fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3014 ]

[ SECRET POST #3014 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3014 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

20. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

23.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 130 secrets from Secret Submission Post #431.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That is literally the first thing you said. Was that really necessary? No, not really, you just go straight for the throat and treat Visp like she's a fucking idiot and you're the Great Intellectual Savior here to rescue us from our ignorance.

I really do feel like that was necessary. Cliches aren't evidence. You can't use "All is fair in love and war" like it's evidence in a discussion on POW treatment. You can't rely on vague "this is human nature!!!" explanations to support an idea. Not without being willing to back it up with more specificity (ex: "I was referring to confirmation bias in humans").

Another snipe on Visp for the crime of... being wrong by your perspective?

For Visp to be wrong she would have had to have an actual argument. Like I said, she was simply spouting meaningless cliches.

You know, discussion/debate doesn't have to be a competition and you don't "win" by being a jerk.

It's not a competition. There is no way to "win" a discussion (other than by personal values and goals for what one wants from the discussion). But there is logic in the world, and evidence, and if people aren't prepared to use either, then they shouldn't be surprised when people call them on the lack of support for their statements.

Look how this is worded. Do you honestly think you're being polite and reasoned? Because you're not. Here, I'll rewrite that for you: "But that doesn't really mean anything and you're not providing evidence for it." That is a complete 180 in tone. No personal attacks, no subtle jabs. Just "that's not really a good answer though." It treats the other person with more respect and, even if (you think) they're wrong, doesn't rob them of a dignified, polite discussion.

I do agree your version is more polite and easier for the other person to swallow. It is not without issue though. Dietpoison did not understand that the cliches she was using did not constitute evidence in themselves. She believed that her personal assumptions about human nature could be used as evidence. It had to be made clear that cliches are not evidence. "You need to use evidence" isn't good enough when the person thinks they *are* using evidence.

The problem with this one is that it basically boils down to "someone is wrong on the internet and I have to be a huge douche to prove it." No, you really don't. You're just stroking your ego at this point.

Once again, it wasn't about Visp being wrong, because Visp's overall point (anarcho-communism cannot be realized) is not something I actually disagree with. My issue is that cliches aren't evidence. If I see someone on my own "side" using poor logical practices I'll call them on it. I don't see the harm in that: in fact, I think that is a really good thing. People should call out poor logic and false statements, even when they're in support of their own opinions.

I have to ask, are you okay? I've interacted with you in the past and you were never, ever this much of a shithead. Did something happen? Do you need like professional help, maybe?

Not sure if genuine or concern trolling. No, nothing has happened. I am simply a person without a filter. I say what I think most of the time, and have a hard time doing otherwise. If I wasn't being a "shithead" to you it was probably because you were using good reasoning and making valuable contributions and so I had nothing to criticize you on.

Edited 2015-04-06 04:36 (UTC)

nayrt

like

I actually completely agree with you (the "Marxism or communism or etc is flawed because incompatible with human nature" argument is a bugaboo of mine that i've railed against in the past) but you are, in fact, posting like a dickhead

I am simply a person without a filter. I say what I think most of the time, and have a hard time doing otherwise.

this is actually a spectacularly bad line to take in interpersonal communication, and often (again) leads one to act like a total dickhead. please stop being a dickhead. thanks.

this is actually a spectacularly bad line to take in interpersonal communication, and often (again) leads one to act like a total dickhead. please stop being a dickhead. thanks.

If you think it's something I'm saying as an adopted stance ("Hurr I'm just gonna say whatever I think!") it's not. It's not a conscious choice, and it's something I've been working against for a long time. I've gotten a lot better at self-censorship in the last few years, and it's something I actively strive toward.

Unfortunately, a lot of times I still find myself halfway through a conversation and realize I haven't been filtering.

well, fair enough, i guess. it certainly read as though you were valorizing that way of doing things (especially in the context of your many other posts on this comm)

I've gotten a lot better at self-censorship in the last few years, and it's something I actively strive toward.

If this is you exercising self-control, I'm scared to think of what you must have been like a few years ago. Either way, though, you are definitely extremely unpleasant and I actually feel a little creeped out by you.

I'm sorry to hear that nonny.

It's less that you don't filter, and more that you act like an ass to other commenters. For example, your way of 'arguing' is showing others how you're completely right and they're wrong. I don't think you're a bad person, but I can see how you can make people here annoyed at you. :/

For example, your way of 'arguing' is showing others how you're completely right and they're wrong.

Isn't that what an argument is? After all, if two people are talking and are in agreement of what is right, then there is no argument. Someone has to think the other is wrong for there to be an argument.

I don't think you're a bad person, but I can see how you can make people here annoyed at you. :/

Thank you nonny. Annoying isn't the same thing as evil, after all.

Maybe it'd be more productive to think less in terms of argument, and more in terms of conversation or discourse?

Maybe it'd be more productive to think less in terms of argument, and more in terms of conversation or discourse?

