discovery. An idyllic journey from the cave into the sunlight!

Suppose that the "student" in the above example thinks he is the "teacher" instead. Out of politeness, the actual teacher may play along, then "innocently" steer the course of the discussion around to the actual truth. This would save the face of the actual student - unless the student caught on to the roleplay, in which case he may react with outrage that the teacher did not respect him enough to argue directly.

Or maybe the actual teacher decides to argue directly with the actual student, and points out fallacies in his arguments which embarass him, in his imagined role as teacher. The actual student becomes defensive, not because he has been attacked, but because he has been put in a role he had not imagined himself to be in.

Suppose the actual teacher tries to defuse the situation by using a bit of humor in the argument to lighten the mood, but that only makes the actual student more angry because they think they are being ridiculed? The teacher may have instead been giving the student the opportunity to laugh at themselves and deflect attention from the error in argument, or to even top the teacher with a witty retort of their own. The teacher has bested the student in the argument, but the student has redeemed himself with a witticism, showing he is not a dullard in all respects.

In the above examples, the 'actual teacher' may have a better line on the metaphysical truth in question, and the biggest unknown is how the 'actual student' will react when he realizes that fact. As I tried to point out, there are rhetorical and conversational devices to try and smooth over any embarrassment or loss of face, but if the 'actual student' doesn't pick up the cues, what responsibility does the 'actual teacher' have? Or, worse, if the 'actual student' doesn't even realize he has lost the argument, and tosses the 'actual teacher' a rhetorical face-saving softball? What does it serve "the truth" not to knock the fool's argument into the cheap seats?
Click to expand...

The problem here, to my point of view, lies in assuming that one can know beyond a doubt that one is the teacher. If one approaches everything as a student, all of those tensions dissolve. More importantly, if one approaches as a student, one can learn, which I think the real goal of rational discourse. If one assumes that one is the teacher, then one is indeed likely to offend others - not because of one's knowledge, which anyone might display without offense, but through one's air of superiority and assumed authority on the issue. It's generally that and not the knowledge itself that I see people react to with annoyance. I've never really seen anyone become annoyed with someone who approached as a student - a fellow student, an equal who also desires to find the truth of the situation, and who accepts that s/he may not already possess it.

[edit to add] I don't mean to imply that I am (or anyone else is) more frequently the teacher or the student in the above examples. I just mean to point out that there are good reasons why arguments go off the deep end, and legitimate reasons for insults or sarcasm in civil discourse.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first half of your last sentence, but wholly disagree with that second. I think it quite natural for people to feel offended when approached by someone who presumes to adopt the role of "teacher" rather than "equal." I also do not see any way in which being rude and abusive to the offended party is likely to resolve that problem. If the goal is simply to amuse oneself at the expense of others, I can see that berating them might alleviate some frustration, but if the goal is mutual knowledge, I can't see how it would ever be arrived at through insult.

Shanglan
 
Severus, due to the longevity of this thread, and it's being mercifully threadjacked to become the venue for interesting exchanges on the social and psychological dynamics of cyber-discussions, you have unwittingly provided us all with a case study regarding the risks of loudly announcing an exit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you stayed with us my friend, and sympathize with the frustrations that triggered this thread. But I snicker every time I see that "Final post - I'm leaving" near the top of the recent post list, seeing how it was seemingly ages ago that you made then (thankfully) retracted your decision to split.
 
An interesting debate on, well, debate. :D I still think that civility is better in handling a debate. The moment that you take it personally, you have lost sight of the purpose.
 
BlackShanglan said:
She is, isn't she? Let's try to get her out of them. ;)
Click to expand...

Getting Yui out of her pants is probably the one idea that would completely unite the AH. :nana:

BlackShanglan said:
I agree with the first half of your last sentence, but wholly disagree with that second. I think it quite natural for people to feel offended when approached by someone who presumes to adopt the role of "teacher" rather than "equal." I also do not see any way in which being rude and abusive to the offended party is likely to resolve that problem. If the goal is simply to amuse oneself at the expense of others, I can see that berating them might alleviate some frustration, but if the goal is mutual knowledge, I can't see how it would ever be arrived at through insult.

