Pet Peeves

[Liniah]

I know we've had this topic before, but I just thought of a new one. I get really angry when I ask someone for something and they get something close to what I asked for, but not the same thing. I know, it's kind of an asshole move to get pissed when people get you things, but I'd rather not have anything at all than something that's close to what I actually wanted. I get really mad.

[Kitt]

I despise having to censor myself. The most recent example:
I'm in a costume course, and one of the things we had to do was to take our measurements so we knew how much fabric and whatnot we would need for our final project. I got paired off with the whale in the class. Under normal circumstances, I would have cracked jokes about the size of my ass, because it's rather large for my frame. However, since I was paired with a girl who is actually as wide as two of me, I had to keep my mouth shut. Now, I know that some people, like my uncles and one of my friends from home, would have laughed along with any joke I threw out there. But this chick is not only hyper-sensitive, but she's my stage manager, so I have to really watch what I say, or I'm fucked.

[Iantha]

I hate people who put up "Look at me" posts and say "I'm taking my ball and going home!" when people tell them they're ugly.

[Ancient History]

People saying "ideer" instead of "idea."

[DV8]

I hate people who put up "Look at me" posts and say "I'm taking my ball and going home!" when people tell them they're ugly.

I strongly dislike people who ridicule others for the things they say, instead of engaging someone in a meaningful debate. Especially when they think their ridiculing is incredibly clever, patting themselves on the back, and then start to complain about the lack of resilience of the one they ridicule when the ridiculed decides they've had enough.

[Iantha]

I hate people who put up "Look at me" posts and say "I'm taking my ball and going home!" when people tell them they're ugly.

I strongly dislike people who ridicule others for the things they say, instead of engaging someone in a meaningful debate. Especially when they think their ridiculing is incredibly clever, patting themselves on the back, and then start to complain about the lack of resilience of the one they ridicule when the ridiculed decides they've had enough.

And so it's okay to ridicule me for ridiculing someone else? Hypocrite much? Look; my post was harsh, but I am an atheist and Bone asking the man if he accepted Cthulu as his Saviour really isn't going to change the man's destiny, afterlife, whatever. I was just being a bitch. But luckily, just as Bone has a right to throw up posts that he thinks are wonderful and cathartic and whatever, I have the right to be a bitch. He has the right to post up things like "I'm a Christian and that's the only thing that keeps me out of prisons" and it's perfectly okay for me to post up things like "I'm an atheist and I think your post was idiotic."

[DV8]

Am I ridiculing you? I think there's a difference between me disagreeing with it, and me ridiculing you. I'm not making fun of you for doing what you do or feeling how you feel.

[3278]

You can't be serious.

[Jeff Hauze]

Drekkers and ballers. Christ. Man up, bitches.

[Iantha]

Man up, bitches.

What do you mean Man Up?

[Bishop]

Grow a pair.

[Iantha]

Ah. Well, I have a pair of ovaries... Will that work?

[Iantha]

You can't be serious.

If it weren't for Paul and Cecilia, I might be something very close to a sociopath. I have no regard for anyone these days. I just don't give a damn anymore. Maybe it's Paul's job that's slowly jading me, maybe it's that I'm finally getting over trying to please everyone all the time. Does that make me a bitch? Maybe. Am I more harsh than my usual Susie Homemaker self? Yep. I'm okay with that.

[3278]

Okay, but I was talking to Dennis, not you.

[DV8]

What's wrong, Earl?

[3278]

What's wrong, Earl?

Well, my back's acting up a little bit. Rheumatism, I suppose.

[DV8]

You know, I have been having trouble with my right ankle, myself. Other than that, I'm good. Aren't you a little young to be afflicted by rheumatic problems?

[3278]

You know, I have been having trouble with my right ankle, myself. Other than that, I'm good.

Really? No, uh, mental fogginess or head injuries or anything? I only ask because you've said some pretty absurd things, and unless you're in one of your "say ridiculous things in a rational tone until my opposition goes mad and looks stupid" modes, you generally make some amount of rational sense.

