You people

Post Reply New Topic

Let me redefine "bad" cause your right you never said I was a bad person. You think I have the inability to empathize with the feelings you experience due to the traumatic instances in your life. In effect feeling that without the experience (the very thing that I feel blinds you to the problem your facing now as I see it from our conversation in the emphrella thread) I could have no way of acutally fully comprehending the issues associated with it. Which is your choice to feel in that fashion I do understand parts of the argument.

Now in turn I'm not particularly effected by your like or dislike of me. It just seems that quite frankly every thread that you have posted in you respond within a reasonable time of mine you've expressed contentment with anything that opposes my viewpoint. Now this could be reading between the lines for whats not there but generally it seems to be targeting opinions that dissagree with mine. Either way its not a big deal but if we want to get on a discussion about those things I feel the purpose is better served in its own thread or in pm.

Well if your conversations, interactions and debates aren't validating to you, or (I think) more to the point you aren't even seeking validation in them that certainly manifests a certain aloofness (honestly, for lack of a better word) and with that a great deal of objectivity.

However, your defensiveness here (and other places) begs to differ with a perceived objectivity (and the assertion that you don't see your conversations as power plays.)

Also your insistence on seeing yourself as 'higher up on the ladder' is an argument against your insinuation of a comparative lack of emotional insecurity. This is usually just an ego-saving device and little more. An investment in an ego-saving device is nearly always born of an emotional insecurity.

I suspect deep seated cognitive dissonance here. There is a conflict with your actions and your stated intent.

You are also making a pretty big assumption that people will continue to 'attack everything in sight' only because they are insecure. (I also strongly suspect that your definition of attack, or more specifically attacked and my own are miles apart.)

People argue and debate for alot of reasons. Some people argue to (try) to teach, for example.

Some people intentionally use emotionally based tactics in a 'debate' or interaction to cause something of an shock, because sometimes that is the only way to take someone out of their comfort zone enough to see an alternative perspective.

For an example of this last; I waded into a debate here in PPR a while back like I knew WTF I was doing. Bull in a china shop. Which is all well and good I suppose.
My background in my chosen perspective/angle/tactic (psychology) was solid, my logic was descent, but I didn't elaborate on many points because I assumed they would understand the 'givens' and the intangibles, but most importantly, I didn't understand the personalities involved in the debate.

I got an E-mail from the OP. Positively scathing... It was entitled 'Worst Post I Ever Read'. What followed was a rant of rants. A cussing, seething master piece questioning everything from my integrity, to my intellectual capacity, and over all and in general who-the-hell-I-thought-I-was. There was some classic misogyny thrown in for good measure, and then more questioning of my intellectual capacity. It was magnificent.

I can't say I was stunned, but I was surprised by the vehemence, and taken aback where he had thrown some pretty accurate barbs. Most of it was B.S., sure. But there were a couple of gems in there that were pretty close to the mark.

So, I stopped. And I thought about it a bit. I sensed some good old fashioned 'hazing' here, and quite a bit of genuine defensiveness on his part. So, instead of running away, whining to one of the moderators, retaliating by lobbing more flaming crap, I rethought but didn't back down. I went back, elaborated on my point and called him on some of his inconsistencies in the thread.

Funny thing. For all of his cussing, and flaming, and B.S. (I mean he was really a prick) he could still admit when he was wrong, (which is a rare thing in PPR), and he backed off, and even conceded some of my points.

My point here is whether he intended this or not, his flaming caused an emotional response in me that was a bit of a shock. I had to rethink my motive, method and perspective, and I get along alot better here because of it.



I suppose your way is your way. I don't know what way that is so I am lost on you mechanism too. However I wonder when people use words like 'enlightenment' and then intimate that they are 'further' down that given road, or 'higher' on that given ladder. I have a more Universalist sort of approach to 'enlightenment' (such as it is.)




Well, I'm not sure how to address this but here goes.

1.To me nuance is everything. That is where the truth is. The unspoken, or the barely glimpsed.

2.I'm not sure what gender has to do with the price of feet here. I'm a little lost on that one, sorry.

3.I dislike the thread because it is just one more holier-than-thou-self-validating-almost-everyone-else-sucks-compared-to-me-ego-trip that is actually manifesting almost precisely what she claims to dislike. Just sneakier.



I don't think you are misunderstanding my point, but I think you are taking some emotional and social aspects (nuance?) completely out of the equation. I will elaborate on this further (maybe a PM since I seem to be hijacking the thread onto a tangent) and I'm outta time, so I've gotta go. Sorry for being rude.

yes that would be best I also dissagree on somethings but when I receive the pm I will address them because I'm trying to not steer this offcourse again.

