Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence  (Read 4984 times)

The Legendary Shark

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9508
  • Tip: Sharks only attack you if you're wet.
    • View Profile
    • The Sharkpool Blog
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #45 on: 05 June, 2019, 12:46:54 pm »
Quote
In the spirit of personal responsibility,
forgiveness and commitment to positive future
 behaviour,both the target and the offender
 express their acceptance of the proposed
 solution/s and discuss what can be done to
 prevent a recurrence.

I'm always harping on about personal responsibility, so here goes...

I believe I was wrong and that my actions have caused a rift between Tordelback and myself. This may be a misperception but, just in case it isn't, here's where I think I went wrong: Tordels paid me a compliment and I responded with a joke (to-whit, a silly Futurama meme) instead of an appreciation of the compliment (which I should have expressed).

My posts are often too long, too condescending and too complicated. Instead of simplifying, I overcompensate - often dropping in what I intend as jokes and quips in inappropriate places. This has alienated me from many other members.

To remedy my actions, I propose to be more mindful of all the members of this forum with whom I interact, and to listen to any suggestions you may have

And if all else fails, here comes the obligatory lame joke, you can always just look at me as The Legendary Partridge.


~~~^~~~~~~~

Be excellent to each other. And party on!

https://www.giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/the_legendary_shark


Blog.

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6419
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #46 on: 05 June, 2019, 03:48:50 pm »
I don't think politely asking whether he was referring to me constitutes "shooting someone down"

Yeah, it's not as if you repeatedly called him a weasel or anything.
fate amenable to change

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12784
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #47 on: 05 June, 2019, 04:12:28 pm »
Yeah, it's not as if you repeatedly called him a weasel or anything.

You spotted the part where he declined to answer a simple question, yes? I found his meaning unclear. I asked him to clarify, and he re-stated his original post in such a way as to avoid answering the question. I didn't call him a weasel, I said I found his evasion weaselly, which is a perfectly normal use of the word. He doesn't owe me an answer, but I asked him to clear up a reading of his post that felt like a personal attack and he declined to do so. If I'm mis-reading his post, what's so bloody difficult about saying "No, I didn't mean you"…?

I really seem to be incapable of posting anything that doesn't annoy you — why don't you just put me on ignore?
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6419
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #48 on: 05 June, 2019, 04:21:47 pm »
Catch yourself on.  "Weaselly" isn't neutral terminology - it's loaded.  You see, if you'd said he was being "evasive", then at least you'd have been being polite (although still calling into question his motives).  Once he (politely) clarified his motives, you basically called him a liar.  (He also specifically asked that you not refer to him as a weasel, but you chose to ignore him and repeat the insult.)

As for the "ignore" function: I never use it. 
fate amenable to change

Mattofthespurs

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1953
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #49 on: 05 June, 2019, 04:30:26 pm »
Yeah, it's not as if you repeatedly called him a weasel or anything.

You spotted the part where he declined to answer a simple question, yes? I found his meaning unclear. I asked him to clarify, and he re-stated his original post in such a way as to avoid answering the question.

You could have questioned his original post in a more neutral way to be fair.

You could have said 'what do you mean by that?' or 'why do you think that?' and allowed him the right of response with a polite question.

Then, obviously, if he came back with ' I'm a selfish c*nt that wants Wagner to write until he dies exhausted because I love his stuff' then have at him.

It's the initial response that needs working on in my opinion.

If you had said that to me I would have told you to go f*ck yourself whilst laughing all the while. But that's just me.

Manners and polite inquiry cost nothing.

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12784
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #50 on: 05 June, 2019, 04:39:09 pm »
Catch yourself on.  "Weaselly" isn't neutral terminology - it's loaded.  You see, if you'd said he was being "evasive", then at least you'd have been being polite (although still calling into question his motives).  Once he (politely) clarified his motives, you basically called him a liar.  (He also specifically asked that you not refer to him as a weasel, but you chose to ignore him and repeat the insult.)

As for the "ignore" function: I never use it.