Oh. Ooooh. I just answered my own question, didn't I? I'm sorry, now I'm wrecking it. Please, go back to playing the Dennis Game with Iantha; she hasn't known you for very long, and it looks like she's totally falling for it!

[DV8]

I can't remember the last time you thought I made rational sense, so you don't have to play games. Why don't you stop trying to ridicule me and engage me normally instead? Tell me what you think was so absurd, and I'll see if I can elaborate because I don't think I was being absurd at all.

[3278]

I can't remember the last time you thought I made rational sense, so you don't have to play games.

Fascinating. Do you have some sort of device which allows you to discern what I think? I can't think of another way you'd know when I thought you made rational sense. Oh, maybe something telepathic? Here, can you tell what I'm thinking right now?

I'm not playing games, Dennis; I don't actually enjoy that. I am speaking truth: normally, when you open your mouth, you're talking about the issue from your point of view and whatever, like any other reasonable person. But sometimes - and I can't tell why - you instead engage in passive-aggressive personal interactions, then protest innocence once they call you on it. [We need a better term for this, so whenever you do it, we can flag and tag it and then just be done.]

Why don't you stop trying to ridicule me and engage me normally instead?

Am I ridiculing you? I think there's a difference between me disagreeing with you, and me ridiculing you. I'm not making fun of you for doing what you do or feeling how you feel.

Tell me what you think was so absurd, and I'll see if I can elaborate because I don't think I was being absurd at all.

I believe this post, in light of this post, is absurd. How do you call that first post anything but ridicule, using the definition you're applying here to Iantha's posts? You really literally are making fun of her for doing what she does and feeling what she feels, but for some reason you believe you can put a disclaimer on it and suddenly your ad hominem becomes - this one made me laugh - "meaningful debate."

Oh, but perhaps, as I'm sure you'll declare, you intended no ridicule. If that is so, Dennis, I apologize. If you intended to inspire and participate in meaningful debate while using paraphrase-rhetoric, telling your opposition you "strongly dislike" them, and then personally criticizing them for their misperceptions and self-congratulation, then I have sorely misjudged you, and for that I apologize. If you don't mind, I might suggest that in the future, if meaningful debate is what you're interested in, you avoid loaded phrases, rhetoric, personal criticism and enforced ignorance of your own actions.

You want meaningful debate? So do I. This isn't it. No, Iantha did not engage in meaningful debate [at first; she's since more logically explained her behaviors], she engaged in an emotional response to something about which she feels strongly. No, I have not engaged in meaningful debate, I engaged in precisely the same sort of half-sarcasm, half-literal exploration of your hypocrisy I find so tiring and yet so irresistible. And you have most certainly not engaged in meaningful debate, exchanging the possibility of reason instead for posts apparently designed to instigate, and obviously quite effective at that.

How can I tell? I can't. I don't have the mind-reading device you use on me. Maybe you really have, all along, had the best, most reasonable intentions in mind. If that's true, you did it wrong.

[Ancient History]

Speaking of Deev's mind-reading device, how is she?

[DV8]

I can't remember the last time you thought I made rational sense, so you don't have to play games.

Fascinating. Do you have some sort of device which allows you to discern what I think? I can't think of another way you'd know when I thought you made rational sense. Oh, maybe something telepathic? Here, can you tell what I'm thinking right now?

I'm not playing games, Dennis; I don't actually enjoy that. I am speaking truth: normally, when you open your mouth, you're talking about the issue from your point of view and whatever, like any other reasonable person. But sometimes - and I can't tell why - you instead engage in passive-aggressive personal interactions, then protest innocence once they call you on it. [We need a better term for this, so whenever you do it, we can flag and tag it and then just be done.]

The things you say and the words you choose when you address me have convinced me that you don't particularly value my opinions or the angle at which I view things. If you value what I think, then perhaps you should take a close look at how you communicate, because your message is not reaching me the way you might have intended it. In any case, this is a great example of ridicule; you ask me if I have a device that will allow me to read your thoughts, or if I'm telepathically gifted. I'm don't and I'm not and we both know it. You try to draw what I say into the realm of the ridiculous in order to discredit what I say, and you don't take what I say very seriously. You make jokes and you downplay the gravitas of my words on the one hand to gain an edge in the debate, and on the other hand to entertain yourself and others. You turn my words into a joke, and I don't particularly appreciate it, nor does it make me want to continue talking to you. If you don't intend these things the way they come across, I urge you again to look at the way you're communicating.