If something causes anger/great frustration in someones life, naturally when someone else brings up an arguement about that thing, then they will have the tendancy to make it a "heated" arguement. (Me, for example.) A lot of times when there is a problem being debated that I feel is wrong on many, many levels, I will express my opinion and yes usually I will sound kind of angry about it. Simply this is because it is just how the arguement makes me feel: angry. People who don't understand hate or anger usually will confuse this with: "urrr your just being a wild animal me no listen to you." Fine, but at least try to understand I would never press my beliefs on someone to try to pull them in, I'm not that type, and most people who make heated arguements are not like this either. Also, we are not angry people, except for when certain topics come up, then I admit things can get a little nasty, the way it would with anyone anyway, but we are NOT nasty people!
We are not rabid animals, but none the less, we are still humans. So, expecting us to be something "more" is rediculous.

If it is tempered with reason emotions are ok but then you run the risk of falling into a trap I think of defending a cause only in response to not letting the otherside in. All things can be improved with logical additions but usually emotions can put blinders on logic as emotions and logic don't go hand in hand. In a regular discussion it dissallows for real development and instead (in my opinion of course) puts up road blocks to progress.

Aye!

i think perhaps you didn't take into consideration the possibility that the fact that i disagree with you is not because i don't like you as a person, but just that i disagree with your stated opinion. it's not that i'm targeting you. i just don't happen to agree with your statements on a couple of occasions. i'm not sure why you see that as a personal attack.

I have been known to become passionate in a fight and to resort to emotional statements. And I never claimed not to have. So I fail to see the proclamation of superiority, or the soapbox. I am not saying "don't be like you, be like me" I am merely saying "you would get farther in an argument if you argued ideas and not attacked people".

I think you think I am indirect. I am not. If I have a problem I say something. I don't really get implied meaning... so I fail to see what you are fumbling around for. Irony I can get, sarcasm a little, poetry-no, song lyrics-no, flirting-no. So I think you are assuming that there is more to my post than meets the eye... when really there isn't. The words say what I mean. There really isn't anything else. If I had meant something else, I would have stated it.

I am INTJ and sometimes I switch to an INTP. In fact, I am very very much a "cookie-cutter" INTJ.

http://typelogic.com/intj.html

read it and you might figure out where I am coming from.

They do not need to interact in my way. Just show the person you are interacting with a little bit of respect. It is one thing when you have two best friends who are used to calling each other names or insulting each other during a heated debate because they know each other already and there are friends and no harm is done. It is another thing to apply that same way of acting to total strangers.

I am sorry if you read veiled insults into everything I write. I am not sure I can help that. Would you suggest that I change my entire personality and way of processing information so that you would feel better? (this is not an insult, it is an actual question) I already try my best to be more tactful. And granted I come across somewhat more tactless when my husband is deployed because he is the linguist and tasked with reading most of my internet communications to help me weed out remarks that people might take as implying any indirect meanings that I am not conveying. He will be back in 3 months. So maybe you will have to wait until then.

I meant it and I am not sure what part of it is funny.

well, "you" implies an individual. "you guys" is incorrect (gender-wise). So I figured "you people" would work well to indicate that I am speaking to multiple "yous".In English you is both plural and singular, so it is hard to convey which one you are using clearly.

its just an awkward way of referring to you in a plural sense.

while you felt emotional. You responded logically and respectfully. Had you responded just as vehemently as he did, the situation would not have played out like it did. Which is the point of the thread. Situations are better played out when both parties respond respectfully and logically, rather then attacking violently.

Attacks stem from an emotional response. (This is a key stone to my argument.)
If you get passionate in a fight then why are you trying to tell other people not to? Or more to the point why do you think it is your responsibility to define the parameters of the appropriate 'amount' of that for everyone else? Isn't that what we have moderators for? *shrug* Soapbox.



I disagree. I still feel you are indirect.

Because you used it with me, I'm going to refer to this one as an example. You pepper your responses liberally with phrases like "I fail to see what you are fumbling around for." This is implying (and assuming) that I am responding in a way that is incoherent. (This is an implied personal attack by the way.) To imply, that because you don't understand it is a failure on my part and not your own is insulting. Adding verbage like "fumbling around for..." can be hurtful. And, I think you intended that way. (I also think you will deny that.)

A more benign (and more direct) way to say that is "I don't understand. Could you clarify?" Just as an example.

