[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.8964[View All]

File: 1619062304639.jpg (32.71 KB, 500x375, 4:3, Forget-it-snoopy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Modern America today appears to be rather cleanly divided between two strictly divided social groups that both act in such a way that they can not only be analogized to warrying tribes, akin to ancient Romans fighting ancient Celts, but are approaching that of utterly alien separate species, akin the xenomorphs fighting the humans in the famous Sigourney Weaver helmed 'Alien' franchise.

On the one hand, you have white Christians who identify as nationalists (or, at least, act as such). This folds neatly into the conservative movement and the Republican Party specifically in terms of both of those actively seeking these people out as supporters, although of course one can be both a conservative and also a Republican while having none of those traits (please do not view this thread as being based on the premise that all Republicans/conservatives are nationalists). They genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their ethnic bloodlines as transplanted Europeans of some stripe embodies them with a long, prestigious heritage of intellectual worth, with everything from architecture to artworks to musical pieces demonstrating this civilizational inheritance. Similarly, as Christians they genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their faith tradition makes them an elect class among the general mass of humanity, with their prudence and virtue not only setting them upon a pedestal of superiority among other faiths but giving them a clear understanding that they are the anointed who can guide a fallen world into the light. These tie completely to nationalism given that, as these strident political activists argue, the Founding Fathers created the U.S. to be a white Christian nation based on the idea of a 'shining city on a hill' in which human rights are respected for those who deserve such rights in contrast to the mobs who claim freedoms but do not deserve them due to their wickedness.

On the other hand, you have everybody else. This includes not just everybody who isn't perceived as white and perceived as Christian but also anyone who doesn't fully line up on board with nationalism. In definition terms, certain classes of people such as the LGBT and others also apply here regardless of whether or not they identify as Christian or white, white Christian nationalists not considering somebody to qualify as a 'real American' / 'real Christian' if they don't conform to a certain narrow understanding of what that means.

In statistical terms, I would say that the former group constitutes approximately 1/3 to 1/5 of the population (the vote total for Donald Trump's recent failure at re-election can be considered a kind of ceiling, counting-wise). The latter is the 2/3 to 4/5 majority. I think.

These two tribes have completely distinct value systems in how they approach the world such that their senses of right and wrong are not compatible. What one sees as good another sees as evil and vise versa (think of, say, the response to a same-sex couple kissing at a park bench... is it 'ah, young love' or 'these deviants are poisoning the minds of the kids nearby on purpose'). These two tribes also have entirely different notions of reality itself to where they can't even agree on basic facts. For example, the coronavirus epidemic can be seen as either a public health tragedy or a nefarious conspiracy, global warming related issues can be an unfortunate result of mismanaged economic policy or a plot by radical socialists to take over using environmentalism as cover, and civil liberties for transgender people can be a no-brainer given general human rights for all or a disgusting act of perversion of the natural order designed to sexualize children. Little middle ground appears to exist.

It's often been proposed that some kind of a community-based cleavage should take place. The nationalists should live in certain areas. Everybody else should get, I suppose, everywhere else. Alternately, the large bulk of the country could go to the nationalists and certain places, particularly urban centers, would be for the general populace. The details are complex either way. The nationalists would, of course, be allowed to do to their fellow nationalists whatever they see fit in the process of secession given the self-rule principle.

I'd like to open this up to general discussion. Could secession be the solution to this tribal divide? What would happen if we had clean segregation in which it was widely understood certain races, religions, et cetera didn't live past certain lines.

Is this not essentially what has resulted from peace efforts in Northern Ireland? In Israel? In South Africa?

Is this not what happened with the break-up of Yugoslavia, in broad terms, as well? A very horrific division, yes, but a necessary one in order to achieve long term peace? Maybe?

What are your thoughts? Please be honest. Even brutally so, if you must be.

[I have absolutely now clue how to illustrate this topic, picture-wise, but since this is a depressing subject have a depression-tinged cartoon.]
133 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9118

File: 1619135419332.jpg (93.91 KB, 512x810, 256:405, 1517454705023.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9116
Look, I know that we have animal names on /townhall/, but sometimes it's not hard to tell who someone is.  I'm not sure who you are, but I'm fairly confident who Beautiful Hare is.  And I can tell you that you're totally off base in what you're assuming about him.  He gets really pissed off when people misrepresent his position.  It has absolutely NOTHING to do with your politics or your personal characteristics.  Given that you've already admitted in >>9108 that:
>I'm sure with absolute certainty I've both been misrepresented myself and misrepresented others, it happens
I suggest that you simply apologize for mistakenly misrepresenting him  and try hard not to misrepresent him in the future.

