You people

Post Reply New Topic

maybe so but most won't automatically jump to the defensive and say she insulted me. That is based off of insecurity. Hence it is still a valid point that your reading into it to find flaws its not being based off its own merit and if anyone regardless of who they were said it. The same exact things would be said. Yay for defensiveness and insecurity I guess...

i'm sorry, but i don't know how to respond to your posts sometimes because they are rather incoherent--i am not trying to insult you. i am trying to tell you that what you type is hard to make sense of. if i can't tell what you mean because you're not stating your points clearly then i can't accurately respond. you might want to try editing your posts a little more thoroughly before posting, otherwise people will misunderstand what you are trying to say.

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

The same could be said for you. Your reasons for stating this is your own dislike of Shiggily while that is fine cause you can not love everybody because besides being unreasonable it would not be a good thing since most are not worthy of that attention. In the end though you still haven't looked into your own motives, which seems to be the majority of your arguments. Is this really to help Shiggly? no its not you need someone to blame for how your life is going. That is all good but its ignoring the point that it’s highly hypocritical to do things that you accuse as being undesirable in others.

You’re also assuming that because the majorities "may" (you’re over generalizing so it can't be known exactly if that is true only that it’s true on wrong planet and I'll get to why that is faulty in the last paragraph) believe it, it somehow denotes truth. All of Germany clamored to Hitler he was a homicidal maniac so to further quote Nietzsche.

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Friedrich Nietzsche



Asking them to adhere to a social standard is not an unreasonable request and I myself always seem to find threads where it just becomes a mud slinging fight or it goes back to arguments that have no definitive "true" answer (though I'm sure people will insist there is). In most of these threads it just becomes attacks of the character, the usual arguments (religion vs. science, AS a defect vs. AS a stage of evolution, supernatural vs. science, science as a religion etc), or they just keep pushing until the thread becomes a flame war.

As an example everyone who knows of AS through meeting people with it just see it as a "whiners disease" similar to the remarks by Micheal Savage. This is because people with AS are socially conditioned to feel inferior and that insecurity begins to dominate their lives. How many threads here is "I will never get a girlfriend", "I'm an idiot because I can't socialize", "I don't have any friends" their insecurity holds them back from that whether AS,HFA, or PDD causes some difficulties in that is irrelevant because difficulties can be overcome.

In the end you haven't take into account how insecure a lot of members are Wrong Planet are. Those are precisely the individuals who will come to a board like this to flex their "debating" muscle. Do they all do it for that purpose? no but In the same way they have accused Shiggly of catering to a role of higher importance they have done so themselves. In the end do any of my assertions can be deemed as correct? no there is not enough full knowledge of the factors.
This discussion is just an emotional backlash because people feel insulted and that is fine but let’s calls this for what it is and not based on assumptions steeped in faulty reasoning and hypocrisy

Funny as an example I pasted this link to a few people. Most understand that the basis of the argument is quite simply, the others understood my post but didn't understand your point of view which I tried to explain as best as I could. This clearly provides an example of difference in perspectives and the understanding of communication being a perspective based condition.

Most people outside of WP won't jump to the conclusion that just because someone said something in a manner which they don't like that it is an insult. If I said it someone would be jumping down my throat meanwhile I don't intentionally offend people. It is simply an emotional response based on no reason other then "she offended me so she is wrong". The governing dynamics of this conversation is insecurity and defensive nature inherent in people who feel socially persecuted.

atleast shiggily wasn't referring to black folk as "you people." that wouldn't be a good thing. so shiggily, don't ever refer to black folk as "you people," they really don't like that. white folk with too much time on their hands seem not to like it either. i have too much time on my hands, so i'm gonna go and watch the A-Team and pretend i'm a pirate.

how did this thread get so long?

abangyarudo, first what does your screen name mean? i'm just curious. do you enjoy arguing just to argue or for s**ts and giggles? are you going to correct my grammar again? grammar police - grammar po-po's

Abangyarudo - Avant-Garde. I believe it’s covered in most attractive aspie male thread.

Do I like arguing? No Do I like discussing whether or not the opposition agrees with me or are listening? Yes. In this example people are bullying another member due to their assumptions. That is fine because the individual has always struggled to remove themselves from the tribe. Do I react adversely to people who attack others based on their opinion of right and wrong? Yes in the end Shiggly has attempted to make an attempt to agree and disagree as well as adding a possible solution.

I do not agree with the solution because I believe it’s more effective for both to come to an understanding as opposed to both sides caving in to meet each other. It has problems with actual implementation. As an example if the logical reasoning individuals start to be more "concerned" as to the emotional intent that others will perceive with a negative emotional intent then they will want more so we would keep caving in and essentially losing our individuality and the clarity of the statements. The same could happen in reverse and since an understanding seems to not be able to be reached without one group sacrificing it is not very viable. In the end though all this will come to is a fight over ideals and a bullying tactic where people will gather "armies" and might will make right.

