wp getting annoying

Post Reply New Topic

sharkattack wrote:

Good point except a lot of this small talk encourages and promoties dysfunction. Like I wrote before, the bonding aspect (which is needed and good) releases various hormones such as oxytocin that can become crystallized in with negative aspects, so reinforcing them. I would not like to encourage that tendency here,a nd am particalry concerned with teenagers, but nothing too much can be done, as the principle of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer generally applies, which is why there are more than one group of people on this Wrong Planet, so different lands. These lands do not have to go to war, however and try to kill each other, but it is not actual lands here, so not real war and a good opportunity for people to work some things out, so my suggestion is to take some of this conflict as well as some of the seeming trivial or even silly thread talk with a grain of salt.

However, this does not really apply to what the OP wrote, imo. She expressed certain concepts worth enquiring into and in which people seem to be very interested. So why is this??? What's up with it???

I think this kind of question suggests a fallacy at work, although I am not sure if that fallacy has a name. It reminds me of the geek social fallacies, but I do not think that is specifically applicable here.

I do think you're assuming intended goals not actually in evidence. For example, if I argue with someone, it is not particularly because I am seeking a resolution that said someone and myself can reach. Rather, I want my perspective to be known by other people who read the interaction. If I get involved in a discussion about climate change, I couldn't possibly care less what the deniers think, and I am not going to bother to be polite with my rebuttals. Further, my experience in many discussions regarding certain kinds of topics is that people react the same way (with hostility) no matter how nicely you phrase your comment or how much you sugarcoat it.

Also there are certain types of argument or assertion or action in a discussion that do not merit any courtesy in response at all. I have found that people can say the most egregious, awful things but if anyone dares respond with anything less than perfect "niceness" then they're accused of escalating to an argument. It does not matter that the escalation already happened.

So, no, I do not think it would necessarily be more productive to find solutions together. It depends on the people involved, on the topic in question, and the views expressed on that topic. I do not think that consensus and compromise are always valuable, and if someone promotes or defends a perspective that strikes me as abhorrent, I don't see what it is exactly that I would want to seek with them as a solution.

I know more about autism than most of the professionals I interact with.

I don't know more about autism than people like Lorna Wing, or people who specialize in autism. I am pretty certain I don't know nearly as much as you do.

I think most of what Simon Baron-Cohen writes is bunk, though. I think he uses the information available to him to come to bad, poorly supported conclusions.

I think your berry and egg words are funny.
It's even more funny that someone would pm you to correct your egg and berry words.

I find it difficult to ignore certain kinds of behavior, such as manipulativeness, bullying, and abuse as well as attempts to make excuses for such behavior, or to whitewash it as a good and appropriate thing. Even so, I actually have been avoiding certain posters and try to limit my replies to them.

How can you tell that they are doing those things? Usually, I read the same posts that others read, and others say that there was manipulating or other behaviors or intentions going on, but I didn't perceive those, and I don't know if people who said there were are correct in their perceptions.

There are ways people phrase things and respond to people that are typical of this behavior. I had an emotionally abusive parent and an emotionally abusive partner, and whenever I've seen someone behaving like either of them, it was usually not because they were being great people expressing themselves poorly.

A lot of it has to do with what's said and what is not said. A lot of it is blatant "negging":

http://xkcd.com/1027/

Also, there's dog whistles:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_politics

and other examples of loaded words and phrases.

It's sort of a script. The use of certain words and phrases in certain contexts are meant to deliver messages that the words by themselves do not communicate. Under most circumstances implications are pretty much lost on me, but a lot of this either comes from personal life experience for me or it relates to my interest in anti-oppression activism.

I'm not sure I am explaining this as well as I can. I can say that the above is something I explicitly learned, and not something that I just "knew." And yes, I can be wrong, and have been, and acknowledged it.

I also suck at sugarcoating and tend to be fairly blunt, which I think antagonizes people. I've tried to not do it, and it doesn't always work.

I don't understand the cartoon. It is completely incomprehensible to me. The politics article, I don't understand how it applies.

How do you know that you didn't invent these behaviors/intentions of other people in your own head?

I didn't quite get it either.



I suck at this at sugarcoating as well. I try not to be blunt (reminding myself, "be nice, don't say anything to make the other person upset"), but sometimes it just comes out.

It's what she wanted us to do.

I didn't understand the cartoon either so I looked up the definition of negging and it made sense.

The comic refers to this:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/voice ... ting-trend



Dog whistles are applicable in that they are used to appear to say one thing and mean another thing indirectly.



Empirical experience. If I have seen a hundred examples of people using these strategies in abusive or manipulative ways, then I have no reason to assume the 101st person is just coincidentally using the same words, the same phrases, in the same context, but not with other meanings. If I can't trust my experience, what am I supposed to do?

I totally get the cartoon. But you are saying exactly what I am saying. Some people (not limited to WP) are inclined toward manipulation exclusively as a means of communication, they seem fundamentally unable to communicate any other way. If you recognize that in a person, if you know they are putting out dog whistles entirely to provoke mayhem and you give them that mayhem that they crave - you lose, they win. I'm sort of figuring this out myself really.

Here is what to look for from someone who is a manipulative person.

1. They get you to think that you are wrong or fear that you have made a mistake in your judgement, by pointing to a ton of facts that have nothing to do with the conversation. (IE Conversation is about a specific topic, but they point to things outside that narrow topic for their argument. Person A: I really like dogs. Manipulative person: "Cats are better, here is ten thousand reasons why.......")

2. Conceal their aggressiveness under the disguise of being less capable or worse off than you. (IE I didn't know that would happen.)

3. Uses excuses a lot by justifying or rationalizing their behavior. ( IE No one else had a problem with it must be you.)

4. Deny that they did anything wrong. (IE it's racism, classism, etc)

5. Claim innocence when confronted with a fact for their behavior. (IE Knocking someone's books out of their hand....Well how was I suppose to know that they would fall.)

6. Makes others feel guilty or ashamed for expressing themselves.

7. Uses emotional stories that fit the situation so that you feel compassion towards them.

8. Argues "till the cows come home" and shows no interest in compromising.

9. Uses a persons words in a way that is inconsistent with the conversation or what was said. (IE Person A: I think I would like to go home it's 10pm. Manipulative person: You just don't want to do what I want to do, because you don't like me.)

10. Repeats all the above over and over again with different people.

It doesn't take much to recognize a person who is manipulating. They all use the standard tactics above to gain their way in some shape or another. Some take more from one tactic some use a combination. They are usually telling in that they always show little interest in what is being said just what they want to hear and demand that their point be validated at all costs. Usually it's to show dominance and superiority over the person they are manipulating at the moment to get the satisfaction that they want. (Don't bother questioning what they want, it's always about the self gratification.)

Hope that clarifies it for you.

Is it? Maybe it is, she's manipulative enough. But on the other hand, my responses are not for her benefit, but for others'.

That's what I always tell myself I'm doing too. I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter. It all just becomes one big jumbled mass of bickering as far as people who aren't involved see it. (But I'm not telling you what to do, I'm just trying to see how my own stuff is working).