>>9110
>lying about me,
I really don't think Charitable Emu is lying (i.e., intentionally spreading falsehoods).  His/her misrepresentation comes from simple negligence, not malevolent intent.

 No.9119

>>9117
>Conservatives started off ... tossing whatever they could at the wall and hoping it sticks. This included pedophilia. The issue of Biden's weird, touchy-feely attitudes and behavior towards people of all ages and gender got taken in as belated justification.
Do you have any source for this temporal sequencing?  My experience is the opposite: the images of Biden inappropriately touching children were circulating on /pol/ before the accusations of pedophilia.  

 No.9120

>>9118
They already said I didn't actually say what they claimed, albeit with the attempted lacklustre justification that it is what they assumed I meant by some other aspects of my posts.

But I get your meaning. It's a presumption of tribalism.

 No.9121

>>9103
>>9106
>>9109
>>9110
>>9112
There's quite a lot here, but frankly there's very little that I can productively respond to.

To be short about it (without trying to be rude), I try as a general rule in my life to treat other people better than how I rationally expect them to treat me. As such, there's been quite a lot of quite helpful discussion in this thread (especially in the initial posts) that I appreciate as well as this unfortunate, ongoing issue. I don't like being mistreated, everything taking place from simple name-calling to all manner of assertions about intelligence, morality, perspective, et cetera, but I understand that from your own personal point of view this is deserved for specific reasons, particularly given that it seems that you see the situation as "they hit me first" due to some particular post and thus rapid escalation was warranted. And saying things to me that I wouldn't say to you was justified. I understand that's how you feel.

I don't have the patience of a saint. I also don't particularly care for the social double-standard. You appear to be coming from the perspective of "You're not allowing me to attack you and simply take it without any pushback." and that's fine, but I can't even begin to get the sense that it's even starting to be fair or reasonable for that to have actually been happening. That's quite wrong. I think.

I'm genuinely quite angry, I confess, at having all this happen to me without being able to respond in kind due to the double-standard, even though I understand that given my own ethics that responding in kind would be wrong. And, yes, even slightly being negative and slightly coming across as critical without completely trying my best to represent every single point fairly isn't acceptable since my ethics are like I've stated. I don't have the patience of a saint, but I should.

I'm really not sure what further to say. Your negativity has been noted, like I've said before. I don't wish to respond in kind, even though given the fact that I'm human I've managed to let a little negativity seep in back. Can you just, to be honest, drop it?

 No.9122

>>9115
This is getting incredibly abstract, but I'd say that I consider means and ends to be more or less equally important when it comes to just about all ethical and political debates.

Admittedly, I've little clue how to apply this standard coherently.

For this example, I'd say that the activist would be at fault to an extremely minor degree while the neo-Nazi would be primarily at fault, and the former would deserve polite intellectual criticism while the latter would deserve fervent opposition.

 No.9123

>>9118
>>9120
A rather gigantic gulf exists between one person being accused of an intellectual misreprenstation, especially when this was already clearly explained as not happening (because one person apparently decides that they cannot read statements made in regular course the way that they're explicitly intended), and the other person unleashing a torrent of abuse, language of the likes of "asshole", "liar", "coward", "fuck off", et cetera falling from the sky like rain, from a position of deliberate obfuscation. Where the other person's commentary gets misrepresented over and over again... yeah. I'm not sure what to say.

As well, an apology was already made for something earlier in the thread. The response was a)to not even consider accepting the apology and b)to attack the apologizer.

I'm... not going to do that again.

 No.9124

>>9123
>As well, an apology was already made for something earlier in the thread. The response was a)to not even consider accepting the apology and b)to attack the apologizer.
>
>I'm... not going to do that again.
I think you're mispredicting how Beautiful Hare will react to you apologizing for mistakenly misrepresenting him.  

>>9120
Would you be willing to accept an apology?

 No.9125

File: 1619137998616.png (183.62 KB, 600x420, 10:7, marsfood2.png) ImgOps Google

>>9114
You know, I think I agree.  Moving is a pain, but I moved to a blue state because I need LGBT acceptance to survive.  I mean, these things are not rigid, but why not stack the odds in your favor?

Some may move because they feel society must have heternormal order to survive.

Guess the level of discretion states deserve has been a big American issue from the beginning.  I think the tendency is less and less power to the states over time, perhaps for reasons of efficiency or unity, perhaps for reasons of belief in universal human nature and fear of backwardness in states that might prefer to violate human rights.

