Page 5 of 8

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:53 pm
by Harry Marks
ant wrote:You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?
The point was meant to be a pattern of how you discuss things, not a particular thing you said. My suggestion would be that when you feel someone has misunderstood or mischaracterized your point, that you simply clarify without any blame or belligerence involved.

But where would be the fun in that, right?

,.-)

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:06 pm
by ant
Harry Marks wrote:
ant wrote:You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?
The point was meant to be a pattern of how you discuss things, not a particular thing you said. My suggestion would be that when you feel someone has misunderstood or mischaracterized your point, that you simply clarify without any blame or belligerence involved.

But where would be the fun in that, right?

,.-)

It's not a "feeling" when someone claims you have written something that is in fact nowhere to be found in the post.

It's called dishonest characterization. It was very clearly done.

And you are patronizing me for insinuating it is just a "feeling" that I have when it happens.

Bullshit.

The more cheeky you are with me the more I call you out for it.

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:05 am
by LevV
ant wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:


ant wrote:
You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?


The point was meant to be a pattern of how you discuss things, not a particular thing you said. My suggestion would be that when you feel someone has misunderstood or mischaracterized your point, that you simply clarify without any blame or belligerence involved.

But where would be the fun in that, right?

,.-)

Harry wrote:
"If I was in a family with ant, I would get pretty fed up with the "I never said that" line. It has become clear by now that ant likes to dance up to the line of saying offensive things and then dance away from them when somebody takes the bait. I'm trying to just enjoy watching the dance - it has a certain artistry."


What a perfect example of how easy it can be to jump to conclusions or misunderstand a simple comment. Harry's comment was in no way disparaging to your family, ant. Your family may be the most patient and tolerant people in the world. As I read the comment, Harry simply stated that if HE were part of a family that included you, HE would "...get pretty fed up with ...."

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:37 am
by Harry Marks
LevV wrote:What a perfect example of how easy it can be to jump to conclusions or misunderstand a simple comment. Harry's comment was in no way disparaging to your family, ant. Your family may be the most patient and tolerant people in the world. As I read the comment, Harry simply stated that if HE were part of a family that included you, HE would "...get pretty fed up with ...."
Thanks for trying to clarify, Lev, and I certainly agree with your characterization. I only brought up "family" as an illustration of "people who have to live with you," which was a way of underlining "this is not just a fluke or coincidence, we are seeing a pattern." But if one is feeling belligerent (I have been there, as everyone here knows), all kinds of things can be hot buttons, setting off confrontational behavior.

When I notice patterns of my own problematic behavior, whether it be pontificating or virtue signalling or writing off the top of my head without considering how it sounds to others, I think it is a good idea to consider where these patterns come from. If someone points it out and I disagree, I let it go, (or try to), but it is a good idea to give it some thought first. Because I know that human beings often respond primarily based on their emotions, and even avoid the real subject in order to minimize emotional upset, and the result can be fairly irrational. And I am a human being, so I probably do that too.

Ant seems to be focused on the "echo chamber" of liberal discourse. And that's fair enough - it is good for any of us to hear a different perspective. My comment about his pattern (like his comments in the past about my conformism to an echo chamber, I presume) are not meant to be weapons in a battle over the difference in perspective. They are just observations that might be useful to think about. That doesn't mean the difference in perspective doesn't feed into the commenting, but it does mean the comments can be taken at face value.

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:54 am
by ant
The Lenin statue in Seattle is has not been touched


https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/8/27/20 ... ue-history


Imagine a political party in the US thinking Lenin is morally superior.... to any degree


This is the twisted mind of the left

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:58 am
by ant
What a perfect example of how easy it can be to jump to conclusions or misunderstand a simple comment. Harry's comment was in no way disparaging to your family, ant.
Why don't you let me decide that?

I don't need you telling me what and what I shouldn't be offended by.

By so doing you are acting like a racist white person telling a minority what should offend them. That's a democratic tactic in the US

Harry can handle himself

Stop it.. I won't have it. I'll put you on ignore if you continue

Thanks

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:00 am
by Harry Marks
ant wrote:It's not a "feeling" when someone claims you have written something that is in fact nowhere to be found in the post.