You only manifest these little barbs when someone disagrees with you, not when someone sees things your way. Which indicates it is a simple emotional response to resistance. It is retaliatory, and vindictive. In a sneakier way than "Filth, filth, filthy! You stupid filth filth filth.", to be sure, but still pretty mean spirited, and therefor counter-intuitive to rational debate. Therefor, the premise of this thread is hypocritical.

On another note, these sort of passive-aggressive communications are often even worse than the cussing seething psychos, who can pretty effectively be written off as cussing seething psychos, with little damage to the psyche of the recipient. But these insidious little swipes are infinitely more damaging long term.

You fall back on them consistently whenever you see any resistance, and the amount you use correlates directly with the amount of opposition you are seeing. I'll repeat here, this pattern indicates that this is an reactionary, emotional, retaliatory response and nothing more. In short, being mean for the sake of it. Beating down someone else covertly so that you can feel better about yourself.

One of two primary problems I have with this thread is that you are accusing people of well... Of being mean basically, while you are just as snarky as anyone. Perhaps you don't see what you are doing at all. Perhaps you just consider it 'less', and therefor you have room to finger point and admonish.

I don't think that you have much room to 'for shame' anyone. From what I've read, most of the people offering you resistance here don't think that you do either, because you do The. Same. Thing. Just sneakier. Yes. Absolutely. Indirect. Because you have too much of your ego tied up in this projection, so you have to be sneaky. Or your intellect will figure out you don't have a leg to stand on.

Now, communication is a two way street. So my responsibility is to try to convey the information in a way that you can understand, since my previous attempt apparently failed. (Which is what I have attempted above.) Maybe it was incoherent. I don't know. I suspect there is another reason; i.e your own emotional state--

A.Because of your responses and patterns.

and

B.Because I have gotten a bit of feed back and others understand my point.

But like I said communication takes two people there is a 'listener' or a receiver. When that is my job, I feel I have my own obligation to make sure I understand. Responsibility in communication goes both ways. Which is one of my key points here.




Just to point out... This last sentence ^ is yet another attempt at undermining my confidence and striking out at me. Pretty condescending phrasing here.

Those tests are generally filled out by the person in question. In short, this is how you see yourself which can be a good starting point, but is generally (because of the haze of self perception) not completely accurate. Also interpreting the descriptions of the personality types leaves huge holes in the reality of what it really means, because most people read them and then take what they want and leave the rest.

Which is not to say that I disbelieve that you aren't a 'cookie-cutter INTJ' because what you are manifesting here rather is. The good and the bad.

(For the record, since you seem to value this(?), I am a classic INFJ and have been every time I have taken those tests since I was 14 years old. These results have been confirmed and supported by two psychologists in my life time.)


Well. Okay. You didn't say need. (I'm not even sure if I said that you said 'need'.) But your original post was telling them they 'should'. They would be better... Interaction overall would be better.... Everything would be so much better, if they just see things your way. You may not have said 'need'. But you sure implied 'should.' Which for many people is just as or more offensive than 'need'. That is what I meant when I alluded to trying to 'shame them into interacting your way.'



Well this is fair. No real arguments there. But using phrases like 'fumbling around' isn't showing much respect either is it?

Also I'm beginning to suspect (although I could be wrong, but only time will tell for sure), that your idea of 'respect' when it comes to you doesn't leave a whole lot of room for any disagreement. Perhaps if it is couched in a very careful way with alot of ego stroking you may tolerate it.



Again, agreed. More or less anyway. But that is a social nuance, and I try to make some allowances here for people on the spectrum having a difficult time with some of those.

Also, if a total stranger is being blunt and confrontational, I assume that I can be as blunt and confrontational without their getting offended. Because, they certainly expect me and everyone else to not be offended by their behavior. You'd be amazed how often that doesn't work out though. (Just to clarify, you are fitting into the 'doesn't work out' category.)



Not everything you write. But there are covert little zingers in every response to someone who disagrees with you. Even who mildly disagrees with you.

On another note, any sentence starting with "I am sorry if you..." is again laying responsibility in the lap of someone else while taking none yourself. And is a veiled insult dressed up as an apology. Really really sneaky. And offensive.



Well, if you can't you can't. Heck, if you won't you won't. I don't mind. I personally don't have that much of a problem with your actual communication style (if that means anything to you.) I can see how alot of people would though, and you are going to run into trouble over and over again, when people get their feelings hurt.

Also, you are extraordinarily sensitive to any resistance to your opinion and start slinging little insults all of the place. You refuse to change, and yet feel transgressed upon even when you're the aggressor, and so try to get everyone else to change to accommodate your, inability (or unwillingness) to control you emotional state, and (most importantly) your inability to accept the consequences for that.

