PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't get that joke (probably because, as we've established in the Westworld thread, I'm a robot)... but I don't think I'm misreading him considering he himself said that he found my disagreement to be personally insulting.

[Flash Walken]

It was an ejaculation joke.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't get that joke (probably because, as we've established in the Westworld thread, I'm a robot)... but I don't think I'm misreading him considering he himself said that he found my disagreement to be personally insulting.

You are definitely misreading him because he's telling you in plain english he isn't what you accuse him of being.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I'm calm, you're confusing my bewilderment with anger and emotion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by nik-

This thread is a cradle of sadness.

At least it's hopefully instructive as to how hard it is to have these conversations, even with people you fundamentally agree with on everything. That's depressing, I agree. The constant drive-bys don't help matters.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You are definitely misreading him because he's telling you in plain english he isn't what you accuse him of being.

Yes, I saw that protestation... Is that really your fair reading of how his posts come across? When he tells me that my disagreement is insulting, that I have no idea what I'm talking about whatsoever and am "so far past the point" that everything I say is irrelevant, and that he's "calling me out", that "we'll never agree", that I'm "validating hate" - again, from a simple disagreement about whether identity politics is a good thing - that I'm way off base to suggest that he might be just a little geared up here? Tell me honestly, how would you expect that I'd react to someone talking to me in those terms?

I mean, maybe you're right, but I feel like I'm on solid ground here.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

At least it's hopefully instructive as to how hard it is to have these conversations, even with people you fundamentally agree with on everything. That's depressing, I agree. The constant drive-bys don't help matters.

Yes, I saw that protestation... Is that really your fair reading of how his posts come across? When he tells me that my disagreement is insulting, that I have no idea what I'm talking about whatsoever and am "so far past the point" that everything I say should is irrelevant, and that he's "calling me out", that "we'll never agree", that I'm "validating hate" - again, from a simple disagreement about whether identity politics is a good thing - that I'm way off base to suggest that he might be just a little geared up here? Tell me honestly, how would you expect that I'd react to someone talking to me in those terms?

I mean, maybe you're right, but I feel like I'm on solid ground here.

In the field of psychology this is called projection.

You have projected these emotions onto his argument.

NOt sure if you value my opinion on the matter at all but I feel like he's done a pretty amazing job of serving you up your own posting style, and you certainly don't appear to like the taste of it.

Maybe you're the one getting a little geared up here?

[PsYcNeT]

If Troutman didn't exist I would think lawyers were incapable of enjoying poetry.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You are definitely misreading him because he's telling you in plain english he isn't what you accuse him of being.

So Pepsi isn't being petty and snippy (which I would classify as emotional) when using phrases like "Sorry that I triggered you"?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

NOt sure if you value my opinion on the matter at all but I feel like he's done a pretty amazing job of serving you up your own posting style, and you certainly don't appear to like the taste of it.

Maybe you're the one getting a little geared up here?

I'm actually making a deliberate, concerted effort not to respond in kind or dismiss the actual points he's making and explain my views. But he's only actually made a couple of inroads into a discussion in between accusing me of validating or otherwise defending hatred and not understanding the concept of identity politics. The question about the value of life experience in forming peoples' views is a good example of something we could talk about, and I tried to give a clear response to that. But I'm cognizant now about discussing the discussion rather than the topic, so maybe this whole thing is best just left alone.

If your impression of my posting style is that I take innocuous disagreements and immediately go nuclear, then I probably need to be more self-conscious of that so that I get the benefit of the doubt in these situations. I would value your opinion a bit more if I ever saw you do much of anything but post snarky jokes like the one above, though - for whatever that's worth.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

If Troutman didn't exist I would think lawyers were incapable of enjoying poetry.

I actually have a degree in English Literature (and philosophy). Surprise!

[nik-]

Pepsi is a pretty sassy poster in general.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

So Pepsi isn't being petty and snippy (which I would classify as emotional) when using phrases like "Sorry that I triggered you"?

I'm pretty sure he's using the term in earnest. It's still possible you know.

I know hard to believe, people can have empathy, be sorry, and be concerned that they are causing someone else undue stress. I mean obviously I don't, but Pepsi strikes me as someone who gives a ####.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You've presumed that "being a part of the solution" is agreeing with you on how to solve the problem. You can't say, "if you agree with me on the goal we're after, then in order to be a part of the solution, you have to accept that I'm right that this is how we fix things". That's not a reasonable request. If we're driving to Banff and I see you start heading East, I'm going to try to get you to turn the car around.

Actually, "being part of the solution" means talking to people and treating people in the same way YOU say they should talk to each other to reach that solution, it has nothing to do with me. It's about not stepping off the path YOU'VE outlined the moment it someone else does. It's hard, but imagine how hard it is for people to keep to the path you think is right in the face of racism and homophobia when some people can't even stay on it at the first perception of emotion.