 No.9126

>>9119
I rarely browse /pol/ and aren't 100% familiar with the anti-Biden memes in terms of their origins, only their later usage, and so perhaps the temporal sequencing is ambiguous? Or maybe a few scattered memes came from certain commentators a while before mass attention came in?

I don't really know how to research the subject in depth. If you've any links yourself, I appreciate sharing. I freely concede I might be uninformed here (hence, I guess, while I used the wishy-washy post opener "I don't believe that this framing is correct" instead of "Nope", hah).

 No.9127

>>9123
>accused of an intellectual misreprenstation, especially when this was already clearly explained as not happening (because one person apparently decides that they cannot read statements made in regular course the way that they're explicitly intended)
Not sure what you mean by this.  You clearly said in >>9056:
>Once again, you ... throw ..., claiming that I'm an evil monster....
But Beautiful Hare never claimed that you were an evil monster.

>the other person unleashing a torrent of abuse
Yeah, Beautiful Hare was unfortunately rather extreme in his reaction.  I don't disagree with you in that regard.

 No.9128

>>9126
>If you've any links yourself
I'm afraid I don't.  I only have vague memories.  But I do recall seeing the videos before seeing any accusations made of pedophilia.  

 No.9129

>>9121
>I don't like being mistreated, everything taking place from simple name-calling to all manner of assertions about intelligence, morality, perspective, et cetera,
I am similar, in that I of course dislike being mistreated.  But, one distinction I note here,   I differentiate between assertions of my perspective or philosophy or way of thinking when it comes to morality, and insults to my character.
I don't see critics of my way of looking at things, what all I have seen in my life, or anything like that as rude or negative.

Maybe this is the cause of the issue. I believe I did say at a few points that I don't think your perspective is accurate. In doesn't lineup with reality as I see it.
That was not intended as any kind of mistreatment or insult, simply my saying I have seen different.

>but I understand that from your own personal point of view this is deserved for specific reasons, particularly given that it seems that you see the situation as "they hit me first" due to some particular post and thus rapid escalation was warranted.
Yes, I am more of an eye for an eye type.
I believe you should receive what you give, and in turn, get what you give.
Do unto others as they do to you.

At least in so far as you treat those who do not give respect without respect. I have actions I view in moral light specifically, such as lying about somebody. That I wouldn't do regardless of the circumstances, at least in abstract. I might do so to prove a point, but not on its own, and it'd be cleared up quickly as something done to demonstrate its wrongness.

Here are the  Specific posts since you sounded like you weren't sure what I took issue with.>>9056
>"Once again, you take what you've done and throw it back at me, claiming that I'm an evil monster "
And
>>9070
>"Can you respond to the actual intellectual points instead of going on as you have been from the beginning about how I'm such a horrid subhuman "

>You appear to be coming from the perspective of "You're not allowing me to attack you and simply take it without any pushback."
Not at all. In fact it is the reverse.
You have as I see it swung a punch, to which I have responded.
I have attacked you because you have as I see it lied aboutme.

>but I can't even begin to get the sense that it's even starting to be fair or reasonable for that to have actually been happening. That's quite wrong. I think.
And I likewise don't understand why lying about somebody could ever be acceptable.
My stance is more that you should receive what you give. In this way part of and Lack of understanding is likely due to a different set of moral philosophy.

>And, yes, even slightly being negative and slightly coming across as critical without completely trying my best to represent every single point fairly isn't acceptable since my ethics are like I've stated.
Then perhaps you can explain to me come out why is it OK to say what you did earlier? I don't think it's ever really been addressed sadly.

I certainly would find such acts to be a significant example of negativity.

 No.9130

>>9124
To be frank, "apologizing" is kind of a vague word.

I genuinely don't know what BH is precisely looking for, in wording terms.