From what I've seen the interactions where you run into trouble go something like this: You say something kind of bullish, (which you may very well not have even intended that way) somebody gets offended, and offers resistance (it doesn't matter how much). You start slinging more little barbs, and so on, and so on... The conflict escalates, they start calling you names, and you will eventually leave the conflict saying "But it wasn't my fault". Because you refuse to acknowledge how much your own emotional state affects what you say, how you say it, and even how you perceive responses.



Well no. Like I said. I don't have much of a problem with how your basic personality manifest period, or even how it manifests in your communication style. But others will.

I actually don't need you to change anything to make me 'feel better.' Contrary to that insinuation, my personal well being and emotional state is not dependent upon your personality, and how it manifests in your threads here. That was insulting, with a little tag on the end saying it wasn't so you wouldn't have to be responsible if I was offended... But still insulting.

What I have a problem with is that you refuse to accept the consequences for it, and try to manipulate others (the majority even) into compensating for what you cannot or will not do.

In short. If you can't change those little barbs and be as respectful as you are admonishing others to be, don't be surprised when people get confrontational with you. You lash out. You are insulting. And the entire premise of this thread is one big admonishment for people doing just that.

You refuse responsibility over and over. Which is where my apprehension with you lies. You are going to continue to up the conflict ante in most threads you participate in because of your basic personality. You seem to be able to accept that, intellectually at least. What you can't accept is that people are going to continue to get offended because of it. So you want them to change their personalities to accommodate your own because you have gotten you feelings hurt in conflicts that you escalated. It's everyone else's fault but yours, and this pattern will repeat over and over.

Now personally, I can accept that. I'm not criticizing your personality. What I am criticizing is that you started and entire thread trying to shame everyone else into adjusting to your personality traits instead of adjusting your personality traits to get along with the group better.

In short you're saying 'I will show my temper and get volatile, and probably hurt other's feelings, but that is just me and so everyone else should accept it. But they can't get confrontational in return because it hurts mine.'

A slew of homilies come to mind here: 'If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.'
'Don't dish it out if you can't take it.'
'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'





That's cool that you have someone to help you. I know what that is like. My husband is my 'interpreter' sometimes too.



I highlighted it that, and thought it was amusing because you were actually saying precisely what you said you weren't saying there.

i must say i think this is very well stated, and i do agree with phoenixiis on many of these points.

I agree with this to some degree, if the issue was about adhering and defending positions only, then I don't see the point on having a PPR forum, the Autism Politics forum it's an example of adhering and defending a single position, I could say, it tends to be biased, and I would think the main reason for the PPR forum to exist is for intellectual discussions actually, and without necessarily taking a position, but also, without necessarily being impartial.

I can't agree as my positions I do not get passionate about (even though you insist I get defensive). I believe its not a hard thing to ask for people not to get to the point of passion that you overcome reason and attack another person.





Ok now your doing exactly what you said you hate about the op. I don't get the reasoning as its not based in logic. So its hypocritical for her to say that your incoherent but its ok for you imply the same in your analysis of her ideas? I'm still confused ...



how so?



Something can be based off emotion without going to the extreme of personal attacks. I don't feel her comments are "snarky" enough to constitute an attack and I think your being overly senistive to prove your point that defies your problem that you feel censorship is evil in some way. I don't see the reasoning in this for the simple reason intellecutal conversation can happen with emotion but there has to be self control. When emotion overcomes reason then it creates a roadblock to any type of emotional discussion.



I saw nothing sneaky or remotely antagnostic from her views it was presented without an emotional base which made it hard for me to realize some parts were joking but in the end even if we take this in a purely literal fashion it doesn't constitute as an attack. I doubt her point has any problem standing since I have no problem understanding the point behind this. I believe your drawing at straws due to an emotional backlash from feeling slighted.



you keep committing the same acts you accuse of hating in the op. I think there is pure emotion talking since your points seem quite contradictory.



I don't see even under your example where she failed to understand?






She gave you information to form a basis of understanding there was no offensive comment that I saw there.



Psychologists are mostly incompetent. Psychology itself is a pseudoscience (its more based on speculation then anything else). What is kind of ironic is that you gained some understanding of her through this yet you passed it off as an attack when it did exactly what it was supposed to do.




no it would be so much better if people interacted more respectfully not "act in her way."




Hypocritical if we used the same logic on your statements it would find faults with all your posts.



