I Have A Confession To Make

[Static_Martyr]

I said "for lack of a better word" because I could not think of a better way to put it, Tim. And, generally speaking, if someone holds what others consider to be 'extreme' views, they aren't likely to see it that way themselves. Don't take offense to my phrasing.

No offense taken. I am curious, though --- there are views I disagree with that I do not consider to be extreme. So whatever you mean by your use of the word "extreme," I'm curious: which views have I expressed that you feel are "extreme?"

[_Lost_]

Except that I don't mean "extreme", per se. You have grabbed onto that one word, otherwise ignoring me saying that I only used that word, because I couldn't and can't think of the word I really want. I don't want to discuss your views on things for this very reason. Also, my opinion on your views ties closely in with my own views, which then leads me to discussing and ultimately arguing about politics, which, as I said, I hate doing. Wasn't that the whole point of this thread in the first place?

[Static_Martyr]

You have grabbed onto that one word, otherwise ignoring me saying that I only used that word, because I couldn't and can't think of the word I really want.

What word did you mean to use, then? That's part of the communication problem, here, is that I can only judge what you say based on the words you use. I don't know what you mean, unless you say what you mean.

Also, my opinion on your views ties closely in with my own views, which then leads me to discussing and ultimately arguing about politics, which, as I said, I hate doing. Wasn't that the whole point of this thread in the first place?

So....what, your comment was completely pointless and you're not going to elaborate on it any further? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Little_Miss_1565]

Tim, there is a relentlessness to the way you zoom in on minute areas of what someone says that one might term "extreme." You're clearly not a bad guy, but it makes engaging you a daunting task.

[_Lost_]

Tim, you are now being an ass. In my first post, I said, "for lack of a better word". I said the same thing in my second. And I further elaborated in my third, but here you are, acting as if you don't understand that concept and are trying to put me down with that "say what you mean" bull crap, despite me having said what I mean several times.

[Static_Martyr]

Tim, there is a relentlessness to the way you zoom in on minute areas of what someone says that one might term "extreme." You're clearly not a bad guy, but it makes engaging you a daunting task.

I can see that. However, I really don't see that as a bad thing; a lot of people try to get off point and obfuscate during a discussion and it's useful to be able to keep them on point. Also, if I want to know something, oftentimes I have to ask four or five times before I get a straight answer (instead getting smart-ass comments, assumptions about why I asked the question, judgments about what I really meant, attempts to change the subject, etc.). So you could say it's a habit that comes naturally from dealing with dodgy people.

Tim, you are now being an ass.

No, I'm asking for clarification because your comment confused me, and you're giving me weird answers.

In my first post, I said, "for lack of a better word". I said the same thing in my second. And I further elaborated in my third

No, you didn't elaborate, you just said you didn't want to talk about it because it involves your beliefs and politics. If you didn't want to talk about it, why did you bring it up in the first place?

but here you are, acting as if you don't understand that concept

I understand the concept of "for lack of a better word." What I don't understand is what you mean by "extreme," since you say you didn't mean it in terms of its standard use; I just asked you for an example. If you don't want to press the issue, then fine. But if that's the case, why bring it up in the first place?

[Little_Miss_1565]

I can see that. However, I really don't see that as a bad thing; a lot of people try to get off point and obfuscate during a discussion and it's useful to be able to keep them on point. Also, if I want to know something, oftentimes I have to ask four or five times before I get a straight answer (instead getting smart-ass comments, assumptions about why I asked the question, judgments about what I really meant, attempts to change the subject, etc.). So you could say it's a habit that comes naturally from dealing with dodgy people.

Actually, it is kind of a bad thing. It's not that you're asking four or five times before you get a straight answer; it's that you browbeat people with questions until you get the answer you want. It also appears to be that you're seeing "dodgy people" everywhere you go when the reality is that sometimes not everyone is going to be able to give you the conversation you're looking for due to things going on in their own life. Demanding that they have the conversation you want is pretty pushy.

[Static_Martyr]

It also appears to be that you're seeing "dodgy people" everywhere you go when the reality is that sometimes not everyone is going to be able to give you the conversation you're looking for due to things going on in their own life.

What do you mean, "seeing dodgy people wherever I go?" Who are you referring to, exactly? The people I refer to as "dodgy" are the people who make principled-sounding comments, but when pressed for five seconds to elaborate can't do so. I call that "dodgy," not because "I don't get the conversation I want," but because if you don't understand what you mean when you say something, how do you expect me to understand it? Conversation is a two-way street; if you actually want to be understood, you have to be able to explain yourself. Otherwise you're just talking past me. If your goal is not to be understood but to just talk, that's fine, but at least be clear about that so I don't waste my time trying to understand it.