If I try really, really hard, I can see this hypothetical conversation happening after we both try to feel less angry:

>BH
>"Look, for God's sake, I understand completely that you've experienced buttloads of conservatives saying nasty things as well as doing nasty things in your life. I also get that you find buttloads of actual policy actions and other stuff nasty as hell too, probably to the point of actually harming you and not just hurting your feelings. And I agree. I get pissed the hell off what a lot of other conservatives put on me. Goddamn it, President Trump literally said on national television that he wanted peoples' guns to be taken away by the cops in red flag law places without any recourse. No real investigations or shit. Just, whoop, screw you, you can't have your gun. I look at conservatives who were fine with this and they might as well be Martians to me."
>"And like, the neo-Nazis? Or anybody's who's generally far right, somebody with hang ups who just can't deal with their neighbors being Jewish or whatever? They're morons at the very least. Can't even begin to put myself in the mindset of where their claims would make sense."
>"But like, dude, at a fucking common sense level, you have to accept the fact that buttloads of conservatives are here, not just me like a ton of my friends and others, who can't even begin to imagine getting along with that alt-right shit. And, from everything that I've seen, that's most conservatives in the U.S. as a whole. But, look, that's okay. Bro, I'm not gonna invalidate your life. Sometime people will act like complete dicks, and sometimes they'll happen to be conservatives. And the neo-Nazis or whatever essentially wallow in being dicks."
>"But don't turn it around and invalidate my life, okay? You do you. I do me. My experiences matter too. My perspective. It's a free country, your piece is only spoken if mine comes next. I'm not gonna pretend like every conservative is Mister Rogers, but you also gotta accept the fact yourself that some of them try to be. Even if they can't really. And buttloads of people, like myself, will happen to live lives without ever experiencing the shit you're talking about."
>"It sucks to be hated. Even if you're being hated over something that isn't a big deal to you or all of these complicating factors come in. It just sucks. So, like, I know it's bad to have conservative after conservative coming at you before you even open your mouth. We're just not all like that. It sucks to be accused of hating someone when you don't actually feel that too, alright?"
>"I understand that you think that, okay, maybe we're not **all** like that but maybe **most** of us are. I can't agree. At the same time, does it matter right now? **I'm** not like that. We off and on hopped from treating each other like independent people to treating each other as stereotypes, isn't the fact that we flip-flopped so much kind of clear evidence that stereotyping is a shitty way to think?"
>"You came in here thinking that somebody'd be out to get you, and maybe that'd be true like if this was, say, hotheads on Twitter. It's absolutely not true with **me**. I think you just can't understand me. And that's... well, it's not okay, but it's not your fault or anything. And I know I can't understand you. I tried. You tried."
>"I'm really, really sorry for calling you an 'asshole', telling you to 'fuck off', and just in general how everything went off the rails. I'm human, dude. You pissed me off. It's not just that we disagree over what the conservative movement is and what the Republican Party is, which is fine, but you kept seeming to me to be implying that I'm somehow too close to the far right nuts. And seeming to me to be implying that conservatives just by being conservative can't help but be hateful and otherwise do bad shit. What can I say, I got angry."
>"I'm apologize for misinterpreting you. I'd like you to apologize for misinterpreting me. I know that, from your point of view, I've hit you in the face with a baseball bat while you've hit me in the thigh with a feather. Maybe just try to not hit each other at all?"

ME
>"Okay, look, I regret not being able to 100% always understand every single think that you've been saying as well as not being able to 100% respond to everything that you've been saying with unconditional saint-like patience and clarity. To be honest, your views on reality in the U.S. itself, not to mention your own sense of ethics, is so different than what not just I but what I think most believe see that you might as well be from Venus. And you really, come on, shouldn't have gone straight to the gutter the moment I crossed the line from disagreeing with you a bit to disagreeing with you too much."
>"I understand that you're mad I didn't interpret everything that you said everything the way that it meant, in your mind, all of the time. I don't think that your expectations are reasonable. I also don't think that it makes sense for you to be this cheesed off when you've done the exact same thing back to me in spades."
>"I can't apologize in the sense of 'I'm sorry for hurting you' because I both didn't meant to hurt and also didn't actually hurt you. If you need that, then I can't give it. I can, because you apologized to me first, though... and since you're trying really to calm down... alright, I'll stick my neck through."
>"I think I, without intending to do anything wrong, probably haven't interpreted what you've said in the way that it's been intended. I'm sorry that that's happened. I regret it. I also regret having an emotional argument in a formerly productive thread in the first place. I don't think it's fair to expect me to be perfect, to expect me to 100% be in total agreement with somebody who might as well be another species than me in terms of their beliefs, but I accept the fact that I didn't try hard enough. I didn't meet my own high moral standards. I'm sorry."

 No.9131

>>9123
You made an explicit statement. You said I claimed something I never did. This is a little more than intellectual misrepresentation.

I think rudeness should beget rudeness.

>especially when this was already clearly explained as not happening
I recall no such statements.
I had asked for clarification several times, with no effect that I saw.
What posts explain the matter? Could you please link them?