The actual conclusion would be a function of power and not truth and hence be undesirable. As Shiggly is not being supported by other members too intimidated or perhaps just afraid of being outcastes (as much as it is possible from a discussion board) I will take that role if need be and since your attack gave no context for discussion and was just there to offend I will fight that bullying tactic. It’s the same reason I was always friends with the outcasts which is funny because the insecurity shown in this thread is from the exact fear of being an outcast in society so within this new make shift society people seek to do the same thing.

Isn't this an example of that "emotional reasoning" you claim has no purpose? Why are you allowed to decide Dokken's intent was to bully? Maybe it was tongue-in-cheek.

The line you seem very childish is a personal attack on her character. I doubt it has a humorous meaning. The difference is I used a more logical foundation to support my view of his statement. He dissagreed with Shiggily forcing the question of if she understood a word down her throat then said she was childish. Just as a side note I'm not the greatest with grammer either the reason I picked up on his grammer was simply due to the fact that he wanted to push the idea that she miscomprehended the idea of what the word meant so I pointed out he miscomprehended some of the "laws" of english grammer.

calling people rabid badgers and f*****g insane lunatics or whatever it was...isn't an attack on someone's character, it is humour, but calling someone childish is more obviously insulting somehow? and we should somehow know the difference by.....?

do you need it explained to you why people don't like you correcting their grammar? or shall i correct yours for you just to illustrate? i have a feeling you really wouldn't like that and would probably react badly to it. just a feeling.

you assumed the intent of the statement. I said to a friend "you look like a dog in heat" he could of taken offense or he could pass it as a joke, of which it was. The lunatics line was agreeably in poor taste as she has stated as well. I've only recently noticed it but still its not anything worse then what was said of her furthermore she admitted that line was in poor taste and that shows some of her ability to admit she makes mistakes.

Furthermore she has admitted where some problems may occur in the understanding of her words and sought to put it behind us as a agree to dissagree situation even though that was not the problem that everyone was against it was the original message of behaving as decent human beings. Where the otherside through showing the same qualities they dislike about Shiggily (I really butcher her id on here) have admitted no fault and claim justification because the aims aren't the same. If something is undesirable that should be universal except for a select few issues with context of the situation which this does not qualify in my mind as one of those moments.

In the end all it has become is the same 3 people pouncing on her and calling her names. If that is going to be the case then I'll stand up because I won't allow someone to be bullyed by multiple people over her perspective ofwhat people should change. If this is going to be us vs them I'll gladly put myself in the front line. The difference is I'm not really insecure so my addition is probably more valuable then the other members here. My point of choosing to do this is because if you don't like what someone said by all means say it but if your going to attack people for their opinions then I will oppose that immature act.

feel free theres alot of grammer mistakes since I didn't bother to put it in a word processor. Misdirection doesn't increase the validity of your points as opposed to mine. I would comment on something that I find interesting considering some of your history with being bullied but I'm sure you would just be offended and it wouldn't contribute to the conversation so hence thats why I don't add it. As a side note that is why dokken (I think I spelt it wrong) shouldn't have made the childish comment.

Last edited by Abangyarudo on 20 Jan 2009, 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This thread is so far into absurdity it is difficult to participate in, really. Never in the field of human history was so much, said by so many, about so little.

Maybe it's the title.......

I don't know but it's certainly got a lot of attention. I can sort of identify with the OP's original arguement but now this post has gotten too long for me to keep track. Oh well they don't call it The PPR for nothing.

*quitely dodges out of sight*

So just to be clear, if shiggily types something obviously insulting and states it was not an insult, we are insecure if we believe the words mean exactly what they say. Meanwhile if shiggily says something most people interpret as an insult, as is widely known by most people, we are insecure if we don't interpret the words to mean exactly what they say.

It has nothing to do with reasoning over the facts available to us, no mere difference of opinion, it's just that everyone who does not agree with you on this issue is insecure, and that's that.

Talk about irony.



A gaping hole in this view is that it is not true that everyone who does not hold with your view on this issue is offended, or insulted, much less defensive and necessarily insecure.

Be honest, this insecure business is simply 'name-calling' those who do not fall into line with your view, in other words the very behavior that shiggily supposedly felt so strongly about, she started a whole thread to complain of it, but which she apparently is incapable of noticing (or alternatively cares not a whit about) when it is being done by someone posting in support of her views.

You might want to reconsider if it really is insecurity that causes others to view the matter differently to you, or whether it could simply be a reasonable interpretation easily reached, without insecurity, given the relevant facts.

For my part, I am not offended by this thread or shiggily's postings in it. Bemused, perhaps, amused and entertained, most certainly, but offended, not in the least.

i think i have to agree with you and bow out, as well. it's pointless. so this shall be my last post on the subject....abangyarudo, that should make your day now you can tell everyone you won the discussion. enjoy the accolades