4 ms·

The depth of replies was too deep in the other thread, so I have to respond to your questions from over there in this thread. The answer is that I've given up

The depth of replies was too deep in the other thread, so I have to respond to your questions from over there in this thread. The answer is that I've given up on you as a person. The "'tard" quote was from Idiocracy. Right before that remark, the context for that remark, was the doctor telling the patient, "You talk like a fag and you're shit's all retarded." Your comment about my tone was a recapitulation of this sentiment. The reference subverts this in a way that, satisfyingly, you are unable to understand, due to your inability to effectively interpret the written word. I get it: Your project is solely about reinforcing your own libertarian belief system. In my opinion, from reviewing your comment history and from our interaction, you're so committed to this project, and the belief you are buttressing is so frail to you, that you have to label everyone who mentions Marx as "a Marxist." You had an opportunity to critically engage with the material, and you bypassed it for labeling and cheap shots that sidestepped the issues at hand. You can't see the forest of your ideological blindness for the trees of your picayune and misguided logical nitpicking. Your situation seems hopeless. You seem quite sad and broken. I hope you get better. But this is the last time I will engage with you until I see what I perceive as some evidence of growth on your part. Until then, I am content that any dissonance that I've caused, any discomfort that I have caused to reach you, might possibly do you some good in 5 or 10 years. Right now, you are just not worth it to me.

glenra 13y ago
There is an odd disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're hearing. One can either be an effective communicator and respond to what people actually say OR one can assume bad faith and spend one's time trying to ferret out what failing in others prevents them from understanding your wisdom and taking the conversation in the direction YOU want it to go. In this conversation you consistently chose the latter approach; I rather prefer the former. I have actually deliberately AVOIDED using the term "Marxist" except in response to you using it. I do this because I'm not sure I understand Marxism and I'm not sufficiently interested in the topic to want to argue over the subtleties of who or what is and isn't considered "Marxist". That's why I went with "Marxian" to unambiguously describe terminology that is "related to Marx and/or Marxists" and "pseudo-marxists" to mean "people who seem motivated by concerns related to Marxism, whether or not they themselves are actually Marxists". I don't understand why it's so threatening to YOU that ONE point in the original article seemed to miss the mark and make a universal claim that from my point of view doesn't universalize to me or the people I know. Is your worldview so fragile that it can't withstand that? This all seems very odd. Unlike the Idiocracy context, my comment about your tone was objectively valid; I am positive any jury of my peers would agree. (And apparently did agree by downvoting your response when another corespondent called you on it). ALL you have to do to avoid being perceived as pompous is leave out your usual preamble and meta-commentary. In short, the next time you find yourself writing a response that has this format: > paragraph #1: "Regarding YOU: Something is wrong with your reasoning abilities and you should be ashamed of thinking the way you do. You made a basic error. You weren't charitable. You're not trying to learn. I'm not surprised you made this elementary mistake. You have not done your homework." > paragraph #2 "Regarding what you SAID: Here is some actual information and argument that responds directly to your stated concerns, leaving out all ad hominem attacks and attempts to analyze underlying motives" ...just LEAVE OUT that first paragraph. You can still write it if it makes you feel better, but then leave it on the cutting room floor - delete it before you post. All of it. Because even if it were all TRUE, it would still tend to poison the resulting discussion. If you want people to read charitably, lead by example - read charitably yourself. Oh, well. It's been real...

glenra 13y ago

There is an odd disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're hearing. One can either be an effective communicator and respond to what people actually say OR one can assume bad faith and spend one's time trying to ferret out what failing in others prevents them from understanding your wisdom and taking the conversation in the direction YOU want it to go. In this conversation you consistently chose the latter approach; I rather prefer the former. I have actually deliberately AVOIDED using the term "Marxist" except in response to you using it. I do this because I'm not sure I understand Marxism and I'm not sufficiently interested in the topic to want to argue over the subtleties of who or what is and isn't considered "Marxist". That's why I went with "Marxian" to unambiguously describe terminology that is "related to Marx and/or Marxists" and "pseudo-marxists" to mean "people who seem motivated by concerns related to Marxism, whether or not they themselves are actually Marxists". I don't understand why it's so threatening to YOU that ONE point in the original article seemed to miss the mark and make a universal claim that from my point of view doesn't universalize to me or the people I know. Is your worldview so fragile that it can't withstand that? This all seems very odd. Unlike the Idiocracy context, my comment about your tone was objectively valid; I am positive any jury of my peers would agree. (And apparently did agree by downvoting your response when another corespondent called you on it). ALL you have to do to avoid being perceived as pompous is leave out your usual preamble and meta-commentary. In short, the next time you find yourself writing a response that has this format: > paragraph #1: "Regarding YOU: Something is wrong with your reasoning abilities and you should be ashamed of thinking the way you do. You made a basic error. You weren't charitable. You're not trying to learn. I'm not surprised you made this elementary mistake. You have not done your homework." > paragraph #2 "Regarding what you SAID: Here is some actual information and argument that responds directly to your stated concerns, leaving out all ad hominem attacks and attempts to analyze underlying motives" ...just LEAVE OUT that first paragraph. You can still write it if it makes you feel better, but then leave it on the cutting room floor - delete it before you post. All of it. Because even if it were all TRUE, it would still tend to poison the resulting discussion. If you want people to read charitably, lead by example - read charitably yourself. Oh, well. It's been real...