Shanglan
Click to expand...

See Shang? This is the point where you're supposed to throw me a nice soft set-up so I can make a wise crack about a horse and then not look like a total idiotic jerk. Did you get nothing from my post!? ;)

I do understand your point, and it's a very good one, and I even agree with it in a philisophical way. It's just that I don't think things usually work out that way; and maybe that's because, deep down, I really am an asshole. Honestly, I've always suspected as much. :eek:

I know I fall back on this a lot, but conflict is the lifeblood of dramatic writing. Two people onstage agreeing with each other, or even disagreeing civil-ly, makes for a boring night at the theater. The psychological venom of Tennessee Williams or Edward Albee illuminates the human condition. The interplay between Katerina and Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew is what endears people to that show.

Perhaps that's the idea that Gauche, being Abstruse, was trying to convey earlier in the thread. Don't confuse your friends with your audience.
 
Huckleman2000 said:
Getting Yui out of her pants is probably the one idea that would completely unite the AH. :nana:
Click to expand...

The one thing that I think absolutely everyone can support. ;)

See Shang? This is the point where you're supposed to throw me a nice soft set-up so I can make a wise crack about a horse and then not look like a total idiotic jerk. Did you get nothing from my post!? ;)
Click to expand...

So sorry to disoblige. It wasn't at all intentional. ;) :heart:

I do understand your point, and it's a very good one, and I even agree with it in a philisophical way. It's just that I don't think things usually work out that way; and maybe that's because, deep down, I really am an asshole. Honestly, I've always suspected as much. :eek:
Click to expand...

I can't imagine that you are, given that when confronted with someone being civil to you, you're being quite civil and pleasant in return, even to the noble point of turning your own weapons against yourself when you simply can't resist using them. I most humbly appreciate that extremely kind gesture, and it gives me considerable respect for you.

I know I fall back on this a lot, but conflict is the lifeblood of dramatic writing. Two people onstage agreeing with each other, or even disagreeing civil-ly, makes for a boring night at the theater. The psychological venom of Tennessee Williams or Edward Albee illuminates the human condition. The interplay between Katerina and Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew is what endears people to that show.

Perhaps that's the idea that Gauche, being Abstruse, was trying to convey earlier in the thread. Don't confuse your friends with your audience.
Click to expand...

Oh, there I agree wholly. But then, we're talking about different goals there. In drama the goal is to amuse an audience of strangers, whereas in discourse with a group of friends the goal is to learn while keeping said friends. :) If I was on stage in the character of Mercutio, I would have no difficulty in taunting my best best friend should s/he be playing the role of Tybalt. But if I am engaged in conversation "as myself" and my friend likewise, then the insult appears to come from me to him rather than my character to his character. Thus, I think, the necessity of knowing what one is doing and with whom.

Of course, on an Internet bulletin board there are special and potentially confusing circumstances. I can see that one person might see it as addressing an audience for entertainment, another socializing with friends, and another engaging in civil debate in order to gain knowledge. Misunderstandings can indeed arise. One might even inadvertantly offend an interesting conversational companion by failing to offer vitriol when desired. ;)

Shanglan
 
SEVERUSMAX said:
....permanently. Some of you have been nice, but others have mistaken my prediction of likely revolution in Sweden in the unlikely event of anti-male discriminatory policies to be a death threat. Absurd and hurtful. Bye bye.
Click to expand...

So, what all did I miss?
*chew* *chew* *spit*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheRedChamber
Venturing into Audio Creation
Replies
10
Views
508
lc69hunter
L
lovecraft68
When there's nothing left to do, and winding down.
Replies
14
Views
1K
Rob_Royale
Rob_Royale
StillStunned
What I wrote and why: Life and Death of the She-Wolf
Replies
15
Views
826
StillStunned
StillStunned
TheRedChamber
Agency as a Writer's Tool
3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
6K
EmilyMiller
EmilyMiller
B
Surprising score for a story
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Voboy
Voboy
Back
Top