|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 7, 2019 6:35:53 GMT -6
I definitely do not agree that Talossa is a desperate need of a knockdown, drag out fight, by the way! That sort of thing is the cancer on our body politic right now.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 7, 2019 14:53:25 GMT -6
Yeah, I don't think we need a barney like that at all. If anyone has a burning desire for catharsis over something then I would ask that you find a way way to find it without tearing chunks off of fellow citizens. If you're unable to do that then please have your slobber knocker in private and not for all to witness. Just a request.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 7, 2019 15:43:40 GMT -6
wtf that's the best use of slang i have ever seen in my life
etho for king
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Apr 7, 2019 15:47:33 GMT -6
Yeah, I don't think we need a barney like that at all. If anyone has a burning desire for catharsis over something then I would ask that you find a way way to find it without tearing chunks off of fellow citizens. If you're unable to do that then please have your slobber knocker in private and not for all to witness. Just a request. I am in no need of any fights, btw, as I am not one of the participants. lol
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Apr 7, 2019 15:56:23 GMT -6
Don't gaslight, AD. You know full well that reunision and the time before and after it have been brought up. Also, you know full well that GV meant a private row, not public. Don't be so thick.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Apr 7, 2019 15:57:30 GMT -6
Thing is, I'm not sure you grasp the precise nature of internet dust-ups. While I know/understand what you are getting at, there is no kathartic component where people "get it out of their system" when it is digitally mediated. And, though I think such events CAN happpen in the physical world... all too often it simply ends in an irrevocable break.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Apr 7, 2019 16:01:15 GMT -6
Not necessarily true. Eðo and I had a bit of a row when I returned, which actually put us in a much better place.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 7, 2019 16:02:59 GMT -6
Thing is, I'm not sure you grasp the precise nature of internet dust-ups. While I know/understand what you are getting at, there is no kathartic component where people "get it out of their system" when it is digitally mediated. And, though I think such events CAN happpen in the physical world... all too often it simply ends in an irrevocable break. Not necessarily true. Eðo and I had a been of a row when I returned, which actually put us in a much better place. Don't gaslight, AD. You know full well that reunision and the time before and after it have been brought up. Also, you know full well that GV meant a private row, not public. Don't be so thick.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Apr 7, 2019 16:06:29 GMT -6
Not necessarily true. Eðo and I had a been of a row when I returned, which actually put us in a much better place. Then I do stand corrected. Though wouldn't both parties have to approach such a rowdy-how in good faith for it to work?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Apr 7, 2019 16:13:11 GMT -6
Thing is, I'm not sure you grasp the precise nature of internet dust-ups. While I know/understand what you are getting at, there is no kathartic component where people "get it out of their system" when it is digitally mediated. And, though I think such events CAN happpen in the physical world... all too often it simply ends in an irrevocable break. Not necessarily true. Eðo and I had a been of a row when I returned, which actually put us in a much better place. Don't gaslight, AD. You know full well that reunision and the time before and after it have been brought up. Also, you know full well that GV meant a private row, not public. Don't be so thick. What do you think this establishes? Am I gaslighting? Am I changing what happened to make another person question their perception, as you are so keen to do? Does Eðo deny our row?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Apr 7, 2019 16:29:28 GMT -6
I think "gaslighting" is the kind of accusation that we should really be more careful about. Fwiw, it was not clear to me whether GV meant a public or a private fight either and I think GVs assertion that it is all due to the events in 2005 is at the very least debatable as well. Either way it should be possible to differ on the analysis of the problem without immediately assuming malice. There's also a distinction somewhere between framing a debate in the way you see it and sociopathic attempts to delegitimise the beliefs of others.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Apr 7, 2019 16:35:45 GMT -6
Agreed that the quoting is really annoying though. Half of the time (this one included) I'm puzzled as to what the point is and the other half I do sort of get the point but then it still would be much less annoying to just say what you mean.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 7, 2019 16:44:58 GMT -6