You know, I reread Plato's Republic about a year ago, in which I was astonished at how discourse is valued between the men. When Adimantus ridicules Socrates' viewpoint and Socrates considers letting the matter lie, the rest of them convince him not to give up and not to stop. They tell Adimantus not to stand in the way of discourse and to let Socrates speak without being ridiculed, no matter how off the wall his ideas were. (And they were off the wall.) I remember thinking to myself; that must appeal to Earl, since you always claim to value discourse, but then I was reminded of all the times you relentlessly pick apart every minutiae of someone's argument, often resorting to ridicule as a way of dismissing the validity of what was said.

Why don't you stop trying to ridicule me and engage me normally instead?

Am I ridiculing you? I think there's a difference between me disagreeing with you, and me ridiculing you. I'm not making fun of you for doing what you do or feeling how you feel.

Actually, you are. You might not intend it, but you are. And don't be tempted to tell me that I'm being sensitive, because then you're once again not taking what I say very seriously and drawing what I say into the realm of the ridiculous.

This...

Oh. Ooooh. I just answered my own question, didn't I? I'm sorry, now I'm wrecking it. Please, go back to playing the Dennis Game with Iantha; she hasn't known you for very long, and it looks like she's totally falling for it!

...doesn't sound like you're taking me seriously, and if it is a serious statement, then I'm not entirely sure what you're hoping to achieve. Anyway, enough about how you ridicule me and use ridicule as a tool for debate.

I believe this post, in light of this post, is absurd. How do you call that first post anything but ridicule, using the definition you're applying here to Iantha's posts? You really literally are making fun of her for doing what she does and feeling what she feels, but for some reason you believe you can put a disclaimer on it and suddenly your ad hominem becomes - this one made me laugh - "meaningful debate."

Hmmm, I was half expecting you to post a link to my reply to Paul's post in Bone's thread, because I did kind of ridicule him a bit for ridiculing Bone. In this case I'm not sure I agree with you. Iantha's pet peeve regards the posting style of another, and mine does, too. I wasn't trying to be clever or ridiculing her, but it was a direct piece of criticism. Her point, however, still stands untouched; I didn't take what she said and make it seem silly and laughable.

Oh, but perhaps, as I'm sure you'll declare, you intended no ridicule. If that is so, Dennis, I apologize. If you intended to inspire and participate in meaningful debate while using paraphrase-rhetoric, telling your opposition you "strongly dislike" them, and then personally criticizing them for their misperceptions and self-congratulation, then I have sorely misjudged you, and for that I apologize. If you don't mind, I might suggest that in the future, if meaningful debate is what you're interested in, you avoid loaded phrases, rhetoric, personal criticism and enforced ignorance of your own actions.

This thread was never meant for debate, as are most of the "list your top five movies" threads. It's just people taking turns giving their opinion. I doubt that most people even read everyone's posts before typing up their own. I know I was the one that brought up the notion of meaningful debate in this thread, but it directly pertained to my pet peeve, and in no way did I try to break the thread's mold and try to get a debate going. Though I guess it is what we got in the end, so in a Platonian way I should be grateful.

[3278]

The things you say and the words you choose when you address me have convinced me that you don't particularly value my opinions or the angle at which I view things.

I can certainly understand how you might gain that impression, although you shouldn't read so far into it: it's not that I don't value your opinions or perceptions, I just don't like you.

Why don't you stop trying to ridicule me and engage me normally instead?

Am I ridiculing you? I think there's a difference between me disagreeing with you, and me ridiculing you. I'm not making fun of you for doing what you do or feeling how you feel.

Actually, you are.

Yes, just as you were ridiculing Iantha, which was my point in the first place, although I resorted to unproductive ridicule to do it...just as you did. I'm not sure how you can apply this stuff to the conversation you and I are having, and not apply it to your actions toward Iantha. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate I was being unproductive and ridiculing you if only you'll see you were doing precisely the same thing.