Dissagreement doesn't constitute disrespect personal attacks constitute disrespect. For instance I dissagreed with sunshower I think she is a great person. Now I don't agree with all her points but I like her and we respectfully disagreed on a topic which caused more conversation and less bashing.





it may just be how I'm reading it your statements appear more offensive to me. In the end though it doesn't work the reason people act that way is for social value powerplays hence your fighting to increase value so its like a duel of sorts in that situation. Hence why it don't work and to clarify shiggily nor you for that matter show those tendacies.





Senistivity and emotional responses I'm not going to keep repeating the same statements so thats all thats needed to be said.





Same could be said for you and most posters on here why the interest in only shiggily.



Sorry I saw no insults nor aggressive behavior. Senistivity and emotional responses.



Not emotions perceived perception. I see nothing wrong with her responses in this thread can't talk about others.





Ok so then you and others should change your way of communicating due to the fact that people like me don't like it. Illogical.



When I said that you called it getting defensive so shall I consider this you getting defensive?



You accept the consequences for when people dislike how you said something? In some cases its required in this case its just a case of reading into things that aren't there. Assumingly Starving artist feels that I read into her actions too much maybe I do maybe I don't but shes not going to change just because it offends me and why should she?



I saw no barbs yet your only problem with her is her tone. Don't you believe thats a little emotionally senistive hence clouding your judgement which is showing the point of the thread?



Maybe so but I can say I'm offended and besides apologizing should I feel guilty and responible how you feel? In my opinion no how you feel is up to you.



Really? I thought thats what you have so much of a problem with



It now reads correctly.



No she asked for people to behave in a respectful manner one in which she seems to have conducted herself minus her responses to your personal attacks.



This is kind of ironic in that it can be used for you as well. In other words the statement is hypocritical.







You share common ground so why all the attacks on an issue that you seem to also have?





Your ignoring that your points have been contradictory as well.

because attacking people doesn't endear them to your point of view? And I don't get passionate in a fight. I just have, occasionally. You want to believe I am on a soapbox, I can't change what you believe. So go for it.



go reread the thread and look for other people who disagree with me. Many simply state that they prefer the entertainment value of vindictive banter. And I never call them on that. The premise of the thread is that vindictive attacks are not helpful in a logical discussion or debate. If the purpose of the argument is to rile or attack someone for entertainment purposes only, then the purpose would fail at being polite and respectful. In which case, I only called people out who attempted to argue that attacking a person in a logical debate or discussion is beneficial to the objectives of the discussion (which is usually to present facts and conclusions for a 3rd party to decide a position, or to attempt to change one of the parties views, or to learn). And I fail to see how offending and hurting people accomplishes any of those 3 goals.



I think you are over thinking this. There are times when reading between the lines is appropriate and there are times when it is a little useless. Poetry- necessary, technical manuals- not so much.


[/quote]
A.Because of your responses and patterns.

and

B.Because I have gotten a bit of feed back and others understand my point.[/quote]

you determine all my patterns of thought and behavior, online, in 1-2 threads, without having ever met me? You have your feedback and I have mine. People tell you they agree with your interpretation and I have people that PM me amused with the ironic reaction to the thread. Some people got the point and some people didn't.

As for you thinking I am not correct in being an INTJ. I have been evaluated by multiple psychologists and have scored within a few points accuracy every time I have taken the test... since I was 9. The only times I move between INTJ and INTP is when I become significantly more interesting in gaining understanding vs. exercising knowledge.

being nice to people leaves plenty of room for disagreement. Though I am not sure if you are talking about intellectual disagreement, or people disagreeing that they should treat other people nicely.



If I had meant the insult, then I would have said sorry. But in this case I think you are reading too much into my replies. And as I have explained multiple times that I am not insulting you and you continue to be offended by pretty much everything I say, I am placing the responsibility in your lap. Now if I actually say something ruse (unintentionally) I would also apologize for that by saying "I am sorry I". Education and my psychologist (and living in Japan) are forcing me to differentiate between "I am sorry if I" and "I am sorry if you"



that seems incredibly inaccurate, given your posts, and that you state multiple times you are offended by me, everything I say, and that you have a problem with the way I communicate.



it was an oddly phrased question (which is why I included that tag, but apparently clarifying myself doesn't matter... so I will refrain from doing so in the future). But you are basically stating that I should change who I am to fit you, then you state that it doesn't matter to you, then you state that it does, then you finish with it doesn't. Which is very confusing.

And most of your posts are I think are unintentionally ironic. Which is why I am probably amused and not offended by your continued insinuations that I am evil, egotistical, and vindictive.