Politics and Religion

[hollodero]

(03-04-2021, 09:15 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't doubt you have skipped our "ongoing quarrels," and so are reluctant to "pass judgement." Most do skip them.

But here is what you missed in my quarrels with SSF, just so you might understand why I become incensed, probably for the first time in the new forum, when someone blameless shares an "aspect on bullying" with SSF, as he constructs a bullying problem "out there" in some others. 

The pattern is the same on every thread, including this one, your thread. I make arguments about the topic, and he jumps in to "call out" my "lies" and "hypocrisy."  And then the thread is off topic, as I often feel the need to correct misattributed statements. (As a poster on the Limbaugh thread put it: "Lather, rinse, repeat.")  But not always, as sometimes I urge SSF to get back on topic, or just ignore the ad hominem. And in the past he has said much worse. To which I can only add that I have not returned in kind. At all. Ever. The mods have never suspended me or deleted my posts to stabilize a thread. A record which you seem to acknowledge.  And SSF does too, obliquely, when he occasionally promises to change his behavior, or when, lacking anything else, and in a pique of faux outrage, he leverages one of my "lols" to an order of hyperbolic condescension.

So I am not "reaping what I sow." You may indeed have carefully criticized some of his "hyperbole," but you have never to my knowledge said to him "You are bullying," as you did Fred. 

And I am going to go out on a limb here and say there is no thread in this forum in which SSF has been just merrily discoursing along on topic when Dino, out of nowhere, landed on him with verbal abuse.  Closest I can recall is Dino once followed a personal attack on me with "This is why we can't have nice things." Sometimes Dino defends himself. More often he ignores denigrating posts. He reaps far more than he sows. I am going to go out on a limb again and say there is not thread in which someone launches unprovoked attacks on SSF in which he, Dino-style, just moves on. 

If a poster announces a mission to "call out hypocrisy" wherever he finds it, you far-seeing and reasonable Hollo, know that he surely will find it, and at the expense of forum peace. I don't have to persuade you that "calling out hypocrisy" is not a solution to the problem of bullying, but a cause of it. And only one person in this forum has settled on that mission. A refusal to name names may indeed express a wish not to expose someone, but it may also be just a kind of innuendo, a claim no one can check, deployed to buttress an otherwise unsupported narrative. Like a "lone wolf" who refers to himself in the plural, speaking for a group of unnamed, who agree with his construction of those "others."

I close acknowledging you don't want this discussion. I don't either. Part of your difficulty in not seeing "who's more at fault" is your desire not to take sides, not to single out anyone.  And I don't want you to change that. Your post #67 and others show that you understand perfectly well that people may decide to leave the forum, not because they are bullied, but because they don't want beliefs challenged.

But when you share with SSF, "a similar view on an aspect of bullying" while unable to see "who's more at fault for these ongoing escalations," then of course he's going to respond "Well stated."  And I am going to fill in some blanks. 

Points of clarification. :)

It was not my intention to get someone's support and admiration. I said things I feel are true, SSF agreed with things I said. So yeah, we seem to share a perspective on certain things. Doesn't mean I endorse him over you or anything of that kind. I'm not endorsing anyone, I have my own mind and whether SSF likes or dislikes what I say has nothing to do with it. I gave up aiming for approval a long time ago.

Eg. fred. Yeah, I kinda started it and it was kinda unnecessary. It's not that I feel I'm wrong on that though. And lo and behold, within a short time I was asked to either "apologize or prove he's a liar". This is a typical style I'd call deliberately misinterpreting someone else's posts. I might be particularly upset about that kind of communication I deem destructive and belittling, and I suppose I'm not the only one. It's bfinesque. I can also very well imagine that many, when confronted with that, either react visibly angry or with being outta here. Imho, a lot of hostility stems from that, albeit it finds continuations that go way beyond it.

Eg. SSF. Again, I don't see him as flawless (same goes for myself), for one he's a Steelers fan and allegedly sociopathic... but yeah I also feel he takes many things one step too far, and that includes these everlasting quarrels with Dino or with you. I don't think it serves conversations best to accuse someone of faux intellectualism etc. and I get why this is seen as derogatory. I just don't have that much of a personal problem with that, my mind apparently strips that away, and as far as I can tell he also usually has a point to make beyond that. By that I am not intending to put out an objective ranking of who's better and worse than anyone else. It's just me not being so annoyed abouth that, for whatever reason..
With SSF vs. Dino. I can understand how it's enraging when being told again and again how he's part of the right-wing echo chamber and parrots Tucker and whatnot. Which kind is Dino's oft-used go-to move. I get angry when people tell me that my opinions are rooted in being brainwashed by CNN too. Or he accuses SSF of defending Trump, of secretly supporting Trump, all kinds of things that are demonstrably not so. That SSF further escalates things as well, yeah, that is/was true and I said so many times in the past, and I said so here.

Eg. you. I did not say you reap what you sow (said that to fred, where I believe it applies). I do see though that you take issue in me not blaming SSF significantly more than anyone else. And ok, that is your take on things. I'm not delving too deep into your conversations to claim one way or another (I even tried yesterday, but with cross-references to yet another older thread I stopped again), so I can't tell you what you want. Whenever there's an ongoing spat, there's an element of taking baits though. You could very well just leave him be if you so please. Imho, as you indicated your style is to explain things, and if someone has a different take, you feel the need to further explain yourself, to add more points, as in "if you don't agree with me, I need to make myself clearer". I do not complain about that, I am the exact same kind of person. And get perceived as arrogant at times for being that kind of person. I mind fred's style more than SSF's style and yours probably the least of the bunch. But others might just feel different, and that's fine. You're definitely right that you don't outright offend people or call them names, and this is more than I can say about others. You deserve recognition for that imho, and I give it to you. Case in point, you're a bit angry with me and yet none of your words are irreverent.

What I will say though, in the end, I feel there's a general tendency of not taking issue with one of your own. Eg. the way you perceive Dino vs SSF, to me, seems in some part rooted in the fact that you usually agree with Dino on the issues. Which can lead to a tendency to blame the person you don't agree with more, or even exclusively. And there I have another perspective, not because I force myself into neutrality, but because I'm not an American and imho not so deeply captured by a certain "us vs. them" mentality that is pretty prevalent in the US and its people. I might see that incorrectly for sure, but it's what I believe to observe quite some time.
I will add that this sure goes both ways. Non-liberals usually don't take issue with other non-liberals either, including when there's talk about stolen elections or FBI treason or how Michelle Obama was a *****. I do see SSF's point that it's only you liberals as very shaky, and this also is something I did express. He doesn't take issue with me saying so. Why such things are different when you say that, well I don't quite know. It's not because I'm inherently better, that's for sure. It's probably because I'm an exotic bird.