>from a position of deliberate obfuscation.
I certainly was not engaging in any kind of deliberate obfuscation.
I genuinely was angry that you would say such things of me.

>As well, an apology was already made for something earlier in the thread. The response was a)to not even consider accepting the apology and b)to attack the apologizer.
I stand by my position that an apology as you do something you believe is wrong is no apology whatsoever.

It is certainly not the same thing as admitting something you did was wrong in retrospect, and apologizing for that.

>>9124
>Would you be willing to accept an apology?
Basically all I really wanted.

 No.9132

File: 1619141286114.png (350.25 KB, 815x1139, 815:1139, 9130a.png) ImgOps Google

>>9130
Oh dear, that's quite an unreadable textwall...

 No.9133

File: 1619141331444.png (325.03 KB, 985x1338, 985:1338, 9130b.png) ImgOps Google

>>9132
... but setting
display
to
block
on
span.quote
makes it more readable.

 No.9134

>>9127
I'm going to be charitable, best as I can.

If somebody abuses and mistreats another person over and over again, refusing to engage with them reasonably and otherwise display basic niceness, in the subtext that mere disagreement (albeit fundamental disagreement over moral values) constitutes a horrific affront to them... the aggressor being someone who openly states that their ethical code is to treat others poorly if the other looks like they may act poorly first or later (not just 'eye for an eye' but 'strike first, strike hard, no mercy')... then like...

Okay, look. If it quacks like a duck... alright? If somebody chooses to behave in a way that they appear to fail to recognize me as human, let alone somebody worth treating as a reasonable conservation, and otherwise is like this, I'm going to **obviously** not like it and **obviously** think that it's because they have presumptions of me being "evil".

"Asshole". "Coward". "Fuck off". "Liar". It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on... and on.

No, this person hasn't chosen to take the letter 'E' and put it alongside the letter 'V' before adding a 'I' and then an 'L'. Nope. Hasn't happened.

They consider me evil. They've called me evil. I'm evil, to them. I'm not a complete Goddamn idiot who's unable to understand that if somebody starts smacking me upside the head that maybe they don't like me very much and probably would prefer me not to existence.

Please don't drop my ice cream cone in a pile of dog feces and tell me that it's just sprinkles, okay?

 No.9135

>>9128
I'll take your word for it given the context.

 No.9136

>>9129
>>9131
Putting this as politely as I can, I don't believe a ethical belief system of "I'm going to treat a random somebody I don't really know as badly as I rationally expect them to treat me given my particular presumptions" is anywhere near a good way to live ones' life.

If I lived like that, then I would be unable to engage in... maybe only a tiny fraction of the social interactions that I currently do. And my opportunities would only be a tiny fraction as otherwise. My life experiences would otherwise be as such.

"I can tell that he's really going to fuckin' nail me, so I'll nail him me first" or "Strike first, strike hard, no mercy" or "Eye for an eye, poke their eye out if you think they're coming for yours" or... I know that you'd probably like to frame your moral system differently, and I accept that (and I'm deliberately using colloquial language in a glib way when I could be academic and nuanced). Yet that's what it appears your take boils down to. It's... I mean, I'm obviously not going to say that your system is morally horrible and wrong (What even is 'moral wrongness'? Philosophers can't define it really and neither can I.). I will say that it's something I think I'm not psychologically able to feel.

Like asking me to feel as you do would be like asking a human to touch something using their octopus tentacles. Not actually possible. I suppose.

 No.9137

>>9130
>I genuinely don't know what BH is precisely looking for, in wording terms.
I think something like "I apologize for misinterpreting you and claiming you said something that you didn't.  I will try to be more careful in the future." would suffice.

>>9134
>They consider me evil.
Beautiful Hare considers lying about someone to be evil (or at least that's my presumption, given his posts here), and he stated that he thought that you were lying about him.  So, it might be reasonable to conclude that he thought that your act of alleged lying was evil.  But I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude that he thinks you are irredeemably evil in some fundamental sense.

 No.9138

>>9134
>If somebody abuses and mistreats another person over and over again, refusing to engage with them reasonably and otherwise display basic niceness, in the subtext that mere disagreement
Oh, hey,  it's exactly how I feel,  but to you.

I have cited where the 1st strike lay
It isn't as you imply some attack before you do something.
Likewise it has absolutely nothing to do with your ideology.

 No.9139

>>9136
Never said expect. I gave you the specifics as to why.
I did it again in the very post you are replying to.

Strawmanning is not likely to endear me to you.

