i wanna meet this girl katie

Post Reply New Topic

Isn't discussing banned members against the rules?

Anyway, this is probably the longest we've gone without any incarnation of Katy.

If you're socially awkward, it's really hard to be sure nothing you say or do can be considered a provocation in anything looking like an objective sense. The prevailing fact is that others are entitled to their own criteria about what offends them, and to act on them.

Men used to have the duty to fight other men in duels whenever the latter decided they'd been offended, for whatever reason. You didn't get off the hook just because you didn't want to offend them, and much less because of any notion that they had no "right" to be offended by what you said. Needless to say, it didn't matter, either, whether logic and evidence supported your claims---you duelled and the winner was right, unless someone else subsequently killed him in another duel. The natural criterion to decide what is right isn't reason, but force. Being offended means you're willing to supress what you don't like by force or die trying.

I've learned this the slow, hard and, above all, dishonorable way, by believing everything was okay if you just replied to words with words, getting into angry arguments with people who could beat me up effortlessly, and then chickening out when I, to my utter astonishment, found out I had to physically fight them. To normal, healthy people, violence is an indispensable part of human communication. Words are not enough. On the Internet, people have won lots of arguments with me by pointing out I wouldn't have the balls to tell them the same things to their face. It took me quite a while to start getting the message. And no, I wasn't intentionally insulting them; I wanted to talk about topics I found interesting and didn't suspect this immediately makes you a personal enemy of everyone who disagrees with you. But it does, and therefore it's cowardly to say anything at all behind a computer screen, where others can't reply by physically assaulting you and make the point that you're wrong by means of their superior strength. Exactly what I'm doing on these forums, by the way, though I've gotten only slightly more skilful at saying stuff without provoking people.



I've often tried that approach, but I find it very hard not to think that, when someone starts being sarcastic, or adopts an overtly demeaning tone, and then plain name-calling, there must be some good reason for them to behave that way and I'd better reflect conscientiously to find out how exactly I screwed up, because my experience is that I've always screwed up in some egregious way or other.

It's similarly easy to accept that they can't be bothered to tell me what I did wrong---I don't deserve it after being so obnoxious to them, and it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, because otherwise they wouldn't be so pissed off. What's more, thinking it isn't would be insulting to them, so I'd better accept they have a damn good reason to be pissed off, even if I'm too dumb to understand it. My stupidity is probably part of the reason after all.



Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I did't want to create any obligation for you; I just took the chance to try to get some light shed on issues which have long been a mystery to me.

I think I saw one no more than two days ago.

I don't think that people really can win arguments by threats of violence or actual violence. It doesn't count as a win in my book. I tend to not want to argue, because I become entirely too emotional, and lose control, not because of fear of others.

I really don't care what ignorant people think. I'm not sure why you do. Just because someone tries to bully me into their way of thinking, doesn't mean I'll give in or accept it. I believe what makes sense, and if someone can provide a different spin on things, I may change my mind. If it's logical, that is.

There are certain things I refuse to talk about, because people tend to act irrationally about them. Religion and politics are two major ones. There is absolutely no point in discussing these issues with most people, because they are going to get insulted by opposing viewpoints, no matter how the subject is broached.

I will defend myself, then leave an argument, once it becomes hostile. Because at that point I no longer care. I'm sure I'm going to unintentionally offend people (and I do), but that's no excuse for nastiness. It's just as easy for someone to say "I really didn't like the way you said that in your post, it offended me because...." as it is for them to get nasty, sarcastic, and imply all sorts of things about what kind of person they've decided I am.

If someone nicely can point out what has offended them, I'm willing to rethink what I've said and consider their viewpoint. That doesn't seem to happen too often, however. I usually get verbally attacked instead.

So once that sort of inappropriate behavior begins, I'm essentially checked out. It took a couple of weeks on here to decide to use this method, but it works for me. I'm not going to let myself get upset over people being mean.

Civil conversations are always ok in my book, even when there are differing viewpoints.

Ignoring is NOT ignorance.