I think "gaslighting" is the kind of accusation that we should really be more careful about. Fwiw, it was not clear to me whether GV meant a public or a private fight either and I think GVs assertion that it is all due to the events in 2005 is at the very least debatable as well. Either way it should be possible to differ on the analysis of the problem without immediately assuming malice. There's also a distinction somewhere between framing a debate in the way you see it and sociopathic attempts to delegitimise the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, making accusations with no basis in reality or in sincerely-held belief is a very easy-to-use and sadly effective tool of destructive political discourse. I am reminded of the former President of the USA who wanted to accuse a political opponent of sexual congress with barnyard animals. His comment was "I don't care whether it's true, I just want to hear the son of a garca deny it". In such circumstances, assuming good faith is a trap. The user of such tactics succeeds in - metaphorically, in our case - getting their opponent to waste their time proving that they have no sexual interest in barnyard animals. The milder form of this tactic is disingenuity, where you make a wild accusation against an opponent that you know is untrue but (if your opponent foolishly assumes good faith) your opponent feels obliged to waste time proving is not true. A similar tactic producing huge "wall of text" posts of minutely argued, repetitive but essentially bogus argumentation which - if taken in good faith - also waste the time and energy of the opponent. Both these tactics only work if your opponent assumes good faith and is prepared to exhaust themselves rebutting baseless allegations or wall-of-text argumentation. They are extremely effective at preventing things happen. Of course, the best response is not to reply with fire-and-brimstone abuse, which is just another way of wasting time and energy. The best response is NOT TO ENGAGE.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Apr 7, 2019 18:40:43 GMT -6
I think "gaslighting" is the kind of accusation that we should really be more careful about. Fwiw, it was not clear to me whether GV meant a public or a private fight either and I think GVs assertion that it is all due to the events in 2005 is at the very least debatable as well. Either way it should be possible to differ on the analysis of the problem without immediately assuming malice. There's also a distinction somewhere between framing a debate in the way you see it and sociopathic attempts to delegitimise the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, making accusations with no basis in reality or in sincerely-held belief is a very easy-to-use and sadly effective tool of destructive political discourse. I am reminded of the former President of the USA who wanted to accuse a political opponent of sexual congress with barnyard animals. His comment was "I don't care whether it's true, I just want to hear the son of a garca deny it". In such circumstances, assuming good faith is a trap. The user of such tactics succeeds in - metaphorically, in our case - getting their opponent to waste their time proving that they have no sexual interest in barnyard animals. The milder form of this tactic is disingenuity, where you make a wild accusation against an opponent that you know is untrue but (if your opponent foolishly assumes good faith) your opponent feels obliged to waste time proving is not true. A similar tactic producing huge "wall of text" posts of minutely argued, repetitive but essentially bogus argumentation which - if taken in good faith - also waste the time and energy of the opponent. Both these tactics only work if your opponent assumes good faith and is prepared to exhaust themselves rebutting baseless allegations or wall-of-text argumentation. They are extremely effective at preventing things happen. Of course, the best response is not to reply with fire-and-brimstone abuse, which is just another way of wasting time and energy. The best response is NOT TO ENGAGE. I get what you say, but there's a risk in getting it wrong the other way as well. If you assume bad faith and thus choose to ignore or attack the motivations behind a post made in good faith or even a valid argument presented with bad intentions you risk not just ignoring a useful perspective but also attacking and alienating others who might have considered it a good point and whose point of view is now being ignored because the original messenger was not trusted. So there's a risk in guessing the motivation either way. Maybe the solution is not to focus on the messenger but on whether the presented argument is worth engaging with or not. In this particular example the point made does not appear to be one completely lacking basis in reality, even if some might disagree with it.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Apr 7, 2019 19:03:38 GMT -6
Electoral Commission, where are you on certifying the results? I'd like to get everything scribed and archived this coming week. Thanks, all! - GV, Scribe, etc. The deadline (if there is no extension) is 14 days after the election deadline, so the end of April 15th. Discussions are ongoing (there is a lot to discuss), but at this point I would not expect the election to be certified a lot earlier than the deadline.
|
|