 No.9140

>>9134
> the aggressor being someone who openly states that their ethical code is to treat others poorly if the other looks like they may act poorly first or later (not just 'eye for an eye' but 'strike first, strike hard, no mercy')... then like...
Huh?  Where did you get that from?  Pretty sure BH doesn't believe in "strike first" except in cases of lawful self-defense like when a home invader breaks into your home.  And even then, you could consider the act of breaking & entering to be the first strike.

 No.9141

>>9140
This.

I literally quoted to him exactly what I took issue with multiple times now, and yet he somehow doesn't get this still

 No.9144

I would like a response to:

>>9130

Please.

My empathy tanks are empty at the moment. I still believe in the principle of treating others better than how they treat you. However, it appears that it's being established that an apology will only be considered if it's worded in a way that appears to be factually incorrect as well as is missing context, everything set in a way that depicts me in as negative terms as possible. And no apologies will be given back, the double-standard of modern political communication that's been mentioned above being absolute. And, even then, the apology might not be accepted.

I'm afraid that I'm not able to offer that.

It appears that either the issue is dropped or the conversation has to end completely (or, alternately, a reasonable request made instead).

 No.9146

>>9144
>an apology will only be considered if it's worded in a way that appears to be factually incorrect
Huh?  What do you think is factually incorrect about my suggested apology in >>9137 ?

 No.9149

>>9144
I mean it's really long, and I don't quite know what to say to it exactly.

I suppose I could give a more in depth analysis when I get home.

>However, it appears that it's being established that an apology will only be considered if it's worded in a way that appears to be factually incorrect as well as is missing context, everything set in a way that depicts me in as negative terms as possible.
Then perhaps you could clarify what exactly the issue is.

Do you think that I actually did call you a monster and a subhuman?

>And no apologies will be given back, the double-standard of modern political communication that's been mentioned above being absolute.
I don't know what you mean about political communication, but I can't deny you are correct I wouldn't really apologize  yond the saying that some parts went a little higher than they should have as consequence of essentially ranting into my phone.

I think who started things matters.

>And, even then, the apology might not be accepted.
Depends on how it is set.
I have something of a rule to be as quick to forgive as I am quick to anger.

So long as it is honest and from the heart I don't really have cause to refuse it.
The whole reason it was last time was that it was in the same breath.

 No.9150

>>9130
>that big green textwall
You're talking about the alt-right, conservatives, etc.  That is all completely unrelated to reason that Beautiful Hare flipped out on you.  He already told you in >>9112 exactly why he flipped out.  

Like, do you really not see how you claimed he said something that he actually didn't?  

 No.9151

>>9149
>you are correct I wouldn't really apologize  yond the saying that some parts went a little higher than they should have as consequence of essentially ranting into my phone.
I think you can apologize for accusing Charitable Emu of lying when he wasn't intentionally spreading falsehoods but was merely negligent, confusing his mental interpretation of your words with what your words actually were.

 No.9152

>>9149
>The whole reason it was last time was that it was in the same breath.
To repeat what I said earlier, I think that was a different kind of apology.  He was apologizing for lack of ability.

 No.9153

>>9151
Mmm, it's significantly negligent, if so,  As he outright said I claimed something I did not.

I suppose you're still correct, though, so I guess it'd be appropriate.
Presuming that is what occurred anyway. I still don't think I've received any clarification on the matter at all.

>>9152
In that case I can at least apologise for that, as I took it badly.

To me, it had read as just apologizing for what was done in the same post.

 No.9154

>>9146
>"I apologize for misinterpreting you"

I'm not a perfect specimen of comprehension and understanding able to read minds and otherwise unconditionally interpret every single statement made by every single person who ever talks to me 100% correct. I don't expect others to be such. I shouldn't be expected to be such.

A rational observer would say that statements should probably be seen in context. Poorly expressed assertions based on unpopular viewpoints that most people not only don't share but don't understand are highly likely to be subject to misinterpretation. As well, this isn't completely one side, and obviously all parties to a discussion ought to at least try to come across reasonably and clearly, especially in the sense of treating others charitably.

And, perhaps most importantly, misinterpretation is neither a moral wrong nor something that can really be argued is necessarily that big of a deal. Common sense ought to apply. Proportion ought to apply.

>"and claiming you said something that you didn't."

That... didn't happen. I'm not sure what to say here. I can't lie during an apology. It wouldn't then be an apology.

>"I will try to be more careful in the future."