It's not that you're asking four or five times before you get a straight answer; it's that you browbeat people with questions until you get the answer you want.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "the answer you want." If by that you mean, the actual answer to the question that I asked, then yes, I'm decidedly forward. If I ask what someone means by x, and they instead give me a paragraph explaining why they don't have time/don't want to answer that question, then I might criticize that, but that person is in no way obligated to respond to me at all, so I don't see how I could really "browbeat" anyone in that sense. I really have no authority to do that even if I wanted to.

You make it sound like I just tackle random people and interrogate them at gunpoint until I hear whatever I want to hear --- the "answer I want" is usually just a simple clarification of something they've already said. I really don't see what the big deal is. If you don't want your comments or beliefs to be criticized or analyzed at all, why do you say them? It's not "pushy" or "bad" to expect someone to actually back up what they are saying. It's my understanding that the entire point of a deeper discussion of different ideas, is that people explain their ideas; you say I'm being too pushy, but to me it's much pushier to simply throw your comments out there and expect them to be taken or left at face value.

[Little_Miss_1565]

What do you mean, "seeing dodgy people wherever I go?" Who are you referring to, exactly? The people I refer to as "dodgy" are the people who make principled-sounding comments, but when pressed for five seconds to elaborate can't do so. I call that "dodgy," not because "I don't get the conversation I want," but because if you don't understand what you mean when you say something, how do you expect me to understand it? Conversation is a two-way street; if you actually want to be understood, you have to be able to explain yourself. Otherwise you're just talking past me. If your goal is not to be understood but to just talk, that's fine, but at least be clear about that so I don't waste my time trying to understand it.

There's "can't do so" and "no longer want to do so because you seem weirdly aggressive." You don't seem able to accept that sometimes you're not going to have a perfect understanding of what someone's trying to say online due to the limitations of the medium.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "the answer you want." If by that you mean, the actual answer to the question that I asked, then yes, I'm decidedly forward. If I ask what someone means by x, and they instead give me a paragraph explaining why they don't have time/don't want to answer that question, then I might criticize that, but that person is in no way obligated to respond to me at all, so I don't see how I could really "browbeat" anyone in that sense. I really have no authority to do that even if I wanted to.

You make it sound like I just tackle random people and interrogate them at gunpoint until I hear whatever I want to hear --- the "answer I want" is usually just a simple clarification of something they've already said. I really don't see what the big deal is. If you don't want your comments or beliefs to be criticized or analyzed at all, why do you say them? It's not "pushy" or "bad" to expect someone to actually back up what they are saying. It's my understanding that the entire point of a deeper discussion of different ideas, is that people explain their ideas; you say I'm being too pushy, but to me it's much pushier to simply throw your comments out there and expect them to be taken or left at face value.

You state that the other person isn't obligated to respond to you at all; meanwhile, you state that the reasons you feel compelled to respond based on the Three-Pronged Internet Argument Fallacy. You're not the only person for whom this applies. I'd also offer that only responding to you partially is a form of exercising their non-obligation to respond to you at all.

[Static_Martyr]

There's "can't do so" and "no longer want to do so because you seem weirdly aggressive." You don't seem able to accept that sometimes you're not going to have a perfect understanding of what someone's trying to say online due to the limitations of the medium.

Which limitations are you referring to? I ask because I don't generally have a hard time expressing my opinions simply because I'm typing rather than speaking. In both cases I'm relying on the same words and the same linguistic conventions. And if I'm going to call someone a name or make an accusation, I'm ready to back it up if I'm called to.

That said, I'm not asking for a perfect understanding; I'm asking for something more than, "You are [x name]." Someone calls me a name, I ask them to clarify, they say they don't want to, I say that's dodgy and weaksauce. I see nothing wrong with that exchange (it's less than ideal, obviously, but if you're not going to meet me halfway, then there's really no other option than for me to make my assessment and move on). I may not get the answer I want, but you don't always get what you want.

You state that the other person isn't obligated to respond to you at all; meanwhile, you state that the reasons you feel compelled to respond based on the Three-Pronged Internet Argument Fallacy. You're not the only person for whom this applies. I'd also offer that only responding to you partially is a form of exercising their non-obligation to respond to you at all.

So, what, they're free to respond as they see fit, but I'm not, because they don't approve of my response?