He may have "clarified his motives" but he didn't answer a simple and polite question. I explained why I found the implication in that troublesome — it felt to me like a personal attack. It still does. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, then why is it so hard to say "No, not you"…?

This is rhetorical, by the way. I've already indicated to Si that I can see there's no point in pursuing this. He doesn't owe me an answer. He feels offended by my words, I feel attacked by his. That's where we are and we might as well draw a line under it.

Mind you, I'm still trying to work out how when someone is offended by something I say, that's my fault, but when someone says something that offends me, that's also my fault… but, hey, friendliest place on the internet, right?
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12784
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #51 on: 05 June, 2019, 04:41:19 pm »
Then, obviously, if he came back with ' I'm a selfish c*nt that wants Wagner to write until he dies exhausted because I love his stuff' then have at him.

You seem to be confusing two separate things here. I've never called Richard a weasel, or anything else, over the whole Wagner retiring thing. I've also never called SIP a weasel, either, but what the hell.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6419
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #52 on: 05 June, 2019, 04:50:40 pm »
then why is it so hard to say "No, not you"…?

This seems to be the crux of the dilemma. So (without rancor, and hoping that you don't mind) I think I have an answer that satisfies me.  (And yes, I'm deliberately answering a stated rhetorical question.)

SIP said "I don't see it as constructive to call individuals out on a public forum".  So, he doesn't want to identify individuals.  If you are ON THE LIST, then he doesn't want to identify you.  If you are not ON THE LIST, then he doesn't want to narrow down the potential contents of the list by excluding you.

It's like "What did you get me for Xmas?"  I'm not telling you.  "Is it a bike?"  I'm not telling you.  "So, it's a bike?"  I'm not telling you.  "It's definitely a bike!"  I didn't say that ... [ad infinitum]
fate amenable to change

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12784
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #53 on: 05 June, 2019, 04:53:38 pm »
It's like "What did you get me for Xmas?"  I'm not telling you.  "Is it a bike?"  I'm not telling you.  "So, it's a bike?"  I'm not telling you.  "It's definitely a bike!"  I didn't say that ... [ad infinitum]

I understand the reasoning, I just don't accept that it's the same thing. As I said: we'll have to agree to differ.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

TordelBack

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 25604
  • Thunder Chops is dragged off, gnashing...
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #54 on: 05 June, 2019, 04:57:58 pm »
I believe I was wrong and that my actions have caused a rift between Tordelback and myself. This may be a misperception but, just in case it isn't, here's where I think I went wrong: Tordels paid me a compliment and I responded with a joke (to-whit, a silly Futurama meme) instead of an appreciation of the compliment (which I should have expressed).

Honestly don't know if you're citing a purposefully absurd example as a rhetorical device here Sharky, or if there's a case of mistaken/misremembered online identity afoot, but I can assure you that you have NEVER offended me in any way. Quite the reverse, I hold you to be a complete gentleman in the best sense of that word, however often we may have a difference of opinion (yours is wrong, BTW).

But I may be missing a joke here! Again!

As to Frank's piece on restorative practice, that's really just one application, focusing on matters of conflict resolution, justice and behaviour.

It doesn't have to have that reactive quality, it can function as a positive template for all group interactions: meetings, committees, even family decision making. The Boy's school uses it exclusively for meetings at all levels, and despite initially recoiling in horror at this hippy crap, I've become hugely impressed with the results: check-in circles, reflective remarks, talking sticks, no tables between participants, often no chairs... people talk, stomm gets done, and it feels good.

Lately I've been trying to apply it to my work and home lifeand once you get past the embarrassment of holding a stuffed toy and sharing your expectations, it's powerful stuff.

It's the closest thing to a cult* I've been involved with since my Confirmation!



*Other than Jim, of course - he's just one letter away from being a cult!


Steven Denton

  • 2000AD Creator
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
  • A high base level of anger is normal
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #55 on: 05 June, 2019, 05:23:18 pm »
I think most offence is caused by tone and choice of language rather than argument logic or technique, although that can be a bit of an issue too.

Text only conversations have long been a issue as the reader brings far more to the interpretation of text than they do to in person interactions. informal text is even more interpretable as people will often not explain the how they intend something or in what context or from what source*

