Let's put lilbuddha in charge

OhherOhher Shipmate
lilbuddha wrote: »
fineline wrote: »
lilbuddha wrote: »
fineline wrote: »
lilbuddha wrote: »
Oy. There are bad practitioners of anything in every age group. That is irrelevant to the question of ageing and driving.

But then we don't know yet whether the question of ageing and driving is relevant to this situation.
It is possible it isn’t. However the comments about young people driving, to which I was responding, aren’t at all relevant and won’t be whether or not age is a factor in this accident.

It's possible. We simply can't know at this point. I made a comment about young people driving because Boogie made a comment about being driven by an elderly couple who drove in a dangerous way, as if being elderly was automatically connected with that particular way of driving.
What is connected to ageing are the diminishing of factors that make operating a vehicle less of a risk. And everyone loses capabilities over time. Everyone. In that way, it is different to the mental health issue.
The only way youth driving is related to aged driving is in having discussions about how to manage the dangers.
However, that generally isn't why youth driving is brought up in these conversations.

It's a real pity we can't seem to organize Shipboard discussions properly, according to lilbuddha's exacting standards. If only we could manage to follow lilbuddha's unfailingly consistent examples, we could happily avoid all tangents, all illogic, all sarcasm; indeed, we might eventually manage to banish disagreement, obviating any need for this forum. As lilbuddha routinely points out, all attempts at comparisons, metaphor or similes, humorous exaggerations, pokes at societal hypocrisies, etc. only drag discussion onto points lilbuddha considers irrelevant, unimportant, unedifying, and unenlightening. And as we all know, lilbuddha's judgment in such matters, fortified as it is by her exquisitely-honed and finely-ground moral sensitivities, is infallible.
«13456789

Comments

  • You know, There are a number of times that I sort of expected a hell call; this was not one of them.
    If fineline is upset by what I wrote, I would be happy to discuss it with her. Not seeing the problem with this post.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I wasn't upset. I felt you weren't fully grasping my point, as I often feel with you, but I didn't have the energy or inclination to pursue it, because your debate style can be quite... fighty, maybe? Not in a nasty way - just you argue a lot, and very persistently, and you seem to kind of look for points of disagreement rather than also finding/acknowledging common ground. I find it tiring, like constant combat, and it doesn't feel constructive. Frustrating, but not enough to call you to hell for it. But now you're here, I'll mention it.

    I used to have a similar approach to debating myself when I was younger, and I also felt very strongly about terrible things wrong with the world that I had to educate/correct prople on at any opportunity, and so I tend to see it as karma - I now know what it's like to be on the receiving end. Which is useful - it is always good to learn such things, because I'm not good at reading how people read me.

    Anyway, that is why I tend to just not reply to you after a while in various Purg threads. I'm sure someday I'll be called to hell myself for things people find annoying in my style or attitude. Pretty much anyone could be pulled apart in hell, as we all have our annoying/frustrating quirks and foibles.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    And yours, fineline, is being so darned reasonable! :wink:
  • fineline wrote: »
    I wasn't upset. I felt you weren't fully grasping my point, as I often feel with you, but I didn't have the energy or inclination to pursue it, because your debate style can be quite... fighty, maybe? Not in a nasty way - just you argue a lot, and very persistently,
    I'll cop to the, very probably overly, persistent style. Though it is not intentionally fighty most of the time, and never has been with you.
    and you seem to kind of look for points of disagreement rather than also finding/acknowledging common ground.
    It is more not taking the time with the "me too" bits than not seeing the common ground. But if it it comes across as purely confrontational, then I should look more closely at that.
    Pretty much anyone could be pulled apart in hell, as we all have our annoying/frustrating quirks and foibles.
    And I definitely have at least my share of those. Again, a bit surprised by this Hell call, but I can see the why of it. At least a little.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...But if it it comes across as purely confrontational, then I should look more closely at that. ...
    It does, as well as the appearance that you're operating under the (mistaken) assumption that you're infallible.


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...But if it it comes across as purely confrontational, then I should look more closely at that. ...
    It does, as well as the appearance that you're operating under the (mistaken) assumption that you're infallible.

    Add my voice to the infallible complaint.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    You know, There are a number of times that I sort of expected a hell call; this was not one of them.
    If fineline is upset by what I wrote, I would be happy to discuss it with her. Not seeing the problem with this post.