It's not possible for me to be more careful. I came into this thread with the deliberate intention of being nicer to other people than I rationally expected them to treat me as well as to continue being nicer to them then they repeatedly act to me. And I've been doing that.

If you're asking me to be, as described above, a perfect machine of processing to where I can unreasonably be seen to essentially read minds, then I can't do that. And, look, I really want to highlight this point. An apology that lies isn't an apology at all.

To be honest, the most likely practical application of this conversation is that for a certain point of time I'll be greatly depressed. Not just at how I wasted something like an entire day doing nothing productive, but that I in fact engaged in a heroin addiction like form of self-harm in trying to engage with people politically that I simply probably can't really engage with (I'm a former Republican, I'm a former Christian, I'm a former conservative, and I live in an area with a lot of those three while having friends and family of those three... I genuinely don't want to be unable to have regular nice interaction with other people who I don't want to inherently see as alien beings). And that will suck.

>[...]

Please don't insult me or pretend that I'm something less than human. An apology from me is only coming as I get one back. The apology back must not only include feeling sorry for misrepresenting and misunderstanding me (to the point where I've been frequently lied about, but I won't insist on the word "lie" being a part of the statement), but it must also involve specifically admitting that crossing the line into abusive, snide remarks was wrong. And it finally must involve an admission that assumptions have been made about me without evidence were wrong (I'm also willing to add to whatever I say that I expressed assumptions that were unfair).

In addition, apologies to me and from me will only make sense if context is included. Why did these misinterpretations occur? Since they were understandable given the situations, this must be noted (although I personally see the assumptions that've been made about me to have no connection to reality and have been disproportionate, but I understand that other people might not see me as the open book I see myself as).

 No.9155

>>9149
>>9150
I genuinely don't expect a textwall to be immediately digested and completely understood immediately, and it would be quite silly to do so. However, to have my genuine and sincere attempt at understanding to be casually dismissed out of hand such that, once again, the double standard has to apply... that's... not great. At all.

 No.9156

>>9151
>>9152
>>9153
I mean... if my getting hit on the head by a mallet is going to be treated with this degree of detachment than my, in desperation after trying over and over again to be as unreasonably nice as possible, hitting back on the thigh with a feather... it's... really, to say again, not great.

 No.9157

>>9154
>That... didn't happen. I'm not sure what to say here. I can't lie during an apology. It wouldn't then be an apology.
So you think I actually did call you a monster and a subhuman?

Could you please show me when?

 No.9158

>>9155
I will give it a read when I get home if you like. I cannot read it at the moment.

>>9156
If you punch somebody, I could hardly care less if you end up laid out.

As to nicety it rings on hollow ears when you seem to be perfectly happy to claim I said something I never did.

 No.9159

I would like an actual response to:

>>9154

 No.9160

>>9159
I would like an actual response to >>9157

 No.9161

>>9154
>I'm not a perfect specimen of comprehension and understanding able to read minds and otherwise unconditionally interpret every single statement made by every single person who ever talks to me 100% correct. I don't expect others to be such. I shouldn't be expected to be such.
>And, perhaps most importantly, misinterpretation is neither a moral wrong ...
Right, but you can still apologize when you make a mistake.  

>>9154
> nor something that can really be argued is necessarily that big of a deal. Common sense ought to apply. Proportion ought to apply.
Yeah, I agree.  I think BH should apologize to you for responding so disproportionately to a mere mistake.

>>9154
>>"and claiming you said something that you didn't."
>
>That... didn't happen
BH has pointed out multiple times that you claimed that he called you a monster.  He challenged you to find one post of his where did that, and you never did so.

 No.9163

>>9161
If it really was just a mistake, a good way to make things shorter and deescalate things next time would be to say so, when it comes up. Explain it, you know?

I don't think I've ever seen anything at all  said to what I had quoted several times

 No.9164

Would it be possible to see the proposed apology that will be made to me before it's actually stated, for us to figure out what exactly should be said?

Would it also be possible for a proposed apology that I could actually make be posted here before I do it, for us to figure out what exactly should be said?

 No.9165

>>9155
>However, to have my genuine and sincere attempt at understanding to be casually dismissed out of hand
You're approaching it completely the wrong way.  The core issue is what BH said in >>9112:

> my issue is with the post
> >>9056
> >"Once again, you take what you've done and throw it back at me, claiming that I'm an evil monster "
> And
> >>9070
> >"Can you respond to the actual intellectual points instead of going on as you have been from the beginning about how I'm such a horrid subhuman "
> Respectively
>
> I never called you a monster,  or otherwise claimed you were, and I certainly never said you were sub human.