Iantha's pet peeve regards the posting style of another, and mine does, too. I wasn't trying to be clever or ridiculing her, but it was a direct piece of criticism.

"If you don't intend these things the way they come across, I urge you again to look at the way you're communicating."

[DV8]

The things you say and the words you choose when you address me have convinced me that you don't particularly value my opinions or the angle at which I view things.

I can certainly understand how you might gain that impression, although you shouldn't read so far into it: it's not that I don't value your opinions or perceptions, I just don't like you.

I think those things are one and the same. But enough of this, your point is well made, and I accept it, though disagree slightly on many of the arguments you make, leaving me on the opposite embankment from yours.

[3278]

I think those things are one and the same.

Wow, really? There are all sorts of people I don't like whose opinions I value, and for that matter, a fair number of people who I like greatly, but whose opinions and perceptions I do not value at all. Actually, thinking on it, there are probably more of the former than the latter! To me - and this might just be a me thing - a person is not discrete from their opinions or perceptions, but neither are they wholly of those things.

Is this just me? [Look, I know this is the wrong thread, but I think we broke that cherry some time ago.] Do other people find they sometimes do not like someone, but still value their perspective? Do you ever like someone, but not value their perspective?

As for the other thing, I salute you from the opposite embankment.

[Jeff Hauze]

To your two questions Earl, yes. I've felt that way about a number of folks, especially from the various online communities, over the years. Oddly enough, there's folks that have migrated between the two groups as well.

[DV8]

Is this just me? [Look, I know this is the wrong thread, but I think we broke that cherry some time ago.] Do other people find they sometimes do not like someone, but still value their perspective? Do you ever like someone, but not value their perspective?

I think there is a difference between real life and online. You're a cool guy in real life, what little I've seen of you, but you're an absolute asshole online, unless you don an alter ego like Peter, at which time you're just so damned adorable. But online, where I am to you nothing more than a bunch of ideas and opinions on a screen, I am those opinions and ideas.

[3278]

To your two questions Earl, yes. I've felt that way about a number of folks, especially from the various online communities, over the years. Oddly enough, there's folks that have migrated between the two groups as well.

I think that's inevitable, too, as people change and you change, that your liking for people, and your interest in their perspectives, will wax and wane, sometimes independent of each other. This has to be even more common online, where people's opinions are expressed so much more often, and on such a broader variety of topics, than offline. [I can't remember the last time I had a conversation anything like this, for instance, offline!]

[3278]

I think there is a difference between real life and online. You're a cool guy in real life, what little I've seen of you, but you're an absolute asshole online, unless you don an alter ego like Peter, at which time you're just so damned adorable.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it? Online, only when I'm pretending am I not an asshole, but offline I'm a cool guy all the time? Seems unlikely, from what little I know of me. I would wager perhaps the difference isn't between online and offline, but between pretending and not pretending. Remember, the only times you've ever met me in real life I've either been in an exceptionally good mood, or artificially induced to politeness, specifically artificially induced to politeness toward you. I was telling Paul the other day that the second-best thing about not dating Eva is that I don't have to be nice to you anymore. Then I kicked him in the balls, 'cause I'm such a dick.

Nice use of the word "don," by the way.

[Salvation122]

Well this certainly got stupid quickly.

[3278]

So, your role has become, "Wait until argument has settled, then drop by to tell everyone how stupid they were." Honestly, it's not much better than my role.

[Marius]

And clearly far inferior to my role, which is, "Wait until the argument has gone on long enough that someone has made any factual or logical error, and then expose the mistake."

[3278]

Your quote is too easy to identify. I mean, really. You could at least pick something ludicrously obscure, like mine. Still, if I say, "Jed Bartlett, channeling Aaron Sorkin, speaking to Leo [I think?] in 01x20 Mandatory Minimums," what prize do I get?

[Marius]

Yeah, well, you know, for everybody but you. You, I think, are only eligible for prizes for your more obscure Sports Night lines. Maybe I'll throw in his new stage thing if it's any good.