    It's not just this post. It's the pattern of posting. It's the everlasting finicking-about over how your precise position on anything is always slightly different from and slightly more correct than anyone else's, and the lengths to which you must go to carefully delineate that position and set it its .67ths of a degree apart from everyone else's.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Again, a bit surprised by this Hell call, but I can see the why of it. At least a little.

    And off we go, as you now carefully pick apart why this specific Hell call is not quite the correct one to have been posted, when there have apparently been several others which in your fastidious estimation were faintly more deserving, yet somehow escaped our notice and passed without comment. Hell, we can’t even meet your standards for calling you to Hell.
  • I know what other people are saying. I see that too and am frustrated by it at times. In the couple of years since I've been a regular member though, LB's posts have improved and I find them interesting and informative, in the main. Without wishing to soften what others are saying, I do want to acknowledge that change and the effort that stands behind it.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Again, a bit surprised by this Hell call, but I can see the why of it. At least a little.

    And off we go, as you now carefully pick apart why this specific Hell call is not quite the correct one to have been posted, when there have apparently been several others which in your fastidious estimation were faintly more deserving, yet somehow escaped our notice and passed without comment. Hell, we can’t even meet your standards for calling you to Hell.
    This is hilarious and frustrating. I am no shrinking violet down here and rarely find myself in a position that I cannot say something. But you've very nearly done it. There is now way I can post with anything other than a mea culpa, I'm the horribleness and not be shoved in to your characterisation.
    I was registering my surprise, not criticising your call. See?! I cannot even clarify my own position without falling foul.
    Well done, a masterful stroke.

  • There isn't much I can say without falling into the well laid trap. So, I am probably not going to bother to answer all the direct accusations as it is pointless.

    I will say this much. I do not think I am infallible. I have apologised many times for being wrong.

    However, my intent is only part of the equation and if the more reasonable posters are seeing my posts differently than I intend, I am not communicating properly. To them, I apologise.
    And yes, that was carefully phrased.

    I'll discuss with anyone who wants to discuss. Otherwise, I probably deserve at least some of this, so fling away.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I know what other people are saying. I see that too and am frustrated by it at times. In the couple of years since I've been a regular member though, LB's posts have improved and I find them interesting and informative, in the main. Without wishing to soften what others are saying, I do want to acknowledge that change and the effort that stands behind it.

    I'd say just the opposite. LB has been a pillar of calmness, but in the last half year or so (giver take) her posting has become more acerbic (if not downright bitter) and yet less logical.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    It is human nature to project versions of our own internal motivations on the rest of the world. The very conceptualization of fineline's description of her impressions as "a well laid trap" is perhaps the most telling reflection you might get, lilbuddha.

    We all see ourselves as mostly even-keeled, because sanity asserts certain assumptions. Yet in order to make sense of other people we assume they have the same internal progressions and patterns that we do. So, when we see something that we would likely be angry to post, it is then taken as given that the person was posting angry. And if they deny it, it makes the most sense that they are in denial.

    You sound outraged most of the time, lilbuddha. Even when you're probably thinking that you are being calm and moderate, it's easy to imagine you seething and pretending to be calm.

    Luckily, I've read your stuff for long enough to get a feel for your modes. I mostly just hear you as engaged, not enraged.

    Obviously, fineline is a white-hot roiling mass of invective magma ready to erupt underneath an overly-verbose façade. Basically evil incarnate.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Aside: getting calmness readings from mousethief's perspective is like getting a sobriety check from a drunk. Meaning it's entertaining, except for the probability of getting barfed on.
  • I miss the old emoticons at times like this.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Message received, and well-played.
  • RooK wrote: »
    It is human nature to project versions of our own internal motivations on the rest of the world. The very conceptualization of fineline's description of her impressions as "a well laid trap" is perhaps the most telling reflection you might get, lilbuddha.
    hah!
    That was addressed to Ohher, not fineline.

    You sound outraged most of the time, lilbuddha. Even when you're probably thinking that you are being calm and moderate, it's easy to imagine you seething and pretending to be calm.

    Luckily, I've read your stuff for long enough to get a feel for your modes. I mostly just hear you as engaged, not enraged.
    Perception is a funny thing. Especially self-perception. I would’ve thought the difference between my pointed rejoinders and the merely blunt one’s would be more obvious. But I obviously haven’t mastered one, or perhaps either.
  • Oh, and for the record, I don’t actually think Ohher planned a trap. I think she laid down exactly what she felt, but it ensnared me no less.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited January 2019
    For the record, I interpret your blunt offerings as coming from a place of intellectual rigor and forthrightness with an expectation of trust that you are open to ideas. All of us regular denizens of Hell can generally be characterized as better off taking it down a notch, though.