Until you and BH can at least agree on whether he was claiming that you were "evil monster", nothing further will be successfully resolved.

 No.9166

>>9164
I think you're putting a lot more value into it then it deserves, really.

Honestly, more than anything I just really want an explanation why, especially why it went unaddressed this whole time.
The apology aspect is a part of that, but I don't think as far as I've seen there's been an explanation why you did it so far at all.

 No.9167

It's past 10pm now, and looking over my past behavior I appear to crossed something of a line into "This isn't just being too nice, it's being a complete fucking sucker, with you being a pathetic doormat who lets anybody else walk all over you... why do you do this to yourself... you turned depressive feelings in a morning into an entire day wasted". I'm genuinely sorry that I started this thread. I know that I've wasted everybody's time, especially my own, and that's unfortunate. Gonna have to close up shop.

Have a good night, everyone. I mean it. Be safe, there's still a pandemic going on.

 No.9168

>>9167
The thread was fine, I liked the op, and agreed with much of the concept.
It was the generalizations that caused argument from me,   And the presumptions my arguments that caused deterioration further into fight territory

If you wake up and feel like explaining it, I still would like to understand why you thought I called you a monster and a subhuman.
As far as I can tell that never happened, yet you claimed I did anyway.

 No.9169

File: 1619148949296.png (174.34 KB, 1647x811, 1647:811, gf-left-because-lats.png) ImgOps Google

>>9168
>As far as I can tell that never happened, yet you claimed I did anyway.
The only think I can think of is that Charitable Emu really horrifically misinterpreted what you said, like on the scale of pic related, due to radically different worldviews and faulty presuppositions of what your beliefs are.

 No.9171

With a bit of distance, it has now become clear as crystal that the both the specific treatment of me as well as the general way in which the thread's actual purpose has been treated (in terms of the ideas that were thought to have been worth hashing out) has been so shockingly unacceptable, not just in a common sense fashion but explicitly in a way that violates the website's guidelines here, that the thread itself likely shouldn't have been created in the first place. It's done more harm than good. At any rate, future productive discussion will not be allowed given that continual bad behavior is guaranteed.

My own behavior has been unreasonably doormat-like in a way that can be fairly argued invites abuse. When somebody like me doesn't stand up for myself, it sets a signal that this is just how people ought to be if they're considered that 'easy'. To be crude, I was 'asking for it'. I regret that this happened, but I'm also not really going to change my personality and nature even if this keeps happening throughout my life, with 'asking for it' being a way of thinking that should be corrected in the first place rather than people seen as 'asking for it' being shamed.

Given this, I politely request for the thread to be deleted. I would like for no user to receive any sort of moderator action (of course, I'd clearly say this about myself, but what I mean is: don't do that to anybody). If deletion isn't possible, please lock this thread.

If this doesn't happen, then I will request those things a second time, just making sure that I'm heard properly. I understand that it won't happen immediately. Thanks.

I hope that everybody has a great Friday. Stay safe. Remember that there's still a pandemic going on.

 No.9173

<I should've included: I take back my request for an apology. While it's deserved, my creation of the thread in the first place and my general behavior as such can quite clearly be said to have to have been 'asking for it'. Perhaps akin to the recent incident in which I sloppily was walking around with an expensive check poking out of a coat pocket and discovered its absence after a short while (most likely not pickpocketing but just that it fell, and somebody picked it up without being willing to return it), having no luck after retracing my steps. Behaving unreasonably in a way that's damaging to oneself is a bad idea. An apology can't be reasonably expected, and so it's not requested. Sorry for not including this addendum in my above post.>

 No.9179

>>9171
Your OP and the ideas therein had nothing to do with our troubles, and likewise for your political beliefs, as I told you directly several times.

And as for "asking for it" because you're supposedly acting like a doormat, a doormat wouldn't accuse me of something I did not do.
Doormats aren't in the habit of claiming something occurred that factually and objectively did not.

>>9173
A desire for apology shouldn't be a matter of reasonability, it should be a matter of morality.

To take your incident as an example, regardless of your own unwise action in relation to that check, if someone stole it, they acted immorally and, if they are a person of quality, should apologize and make it right.

Don't let your own troubles get in the way of seeing right and wrong. If something done is wrong, that ought to be all that matters.  Take some pride in yourself, and argue morality from what "ought", not what "is".
If enough of us do, we may well find the world improves.

 No.9182

I would like the thread to be deleted. If not, locked. Thank you.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]