We don't need to agree. You keep saying we have the same goals and honestly I don't think we do.
That's ok with me.

I honestly think criticism of the RL usually ends up visibly indifferent than the same things they get criticised for. Broad strokes, breakdown of conversation, demanding. When you spend more time focusing on the disagreeable methods of people with supposedly shared goals than you do on people with opposing goals, you gain nothing.

What do I know though, I'm clearly just an emotional wreck.
Dismiss as you please

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

In the field of psychology this is called projection.

You have projected these emotions onto his argument.

NOt sure if you value my opinion on the matter at all but I feel like he's done a pretty amazing job of serving you up your own posting style, and you certainly don't appear to like the taste of it.

Maybe you're the one getting a little geared up here?

This is so bang on. If you've got nothing left to debate with fall back to a philosophical argument. Make your counterpart chase you until they finally call you out on your lack of substance on the topic and then project it on them. The Republicans are masters of this in the public sphere. Corsi rope-a-doped Pepsi until Pepsi finally called him on it, and now Corsi is trying to project this onto Pepsi. And Corsi's response to you is par for the course. Projecting your comment and the negative you observe in him, back onto you. This is fascinating to watch.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If your impression of my posting style is that I take innocuous disagreements and immediately go nuclear, then I probably need to be more self-conscious of that so that I get the benefit of the doubt in these situations. I would value your opinion a bit more if I ever saw you do much of anything but post snarky jokes like the one above, though - for whatever that's worth.

I have been a contributing poster on this message board far longer than you and routinely present long, thought out arguments with sourced material. Here is an example, posted before you joined: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ox#post4895235

I don't expect everyone to have a firm grasp on another's post history and I definitely post a lot, but I like to think I contribute positively in a variety of ways to several of the subforums on this board.

[nik-]

I need to sit down and make an example post one day so I can go back and reference it for when I'm too lazy to type a bunch. Which is most of the time.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Actually, "being part of the solution" means talking to people and treating people in the same way YOU say they should talk to each other to reach that solution, it has nothing to do with me. It's about not stepping off the path YOU'VE outlined the moment it someone else does.

Sounds good to me.

It's hard, but imagine how hard it is for people to keep to the path you think is right in the face of racism and homophobia when some people can't even stay on it at the first perception of emotion.

If you get upset or insulted, it's going to be way harder to make progress. Which is how I naturally take your posts. I mean, either that or you're deliberately being what nik has characterized as "sassy", which also makes it unnecessarily difficult to talk to you about this stuff.

We don't need to agree. You keep saying we have the same goals and honestly I don't think we do.

Okay. What goal do you have that you don't think I share? Seriously, I'd like to hear it.

I honestly think criticism of the RL usually ends up visibly indifferent than the same things they get criticised for. Broad strokes, breakdown of conversation, demanding. When you spend more time focusing on the disagreeable methods of people with supposedly shared goals than you do on people with opposing goals, you gain nothing.

If you go back to my earlier post about my disagreement with Gad Saad (who is one of these anti-RL crusader types), you might see that this statement is very similar to what I was criticizing him for. I don't think it's reasonable to say "we should be on the same team so stop questioning my methods". If I don't think your methods are effective, if I think they're actually counter-productive, why is it a good idea for me to keep that to myself? To extend my earlier metaphor, instead of getting to Banff, we're going to end up driving into the Atlantic.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I have been a contributing poster on this message board far longer than you and routinely present long, thought out arguments with sourced material. Here is an example, posted before you joined: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ox#post4895235

I don't expect everyone to have a firm grasp on another's post history and I definitely post a lot, but I like to think I contribute positively in a variety of ways to several of the subforums on this board.

That's a great post, and I shouldn't have suggested that you never say anything useful, only that you do a lot of the sort of thing I was complaining about above. But that might be unfair in so far as there are a number of people who do that sort of thing regularly and I'm probably imputing cumulative blame.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm pretty sure he's using the term in earnest. It's still possible you know.

I know hard to believe, people can have empathy, be sorry, and be concerned that they are causing someone else undue stress. I mean obviously I don't, but Pepsi strikes me as someone who gives a ####.

This isn't Tumblr you know. The only way I would think this is sincere is if I found it in a comment chain between a couple of SJWs.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

If Troutman didn't exist I would think lawyers were incapable of enjoying poetry.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

This isn't Tumblr you know. The only way I would think this is sincere is if I found it in a comment chain between a couple of SJWs.

I'm sorry you're dead inside.

[EldrickOnIce]

Nik was right. I have carefully read the last several pages, and I am neither enlightened nor entertained.
I feel only sadness. Like I do when I read post game threads kind of sadness.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Nik was right. I have carefully read the last several pages, and I am neither enlightened nor entertained.
I feel only sadness. Like I do when I read post game threads kind of sadness.

If only there was a poster capable of Making This Thread Great Again.