    Except fineline. She's just too mean, period. Like a vampire with a taste for the squeamish. I'm not sure what she said, but she left RuthW sobbing in the Hosts lounge.
  • That is why I daren’t criticize her, for fear she will render the pitful remnants of my soul into oblivion.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    The Hosts lounge was a Safe Space until we made fineline a host and now RooK is violating confidentiality and IT'S ALL TOO MUCH FOR ME TO BEAR.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Maybe you all need an Admins' lounge with really top flight drinks and nibbles.
  • I’ll pick up something next time I go shopping. That may be six weeks away for next haircut. All suggestions welcome for what to buyout no guarantee of purchase.
  • Burger Rings, Mai Tai mix and rum. Lots of rum.
  • Mmmhmm rum
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    RooK wrote: »
    It is human nature to project versions of our own internal motivations on the rest of the world. The very conceptualization of fineline's description of her impressions as "a well laid trap" is perhaps the most telling reflection you might get, lilbuddha. ...
    You sound outraged most of the time, lilbuddha. Even when you're probably thinking that you are being calm and moderate, it's easy to imagine you seething and pretending to be calm. ...
    Agreed, RooK. Her whole long-running diatribe in Purgatory against courtesy titles gives away her game: lilbuddha thinks that all titles are based on power and privilege, so they must be. She believes that we should all go by either first names or surnames alone (I'm not sure offhand which one she would impose on us), and she must be right. And "people" agree with her, not that she has to provide citations to the likes of us.

    And so it goes, through all the voluminous quantity of topics about which she knows more about, and has thought more about, and is far more correct about, than the rest of the Ship put together.

  • Simon Toad--

    What's a burger ring, please? Thx.
  • Re lb:

    I more or less agree with most of what Simon Toad and Rook said. I think lb, these days, is pretty much focused on getting things right, by her own lights, and communicating that--but not harshly. I think she treats people better, and writes much more calmly. She writes interesting posts.

    If we limited SOF posts to those by people who never think they're right--or Right (tm)--the Ship would be one of those semi-abandoned sites that's kinda sorta still there for people to stumble across, and wonder what happened.

    {Text available on golden tablets, as it rightly should be.}
    ;)
  • A burger ring is a kind of BBQ flavoured snack food produced on an industrial scale in this country. They are in my opinion a disgusting concoction of chemicals. I tried to think of a snack that would really not go at all with a Mai Tai, which I understand is citrussy. I did that because I enjoy being a bit perverse.
  • Re "a bit perverse":

    No, really? ;)
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    A burger ring is a kind of BBQ flavoured snack food produced on an industrial scale in this country. They are in my opinion a disgusting concoction of chemicals. I tried to think of a snack that would really not go at all with a Mai Tai, which I understand is citrussy. I did that because I enjoy being a bit perverse.
    That was downright sadistic. Someone might've actually bought some. And, (gasp) eaten them. Could you live with this on your conscience?
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Blerk - I am missing the old emojs.
  • Disgusting things, worse than Twisties or the supposedly more healthy grain type snack. I won’t be buying them or the Smith chips I see UK shipmates talking of here at times. Weird flavours for such things.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    It is human nature to project versions of our own internal motivations on the rest of the world. The very conceptualization of fineline's description of her impressions as "a well laid trap" is perhaps the most telling reflection you might get, lilbuddha. ...
    You sound outraged most of the time, lilbuddha. Even when you're probably thinking that you are being calm and moderate, it's easy to imagine you seething and pretending to be calm. ...
    Agreed, RooK. Her whole long-running diatribe in Purgatory against courtesy titles gives away her game: lilbuddha thinks that all titles are based on power and privilege, so they must be. She believes that we should all go by either first names or surnames alone (I'm not sure offhand which one she would impose on us), and she must be right. And "people" agree with her, not that she has to provide citations to the likes of us.

    Seems like a reasonable view to me.

    It's an opinion, a way of understanding the world. LB seems fairly consistent on this view, alongside others, and enters conversation on that basis.