I didn't think of it as an argument. To be honest, I thought of it as educating people. I realize now that that's uh, amazingly condescending of me. I will try to mentally frame it as a conversation or discussion, both of which equalize the participants.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-06 19:21 (UTC) - Expand

I am simply a person without a filter.

So in other words you're an asshole and proud of it. Good to know.

Your entire rest of your post is basically a justification for acting like a shithead because omg some1 is RONG on the intrnets~

I don't know why I thought I could get through to you that you are, in fact, unlikable. Do you even have any friends? Or are you too fucking smart for everyone?

So in other words you're an asshole and proud of it. Good to know.

Nope. I'm just not ashamed of it. We all have our issues and flaws and all we can do is work to improve on them.

I don't know why I thought I could get through to you that you are, in fact, unlikable. D

Oh, *now* who's being patronizing? You assume I don't know I'm generally unlikeable. I do know that I am--I can see the evidence.

Do you even have any friends?

Yep! I'm definitely not for everyone, but I'm still compatible with some wonderful people ♥

Nope. I'm just not ashamed of it. We all have our issues and flaws and all we can do is work to improve on them.

This doesn't make any sense to me. We ALL have flaws, and generally people are at least a little bit ashamed when their flaws hurt others. I know I am.

This doesn't make any sense to me. We ALL have flaws, and generally people are at least a little bit ashamed when their flaws hurt others. I know I am.

Behavior comes from somewhere, and whether it's from environmental factors or inborn traits, all you can do is work to change it. Am I ashamed when I fail to act in a way that conforms with the standards of behavior I've set for myself? Yes. Am I ashamed of having the innate flaws that I have to work against? No.

Edited 2015-04-06 17:46 (UTC)

So your flaws lead you to hurt other people and you're not ashamed of those flaws. OK

People should be ashamed of actions and behaviors, because they can have some control over, some impact on those things.

But why be ashamed of traits? Traits do not guarantee action. For instance, being a pessimist is a trait. Expressing the hopelessness of a friend's job search over and over again is a behavior. The latter is harmful and was a choice, an action. The former was not.

So you're not ashamed of the fact you're fucking annoying and incredibly rude to other people? Good for you.

Ever notice how the phrase "I have no filter" is always the precursor to someone saying something asshole-ish? Like, you never hear of people going "Hi, random internet stranger. I'm sending you thoughts of puppies and kitties and sunny cloudless skies! oh, btw, I have no filter!"

No, it's always the reason given for why someone is being an asshole and making douchebag sorts of comments.

Edited 2015-04-06 13:56 (UTC)

Ever notice how the phrase "I have no filter" is always the precursor to someone saying something asshole-ish?

That's kind of an ironic statement to make given that "I have no filter" was actually the last statement in the comment I made, so it wasn't the precursor at all.

"Precursor" was not a good word choice but you are using it as justification, which I take it as basically what quirkytizzy meant.

There's a difference between a justification and an explanation. I can explain my behavior without defending it.

The consistency with which you do this shit is a strong argument that, at the very least, you don't see it as a problem.

Like, it's really hard to take you seriously when you consistently act like a dickhead and then when anyone criticizes you it's just "I have no filter! Also if you don't like me I'm just going to act flirtatious with you!" At a certain point, whatever the case, if you keep acting like a dickhead, and you show no desire to change that, and no awareness of the fact that you're begin a dickhead, people are going to just think you're a dickhead.

None of your behavior comes across as though you have even the slightest awareness that there might be something about your style of conversation that you even need to defend.

Just wait, they'll probably reply to you with a comment like "I love you too!~ ♥", or something completely smug and pendantic.

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-04-06 19:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-06 19:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-04-06 19:37 (UTC) - Expand

The consistency with which you do this shit is a strong argument that, at the very least, you don't see it as a problem.

I know it's an ongoing problem with me. I did not realize it was happening so severely lately in this comm. The fact that multiple people keep saying that I've changed just shows to me that I can change and act in a way that is more acceptable to people, that I've been successful in the past. Trying just means that--that I try and will fail sometimes. It's a problem/behavior that creeps up on you.

Imagine instead of walking (assuming you are not a wheelchair user or something) automatically, without thinking, that you had to consciously move every muscle in your leg and back to make yourself take steps. That's what filtering is to me--to other people it's something they do automatically, with me it's something I have to do very consciously.

If you had to walk consciously you might forget a muscle sometimes and hit the ground. With me I forget to "apply X tact filter now" and find myself in a conversation where I've been rude or hurtful.

None of your behavior comes across as though you have even the slightest awareness that there might be something about your style of conversation that you even need to defend.

I'm aware of my issues. I don't think it's something that should be defended. Callouts are fine. It's simply something I need to keep working on. I'm going to try harder to engage more respectfully in this comm, and you can hold me accountable if I'm lacking tact.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-04-06 19:30 (UTC) - Expand

Jesus. Ok, now I know you're pretty much trolling.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only