4 ms·

Why is it OK for someone to randomly bring their preference for bacon into the conversation but it is not OK for me to mention my preference against it? I actua

by dejb 17y ago

Why is it OK for someone to randomly bring their preference for bacon into the conversation but it is not OK for me to mention my preference against it? I actually thought my initial comment was pretty innocuous. The voting response to it at the time genuinely surprised me. Somehow it improved markedly since then, as if to invalidate my second comment. Some people can just accept what they perceive as injustice. If someone had casually denigrated black skinned people in the fifties in southern US I like to think I would have found a way to let it be known that I didn't agree. Even if it wasn't the main topic of conversation. > I'd love to read more about this. > I don't really give a damn about pigs. These comments appear to be self contradictory. Much of your post is nonsensical. The fact that so many people are prepared to agree with it astonishing. > and either way it's irritating and a teeny bit hurtful to the community. The fact that it causes such a level of fuss for such an initially innocuous comment is telling. > Cut it out. No.

unalone 17y ago
Why is it OK for someone to randomly bring their preference for bacon into the conversation but it is not OK for me to mention my preference against it? What wasn't okay was that you ignored his entire point for the sake of stating your beliefs. If you'd stated what you did and then followed up with a counterpoint, then you wouldn't have been downvoted, wouldn't have had to bitch back at him, and I wouldn't have involved myself. These comments appear to be self contradictory. I'm willing to give a damn about pigs if you're able to convince me to. As it stands, a damn is not given but I'm willing to change my mind. Much of your post is nonsensical. No it's not. The fact that it causes such a level of fuss for such an initially innocuous comment is telling. I hate any and all derails as obnoxious and self-inflated as yours was—not the original post, mind you, but the follow-up.
- dejb 17y ago
  > What wasn't okay was that you ignored his entire point for the sake of stating your beliefs. I replied to his iPhone related points first. Both of them. > not the original post, mind you, but the follow-up. When I posted the follow-up the original was at -4 votes in less than an hour on the first post. The vote-down to view ratio must have been off the charts. I was responding to the down voters. I know it is uncool and all to do this but I guess it must have had an effect. The analogy here is this (in fifties southern US) - Somebody makes a causally racist comment. - I mention in my response that I disagree. - Others express strong but inarticulate disapproval for my comment. - I respond directly and unambiguously why I think racism is wrong. - People seem a little less sure of themselves Re the first comment but they are really pissed at me. - Our hero comes along and chides me for causing such a fuss in a rambling speech. - The crowd erupts into applause. They didn't understand most of the speech or really care about what was said. But there brief encounter with the morality of their lives is over for now. And the person who has caused them discomfort has been put in their place without them (the crowd) having to articulate their own prejudices.

by dejb 17y ago

unalone 17y ago

Why is it OK for someone to randomly bring their preference for bacon into the conversation but it is not OK for me to mention my preference against it? What wasn't okay was that you ignored his entire point for the sake of stating your beliefs. If you'd stated what you did and then followed up with a counterpoint, then you wouldn't have been downvoted, wouldn't have had to bitch back at him, and I wouldn't have involved myself. These comments appear to be self contradictory. I'm willing to give a damn about pigs if you're able to convince me to. As it stands, a damn is not given but I'm willing to change my mind. Much of your post is nonsensical. No it's not. The fact that it causes such a level of fuss for such an initially innocuous comment is telling. I hate any and all derails as obnoxious and self-inflated as yours was—not the original post, mind you, but the follow-up.

dejb 17y ago
> What wasn't okay was that you ignored his entire point for the sake of stating your beliefs. I replied to his iPhone related points first. Both of them. > not the original post, mind you, but the follow-up. When I posted the follow-up the original was at -4 votes in less than an hour on the first post. The vote-down to view ratio must have been off the charts. I was responding to the down voters. I know it is uncool and all to do this but I guess it must have had an effect. The analogy here is this (in fifties southern US) - Somebody makes a causally racist comment. - I mention in my response that I disagree. - Others express strong but inarticulate disapproval for my comment. - I respond directly and unambiguously why I think racism is wrong. - People seem a little less sure of themselves Re the first comment but they are really pissed at me. - Our hero comes along and chides me for causing such a fuss in a rambling speech. - The crowd erupts into applause. They didn't understand most of the speech or really care about what was said. But there brief encounter with the morality of their lives is over for now. And the person who has caused them discomfort has been put in their place without them (the crowd) having to articulate their own prejudices.