following on from interpretation 'am I right in thinking that you mean 'a' and if so do you think 'b' is a pretty reasonable way of trying to work out what someone said unless they read it as you said 'A' so you must think 'B' in which case they are going to read it as an accusation not a question. the best way to avoid this is to ask the question "am I right in thinking you mean 'a'?" and wait for confirmation. but who has time for that?


*Foot note for FRANK

SIP

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1420
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #56 on: 05 June, 2019, 06:07:49 pm »
I am writing on a mobile phone, so unfortunately do not have ease of putting quotes into my response, my apologies.

Jim, timeout please.

My initial post was a general comment, as I have already indicated , the comment was intentionally NOT directed at individuals. I felt (and still feel) that I clearly stated that.

The intention was to raise my perception that the board had become more intolerant and confrontational than it had in my previous experience. Not that it had degenerated into a terrible place, but that it was less hospitable than it had been. My hope from making the comment would be that everyone took time to consider the tone and content of their replies. Clearly most people already do. Again, this is not intended as a barbed comment!

I would assert that using "weaselly" as a word to describe your interpretation of my comments in a direct reply to me is inflammatory, and I'm hoping that you will see that on reflection. "Evasive" would have been the better choice. To say that someone's reply is employing a weaselly approach does suggest/infer that they are themself a weasel. If that was not the inference, fair enough.

Nonetheless, I was not attempting to be evasive. As I have already said, I had no desire to single people out or take part in a witch hunt on a public forum. If I had an issue that I felt I needed to address with someone, then I would take that up with the individual via the messaging system here, and I hope others would do the same if they had something to raise with me.

I don't have "beef" with anyone here, but again, I can't help how some comments are perceived. What I can assure you is that I consider my comments carefully before posting and  make every effort that I can to be civil, fair and measured.


As I pointed out, perhaps it was not the right thread to post it, it felt pertinent at the time in light of other general comment. But, can we have a cessation of hostilities please? Life is short, and it's been a long day.
« Last Edit: 05 June, 2019, 06:13:18 pm by SIP »

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 12784
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #57 on: 05 June, 2019, 06:23:28 pm »
As I pointed out, perhaps it was not the right thread to post it, it felt pertinent at the time in light of other general comment. But, can we have a cessation of hostilities please? Life is short, and it's been a long day.

Jeez. How many times do I have to say it's done? It's done, Si. There are no hostilities.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

radiator

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10196
  • A fry without beans is a mere meat collage.
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #58 on: 05 June, 2019, 06:26:39 pm »
Quote
Text only conversations have long been a issue as the reader brings far more to the interpretation of text than they do to in person interactions. informal text is even more interpretable as people will often not explain the how they intend something or in what context or from what source

Absolutely this, which is why it's a good general rule of thumb to be overly polite and try as much as possible to not to make sweeping statements. Emojis/emoticons, as much as they're despised by many, are actually really useful at denoting tone, helping to ensure that a sarcastic or jokey remark isn't taken as a blanket statement of fact etc.

In (rare) cases where someone is clearly trying to rile you or deliberately choosing to twist your words, as tempting as it is to take the bait simply ignoring them is a far better response than engaging and getting dragged into the muck. They want you to respond. By denying them that, you win by default. I like a lively discussion, but life's far too short for getting into arguments with relative strangers on the internet.  ;) ;) ;)
« Last Edit: 05 June, 2019, 06:30:29 pm by radiator »

The Legendary Shark

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9508
  • Tip: Sharks only attack you if you're wet.
    • View Profile
    • The Sharkpool Blog
Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
« Reply #59 on: 05 June, 2019, 06:33:45 pm »
Thanks, Tordels. It was of genuine concern to me that I'd upset you with that meme. I'm relieved to find out I'd misread the situation as I deeply appreciate our association here and would not wish to jeopardise it. You have been, and always shall be, a Gent.
~~~^~~~~~~~

Be excellent to each other. And party on!

https://www.giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/the_legendary_shark


Blog.