I'm afraid I am about to leave Wrongplanet.

Post Reply New Topic

Who am I ridiculing? greenblue wouldn't be insulted I don't think, but rather my comment is a joke that logically extends from greenblue's comment.

Ideas can be ridiculed, not people.

well, the question is who is being ridiculed, I believe AG must have assumed I was joking, which he would be correct, even though appeal to ridicule seems to be very well allowed in this website, always within the boundaries, which is often used towards an opinion seemed to be absurd, which even few mods could have used them.

No, just leads us to wonder how the CIA came up with such an ingenious scheme. Invisibility cloak, I would have never thought of that.

QFT

I think one of the biggest pet peeves of most teens would be older people saying that they know better from experience. Sure, it's true, but it contradicts the youthful belief in one's own infallibility.

you and GreenBlue were joking around with each other. But not in a vacuum, on a thread where someone is obviously upset that people treat his ideas with ridicule and disrespect.

I didn't know you and GreenBlue were joking around with each other. YOU and GB might have known, but I didn't. Because I was not 'in on the joke' I saw it as ridicule, but you tell me no, it's not ridicule, we are just hijacking this thread and running away with it by posting our own agenda in the middle of it.

so, here is a question for you. What is it called when someone hijacks the thread and runs away with it by posting their own agenda in it?

Merle

From the WP rules:

If someone is upset that other people don't unquestioningly accept their beliefs... that's no one else's problem but their own.

(Hint: This is the answer to the first question you asked AG "AG, show me where, in the rules of WP does it say we freely allow ridicule?" The ridicule is of a particularly foolish belief.)


Um... even as an Aspie, I think it would be obvious that AG and GB were being facetious.

Seems like the OP is frustrated by people questioning him and not taking his word for it. His age(range) is IRRELEVANT. It matter not if its a preteen or a senior citizen, dontcha think guys? Conspiracy theorists often do communicate in a dogmatic and provocative way that gives others the impression that they think they know everything and they're in on something that most people arent. I remember when ShawnWilliam was making posts about chemtrails and the HAARP and got infuriated by people questioning what he thinks he knows to be the truth.

oh, I got it that they were being facetious. But they were so ill willed about it. I was like I was back in junior high and watching the special ed kids being bullied. Did anyone pick up on that, too?

Merle

OK, they were mocking a belief they see as stupid. As I showed, that is perfectly within WP rules.

Actually, I don't recall anyone bullying the special ed kids in junior high- those were off-limits, even to the monsters I attended class with. I was a more appealing target, evidently.

And perhaps I was insensitive, but I did think about addressing the OP as well, just to distinguish between joking with GB and addressing the thread. However, I thought that GB's comment was an attempt to be absurd and recognizable as such to everyone, because it is extremely hard to claim that buildings didn't fall, what is debated is the source of this fall. I didn't address the OP though because I didn't know what to say, I only commented on one of his threads(if memory recalls), and although I posted against him, I would defend my comments(on that thread), as I do not think I was excessively insulting but rather addressed the video he posted despite the fact that most posters just posted to complain about the video.


Well, sinsboldly, this is just one of those things where common sense would apply, as this banter between myself and GB was not coordinated. I mean, zOrp was 'in on the joke' despite you not being as such. "Hijacking the thread"? Let's look at it, my comment only caused one non-mod comment: zOrp's. So, 2 comments. Mine, and zOrp's. How about your post? Well, there are 2 by you, there are now 2 by me responding to you, there are comments by GB and Sand criticizing your original criticism, so now it is up to 7? Who's hijacking the thread more? You with 7 comments? Or me with 2?

Not only that, but honestly, "hijacking a thread" demands pulling it consciously off-topic, an "agenda" as you mention, which a casual comment, such as my earlier one, lacks. I had no agenda, but rather just sought to add a bit of playful banter, you can question my taste, but you cannot say I was attempting to hijack the thread at all.

Well, Merle, as this exchange proves, the technical term is "moderation".

I am probably older than almost anybody else on this site and have noticed that it is a rare occurrence that age makes a difference. Some younger people have their information wrong but I have seen a lot of that in middle aged and older people too. The main difficulty I have had with others and myself as well is a kind of mental rigidity that deserves attack and ridicule to shake it loose. The whole point of the site is to shake up our ideas and watch the fragile ones crumble as they should.

Honestly, I really wouldn't want to attack the OP. I thought about defending prior comments(which is why I said I would defend them, I thought about going into greater depths, memory is weird in case you saw the pre-edit post...) I made to a video post the OP made to argue that I believed I was fair in dealing with him. I usually do not address the more conspiracy-theory-ish threads because they lie outside of my interests though. In any case, if you want me to apologize for potentially hurting the OP's feelings, then I do so, as I believe their stance towards 9/11 was that 9/11 was orchestrated by the government for the sake of maintaining power relations, and that this was proved by inconsistencies in the story about what happened. I would think that they would consider GB's comment to be absurd as well.

I count 9 total posts resulting from Merle's post, 10 if we include this post that I am making now. 75% of the posts from Merle's original criticism to the post above this one comprise the debate over that criticism. If there is any thread derailment, it could only be pinned on AG indirectly by arguing that his post necessarily triggered Merle's response, but it clearly did not as much "worse" posts pass without comment every day, so a joke by AG would not seem to deserve such sudden moderator scrutiny.


QFT.

Also, what are public accusations (or in this case, strong insinuations) of trolling called?

I sort of know where the OP's coming from and I can get very sensative and defensive when it comes to my own ideas, passions, beliefs, and theories and have them be attacked. That is if it gets too personal or the fallacy behind my thought is bullcrap! But it's a different story when one debates me in a way with something to go on rather than get personal or label me as this or that without looking at the idea in a perspective on its own.

Now I'm not always good when it comes to the "right" way of viewpoints and different opinions. But I do believe there is a difference between attacking someone's idea and then debating about. However sometimes debating may look like an attack or be misread for one. So you can't expect people to agree with you. I do however see an awful lot of insinuations and insults when one presents an idea say for instance mythicism...Not that I am a believer in it but being called delusional <not directly at that person but when you know who it's referring to when it's their topic> and putting it in ways that are more personal than say an argument using evidence. I think what's more irritating is when these personal thoughts or beliefs expressed outside the PPR forum get hounded down as if they are not allowed to express any opinions concerning existentialism or possiblities that have not been proven.

All the more reason why I consider myself agnostic. As long as one does not put express their beliefs in such a way that it directly offends or attacks other people of faith, ideas, and evidential reasoning.

Not sure I expressed myself good enough on this post as I've always had trouble with putting words in a way that doesn't come off offending anyone. These are just my thoughts, I might be wrong but I do see a lot of this going on in other threads. If someone expresses their belief in god in another thread, I just choose to ignore it or read it but not respond unless it is attacking those who do not share that opinion.

Last edited by MissConstrue on 10 Apr 2009, 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.