    It's not something one can prove or disprove. One either agrees with the meta-analysis of the underlying power dynamics or not.
    And so it goes, through all the voluminous quantity of topics about which she knows more about, and has thought more about, and is far more correct about, than the rest of the Ship put together.

    You seem to be literally saying here that one should be unsure of everything and come at every issue uncontaminated by any previously worked-out positions.

    Which seems a pretty odd thing to say on a bulletin board, particularly one where the majority are coming from a faith position that relies on revealed truth.

  • If you're entering into a discussion while discounting the possibility of being wrong, it can only be to convince others of your inerrancy. This makes your participation one long ego fest, which will inevitably irritate those around you, as well as undermining the whole idea of discussion, which requires a certain porousness to the ideas of others.
  • If you're entering into a discussion while discounting the possibility of being wrong, it can only be to convince others of your inerrancy. This makes your participation one long ego fest, which will inevitably irritate those around you, as well as undermining the whole idea of discussion, which requires a certain porousness to the ideas of others.

    Not really.

    If I'm a Trotskyist (I'm not, fwiw), I might well have pretty firm understandings of Marxist theories of revolutionary history.

    I might well be interested in discussing Brexit and American politics.

    I can see that it could get irritating to have a Trot monopolising the conversation, but I don't think that's the accusation here.

    In the terms of this example, it is like lB is here being criticised for having an unmovable faith in the underlying ideas of Trotsky.

    Err. Yeah, that's what it means to be a Trotskyist.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Leave LB alone. I have been in the ship for going on 19 years now, and she is one of the most sensible and witty people in have come across. That £50 will be in my account tomorrow right LB
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    If you're entering into a discussion while discounting the possibility of being wrong, it can only be to convince others of your inerrancy. This makes your participation one long ego fest, which will inevitably irritate those around you, as well as undermining the whole idea of discussion, which requires a certain porousness to the ideas of others.

    Not really.

    If I'm a Trotskyist (I'm not, fwiw), I might well have pretty firm understandings of Marxist theories of revolutionary history.

    I might well be interested in discussing Brexit and American politics.

    I can see that it could get irritating to have a Trot monopolising the conversation, but I don't think that's the accusation here.

    In the terms of this example, it is like lB is here being criticised for having an unmovable faith in the underlying ideas of Trotsky.

    Err. Yeah, that's what it means to be a Trotskyist.

    It would be fun to have two Trots on the Ship. The peanut gallery would have a fight worth watching 24/7.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    If you're entering into a discussion while discounting the possibility of being wrong, it can only be to convince others of your inerrancy. This makes your participation one long ego fest, which will inevitably irritate those around you, as well as undermining the whole idea of discussion, which requires a certain porousness to the ideas of others.

    Not really.

    If I'm a Trotskyist (I'm not, fwiw), I might well have pretty firm understandings of Marxist theories of revolutionary history.

    I might well be interested in discussing Brexit and American politics.

    I can see that it could get irritating to have a Trot monopolising the conversation, but I don't think that's the accusation here.

    In the terms of this example, it is like lB is here being criticised for having an unmovable faith in the underlying ideas of Trotsky.

    Err. Yeah, that's what it means to be a Trotskyist.

    It would be fun to have two Trots on the Ship. The peanut gallery would have a fight worth watching 24/7.

    As far as I'm concerned you are all... er... hmmm... I'll not finish that sentence!
  • Tin-pot Hitlers are two a penny.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Leave LB alone. I have been in the ship for going on 19 years now, and she is one of the most sensible and witty people in have come across. That £50 will be in my account tomorrow right LB
    Done and done!
  • If you're entering into a discussion while discounting the possibility of being wrong, it can only be to convince others of your inerrancy. This makes your participation one long ego fest, which will inevitably irritate those around you, as well as undermining the whole idea of discussion, which requires a certain porousness to the ideas of others.
    The problem with this is discerning the difference between discussing with passion and arguing out of blind certainty.
    The determination of what is happening is often subjective. On the part of both the speaker and the listener, of course.
  • It also has something of the prisoner's dilemma about it, in that people prone to certainty will not put it aside unless everyone similarly inclined does so. One of the things that puts off entering Purgatory more. You're not the only one of course, but I do find you strident. More than two such people on a thread makes it untenable for me.