It's called dishonest characterization. It was very clearly done.
Sometimes that is true, and sometimes that is disingenuous. If a person misunderstands what you are saying, it may be willful because they want to put you in the wrong, or it may be because the context leads them to think you are saying something that you are not actually saying, or it may be because they recently read something that leads them to assume certain types of comments signal certain types of intent, or any number of other sources of error.

If you choose to characterize it as intentional distortion you may be correct or you may be mischaracterizing somebody else, in either a deliberate or an accidental way.

I am not just observing that you do that a lot, although you do. I did a little counting about some of your recent posts and it is a little scary. That is likely to be partly due to feeling "ganged up on" because you perceive an echo chamber here, so it is easy to see distortion by people trying to put you in a bad light. But honestly I don't think that is mainly what's going on. I also saw, when my attention was drawn to it, a pattern of provoking negative responses on purpose, but in such a way that you maintain plausible deniability.

It seems to me that you often push a particular line of thinking about something but carefully guard your innocence in your own mind by building in an interpretation about why you are pushing it, even though you are probably aware how other people will see your choice of topic. The "pandering" by wearing kente cloth was a particularly obvious example, (just a random fact-check, because we all post random things here, having nothing to do with anything) but the use of "thugs" about liberals is more subtle but much uglier.
ant wrote:And you are patronizing me for insinuating it is just a "feeling" that I have when it happens.

Bullshit.

The more cheeky you are with me the more I call you out for it.
Ant, we all have this feeling sometimes. Anyone who has ever had a relationship with anyone, including with a parent, knows that feeling one has been misunderstood and mischaracterized is part of communication. I did not mean to diminish the accuracy - as Kahnemann observes over and over in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" our perceptions are there precisely because they are generally on target. But you should consider whether there might be more going on with your defensive reactions than just the fault in the other person.

Inaccuracy is a convenient peg to hand our anger on. But the question is not just whether something is inaccurate - we all correct misunderstandings all the time. Your choice to get angry about it is motivated by much more than the inaccuracy. That may be entirely healthy, but I think I see a pattern which is not healthy. A subtle form of self-sabotage, in fact. Of course I could be wrong.

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:06 am
by Harry Marks
ant wrote:The Lenin statue in Seattle is has not been touched

https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/8/27/20 ... ue-history

Imagine a political party in the US thinking Lenin is morally superior.... to any degree

This is the twisted mind of the left
The left is not a political party. The Democratic Party is eager to put away statues of Confederate leaders, and yesterday paintings of Speakers of the House who were also, at different points in their life, rebels against the Constitution. The Democratic Party is not calling for removing honors given to Washington, Jefferson, and other heroes who were also part of a despicable system of slavery. Some members are, yes, but until the party is, it is unfair of you to lump them together and accuse the party of thinking Lenin is morally superior to Jefferson Davis.

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:16 am
by Harry Marks
ant wrote: Harry can handle himself
**Blush** Why thank you, ant.

Re: Orwellian liberalism

Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:28 am
by ant
Harry Marks wrote:
ant wrote:The Lenin statue in Seattle is has not been touched

https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/8/27/20 ... ue-history

Imagine a political party in the US thinking Lenin is morally superior.... to any degree

This is the twisted mind of the left
The left is not a political party. The Democratic Party is eager to put away statues of Confederate leaders, and yesterday paintings of Speakers of the House who were also, at different points in their life, rebels against the Constitution. The Democratic Party is not calling for removing honors given to Washington, Jefferson, and other heroes who were also part of a despicable system of slavery. Some members are, yes, but until the party is, it is unfair of you to lump them together and accuse the party of thinking Lenin is morally superior to Jefferson Davis.
The democrats are the left..

The democrats are also hypocritical thugs

No they aren't "eager" to put away any statues because democratic run cities are allowing the destruction of ANY statue.
They are allowing mob rule.

You can lie to me but don't get into the habit of lying to yourself, Harry.