Welcome, Guest.

Author Topic: To Neb  (Read 547 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie

  • Ermarian
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
  • Karma: +2/-4
    • 4904
To Neb
« on: 08 February 2016, 06:50:40 AM »
There comes a time when a chatroom does not settle an issue adequately, and so I would like to ask for input on a matter.  I have taken offense to Neb's behavior, and because offense is an emotional response, I would like to ask the community as to how I should continue.

In particular, I am referring to:

Quote
[18:05:02] <Neb> My point was that it has been a two party system since 1853.
[18:05:27] <Excalibur> ...it was two party before that.
[18:05:36] <Neb> Kind of.
[18:06:00] <Excalibur> Federalist v. Democratic Republican
Democrat v. Whig
Democrat v. Republican
[18:06:08] <Neb> You can say federalist v antifederalists if you like, but third party candidates were far more viable.
[18:06:23] <Excalibur> ...what?
[18:06:31] <Excalibur> ...what third-party candidates?
[18:06:41] <Neb> *sigh*
[18:06:54] <Neb> Sorry, forgot I was talking to you again. I shall discontinue.
[18:08:04] <Excalibur> Oh noes, Neb makes a claim without citing evidence.
[18:10:00] <Neb> Arguing with you is just really irritating is all. Just like that endless round of "an armed civilian population is essentially as viable as an unarmed one for rebellion"
[18:10:31] <Neb> It has informed me that reality works differently for you.

I responded with confusion and wanted to know what Neb meant, although I put ellipses which would probably have been interpreted on his end as a dismissive remark (I put ellipses in chat to indicate what would amount to trailing speech).  Neb just responds with an ad hominem attack, and I snark back (a poor response).  My issue here is twofold:

1. I find it necessary in a functioning society for misinformation to be corrected when possible, especially as someone who is (with difficulty) trying to pull together a teacher's license.  As for the factual matter at hand, a two-party system is obviously a political system controlled by two parties, which was the case long before 1853:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

I also don't understand how third-party candidates were "more viable" if they won few elections.

2.  Our interaction indicates mutual contempt, which means mutual culpability in the matter.  I interpreted Neb's ad hominem response as essentially amounting to: "I don't agree with you about a completely unrelated issue; therefore, you're wrong and I don't need to cite evidence for my claims."  As such, I don't fell particularly welcome on the chat.  If the intent is for me to leave, then I will do so when asked.

Offline Wisdom

  • High Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 1487
  • Karma: +23/-1
  • Gender: Female
    • wisdom-
Re: To Neb
« Reply #1 on: 08 February 2016, 07:11:32 AM »
The thing is, we've argued before - for hours and hours and hours. It gets nowhere because what I, at least, feel is a reasonable argument or logical statement you find to be BS or incorrect and (which is fine-ish), subsequently, purport to state that you skillfully refuted the arguments without providing supporting evidence, yourself, long after the fact even if it ended at a stalemate at best (which is less than fine-ish).

Here's the rest that you, conveniently, didn't include in the quote.

Quote
[18:10:00] <Neb> Arguing with you is just really irritating is all. Just like that endless round of "an armed civilian population is essentially as viable as an unarmed one for rebellion"
[18:10:31] <Neb> It has informed me that reality works differently for you.
[18:10:32] <Excalibur> Ah, and that time too I kept rebutting everything was said.
[18:10:40] <Nalyd> no you didn't
[18:10:55] <Nalyd> you consistently failed to make coherent arguments or respond to anyone else's
[18:10:55] Excalibur leaves the room

So my solution was to just skip the conflict entirely - there are many other people you can talk to. And I'm not obligated to waste two hours of my limited time on a one-ended discussion, regardless to your interpretation of my intent.  If you want to make some kind of ultimatum where either you go or I go, simply go profile -> actions -> delete this account. No one is forcing you out of the chat, but by the very existence of this topic, it looks like you have no reservations on manufacturing a conflict and blowing things out of proportion.

I mean seriously, you're asking me if you should quit the site because I didn't respond about about the viability of a third party candidate in a US presidential election prior to 1853?

There were times in this chat where people were standing on the caps lock key screaming at each other every day, and still people came back, got over it, and moved on with their lives. I recommend you try to do the same.

Offline Callie

  • Ermarian
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
  • Karma: +2/-4
    • 4904
Re: To Neb
« Reply #2 on: 08 February 2016, 05:20:47 PM »
I'm really proud of you for winning that gold medal in mental gymnastics.

Offline Sudanna Susquehanna Saguenay

  • Seiðmaðr
  • High Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 1321
  • Karma: +6/-4
    • 3440
    • sudanna
Re: To Neb
« Reply #3 on: 10 February 2016, 02:47:47 PM »
well, i certainly welcome you in the chat. just cuz neb is an admin doesn't make his personal feelings about you any more important than anyone else's: that's why he's a good admin.

but neb is entirely right, especially about
Quote
There were times in this chat where people were standing on the caps lock key screaming at each other every day, and still people came back, got over it, and moved on with their lives. I recommend you try to do the same.

if somone has had a bad time arguing with you in the past, and decide that they don't want to do that again, then that's that. your viewpoint will just have to go without an audience. you are not morally obligated to give someone a bad time. the fabric of society does not hinge on you doing that. you're always welcome to say almost whatever you want in the chat, but if someone just doesn't want to engage you on it, and says why, then there doesn't seem to be a problem. the only problem is if you don't accept that and pester them.

the purpose of neb's conduct is this: to disengage from the argument without letting you say that you won it. which is a fine thing that people can do. stalemate, everyone feels slightly pissy for ten minutes, and then life goes on. life can now go on.

it's fine to feel offended, feel however you like. being offended is part of the beautiful and rewarding emotional tapestry of life, every portion of which enriches and empowers us. either hanging out in the chat is worth getting offended sometimes, or it isn't. i think it is! that's the case with any social situation, isn't it? either you like these people more than they piss you off, which means you're friends, or you don't, which means you're not.
Not I, said the fly.

 

SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Scratch Design by DzinerStudio

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 21 queries.