    I suppose I should admit that part of the problem is that I am consciously trying to suppress my own tendency in that direction.
  • It also has something of the prisoner's dilemma about it, in that people prone to certainty will not put it aside unless everyone similarly inclined does so. One of the things that puts off entering Purgatory more. You're not the only one of course, but I do find you strident. More than two such people on a thread makes it untenable for me.

    I suppose I should admit that part of the problem is that I am consciously trying to suppress my own tendency in that direction.
    Strident is another difficult one, though. It is very often an irregular verb. I know that for me, judging another person's tone, is often filtered through whether I agree with them or not. This is not right, and I try to combat it, but it is human nature.

    Strident is also a problem in that intent ≠ perception. I may know I wrote something in a calm tone, but if no one perceives this, then it is still my fault.

    No offence meant, but that you find me strident mean little, as we often disagree and sometimes at the core of an issue. And this will affect perception of tone.
    That fineline thinks I am being combative with her, means a lot, as we are more closely representing the same ideas.
  • I'm not conscious of our disagreeing on that much, apart from what I believe to be dangerous over reliance on a certain interpretation of identity. Much of my problem with that is that it turns human personality into a market place, introducing entirely inappropriate capitalist criteria into an arena in which they have no place. The point of saying this is simply to illustrate that many of our differences are not fundamental, and I find infuriating the fact that you seem to operate with two categories : those who agree with you on everything and those who are wrong.
  • I agree with you on the Biblical Inerrancy thread, but I have found you not quite strident at times, but definitely aggressive and derisive, and felt sorry for @MPaul facing such an onslaught (jointly, from us all). For example, as a response to MPaul, this sort of comment is likely to be counterproductive in its scornfulness:
    Jesus dude, even I can suss that one out. It is about accountability and responsibility for one's own failings.
    Free will is enough. The fall is several bridges to far for a loving, omniscient god. Now for an ignorant, sociopathic god...
    or this example:
    A reasonable intelligent being could figure out better ways to manage his creations. Instead, you have presented an explanation that is worthy of L. Ron Hubbard just after he read Mien(sic) Kampf.
  • The point of saying this is simply to illustrate that many of our differences are not fundamental, and I find infuriating the fact that you seem to operate with two categories : those who agree with you on everything and those who are wrong.
    OK, this is a misrepresentation. For one, there are few people (if there are even any) here with whom I agree about with everything. Even taking that as hyperbole and reducing that to the more important issues, this is not true.
    I'll pick on @Ruth. She is a lefty feminist so we agree on many things political. However we have argued quite strongly.
    Perhaps you mean everything on a certain topic or in a particular discussion. This one is closer, but not exactly correct either. This is a discussion site and would be rather boring (to me) if we only discussed to the first degree of agreement. To continue past this is to discuss the topic thoroughly and this will bring up smaller differences.
    Again, just how this all works or fails, is subjective.

    I will not, however, apologise for arguing passionately, nor attempting to make clear my position.
    Unfortunately, a side-effect of this is appearing cocksure. Which I am emphatically not.

    I will admit, however, of not always knowing when to stop.
  • Fair enough. I was expressing my perspective and perception. Not a huge surprise we don't agree on this point. I do think, though, that you have made my point for me.
  • On the other hand, being an internal processor who has lived far too much of his intellectual life in profound isolation, exchanges like this have a definite and mostly positive impact.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    ...You seem to be literally saying here that one should be unsure of everything and come at every issue uncontaminated by any previously worked-out positions. ...
    Not at all. What I am saying is that one should (a) be ready to support those positions, and (b) open to new information and ways of looking at things.

    But I think I'm done with lb. There's no real point in trying to have a discussion with someone who imagines that she knows everything.



  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 2019
    I agree with you on the Biblical Inerrancy thread, but I have found you not quite strident at times, but definitely aggressive and derisive, and felt sorry for @MPaul facing such an onslaught (jointly, from us all). For example, as a response to MPaul, this sort of comment is likely to be counterproductive in its scornfulness:
    Jesus dude, even I can suss that one out. It is about accountability and responsibility for one's own failings.
    Free will is enough. The fall is several bridges to far for a loving, omniscient god. Now for an ignorant, sociopathic god...
    or this example:
    A reasonable intelligent being could figure out better ways to manage his creations. Instead, you have presented an explanation that is worthy of L. Ron Hubbard just after he read Mien(sic) Kampf.
    Fair cop, it was indeed derisive of his POV and intentionally so. I do not think anything will be productive with him.
Sign In or Register to comment.