Let's put lilbuddha in charge

15681011

Comments

  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Well, when your Very Own Hell Thread has been taken over by people wrestling (we hope it's wrestling) in tepid jelly...
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Would you rather wrestle in tepid jelly or have a debate with lilbuddha?
  • I’d wrestle in hot dish.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Would you rather wrestle in tepid jelly or have a debate with lilbuddha?

    Tough call ...
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Choice between wrestling in jelly and trying to nail it to the ceiling.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Though, I will rebut the sexist accusation.

    OK, @lilbuddha, let's look at that. I said:
    None of which has any relevance to the legitimacy of a particular gender-identifying group to discuss societal struggles associated with that gender identity. To even suggest such a thing is, by elemental definition, sexist.

    For the slow of thinking, I'm accusing as sexist any denunciations of legitimacy of conversations of a particular gender identity about said gender identity.

    If that is not what you are doing, then congratulations, my accusation doesn't apply to you. And further congratulations on your gradual enlightenment.

    If, however, you do mean to assert (as you can seem to be) that a particular gender/race should not need (or be allowed) to have discussions about the issues that might be specific to their gender/race, then you are indeed a sexist/racist cake with ironic icing.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Would you rather wrestle in tepid jelly or have a debate with lilbuddha?
    I’d wrestle in hot dish.

    Come to Australia. We can offer you 2 dishes to wrestle in.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Oh, orfeo, don't. It's too heart-breaking.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    (Sorry -- good to see you again, btw.)
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The question isn’t whether a gun ever stopped something bad, but what is the overall effectiveness vs the dangers.
    Kinda feel that the danger significantly overshadows the benefit.
    For every scared burglar, how many dead family members?

    The statistics seem to say that there are more accidental shootings than "saved by the gun" incidents. Many people are of the opinion that most of the accidental shootings are caused by people being far more careless with their guns than they would ever be, and so the statistics don't apply to them.

    Perhaps that is true, or perhaps this is a bit like everyone being an above average driver...
    Yeah, Everyone is an idiot except me. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking perpetuates problems.

    By "this sort of thinking" she means "disagreeing with me." We see this in every thread she infests inhabits.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Would you rather wrestle in tepid jelly or have a debate with lilbuddha?
    I’d wrestle in hot dish.

    Come to Australia. We can offer you 2 dishes to wrestle in.

    Heh. I'm feeling very popular--several denominations and now two continents want their hands on me!
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The question isn’t whether a gun ever stopped something bad, but what is the overall effectiveness vs the dangers.
    Kinda feel that the danger significantly overshadows the benefit.
    For every scared burglar, how many dead family members?

    The statistics seem to say that there are more accidental shootings than "saved by the gun" incidents. Many people are of the opinion that most of the accidental shootings are caused by people being far more careless with their guns than they would ever be, and so the statistics don't apply to them.

    Perhaps that is true, or perhaps this is a bit like everyone being an above average driver...
    Yeah, Everyone is an idiot except me. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking perpetuates problems.

    By "this sort of thinking" she means "disagreeing with me." We see this in every thread she infests inhabits.
    Yeah. She just told me that I should have allowed myself to be raped rather than pull a gun (just to cock it, so that the perp ran away) on the man who broke into my apartment years ago, because of all the "gunshot children." There's something wrong with a person who can't admit she might just possibly be wrong in such a circumstance.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    I cannot lie, in my mind's eye I am currently swinging a frying pan at a head with extreme force.
  • Inquiring minds would like to know more.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Read the "Fucking Guns" thread and you will see the frying pan in verbal form.
  • If there isn't a cartoon *spang*, I'm getting my money back.
  • Thank you. I wasn't following that thread.
  • Would that be a cast iron creuset or alumnum tfal nonstick? One will split a skull the other is barely substantial enough to crack an egg against.

    AFF
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    If there isn't a cartoon *spang*, I'm getting my money back.
    I think there could be argument about whether *spang* is the correct word for a cartoon frying pan hitting a cartoon person in the noggin. Twang seems equally believable, splutz if the brains splatter like pudding, boing if the pan bounces from the skull. I'm sure there are others.
  • Boing is more likely. I don't think it's making any impact.
  • From the Gun thread:
    orfeo wrote: »
    I mean, finally in the rest of that post you started reflecting what I've been trying to tell you for days, only you frame it as telling me something I don't know!
    Can those of us who identify with this experience form a club?

    (It might be a large one...)
  • You're already standing in it, right here in this thread. Do keep up.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Boing is more likely. I don't think it's making any impact.

    Not even a boing. Too much ducking going on.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    @lilbuddha 's ferocious grip on technicalities as a means to feel right, in the face of not wanting to face how she offended people who technically agree with her, is hard not to diagnose in psychological terms.

    The empathy part seems key. The fact that there is an overarching logical conclusion does not un-create the existence of legitimate feelings regarding safety that should be discussed. Unless, of course, feelings of others don't exist for you.
  • We don't do medical diagnoses over the internet here. Even, I think, sarcastically.

    DT
    (still) HH
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    Would that be a cast iron creuset or alumnum tfal nonstick? One will split a skull the other is barely substantial enough to crack an egg against.

    AFF
    Le Crueset, definitely. A case this hard needs something substantial to crack it.

  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited January 23
    My God, what a nasty piece of work. Just totally insulated from any criticism, and as sure of her rightness in any and all situations as a 1968 IBM mainframe, but with only a tithe of the processing power. And betrays absolutely no, I mean no, I mean FUCKING NO indication of any human feeling at all. Maybe she's a bot. Compassion level is zilch.
  • She’s reacting pretty normally to the level and volume of vitriol being directed at her.
  • She’s reacting pretty normally to the level and volume of vitriol being directed at her.

    She could put an end to it really quickly by apologizing to Ross.
  • Did you read the link I posted above ?
  • We've been asked not to psychologize.
  • Bùt lots of people are psychologizing.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Did you read the link I posted above ?

    Yebbut, yebbut… LB’s sense of rejection, if she has one, didn’t spring out of nowhere. She consistently posts in a way that gets up the noses of a large group of generally patient and tolerant people, and she doubles down when they tell her they don’t like it. If she feels rejected by the group, there’s a reason, and her own behaviour is at least a part of it.
  • Let's not rule out it existing for reasons beyond the Ship.

    I recall a one-week training course I went on where one guy appeared to be determined to be the group's scapegoat right from day one.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Let's not rule out it existing for reasons beyond the Ship.

    I recall a one-week training course I went on where one guy appeared to be determined to be the group's scapegoat right from day one.

    At the same time, groups often select scapegoats as useful toilets in which to dump their bad feelings, and yes, the scapegoat also chooses this role. Everybody's happy!
  • Changing that dynamic requires goodwill and change by both parties. If you scroll back to here, you'll see that I offered some constructive ways forward to @lilbuddha. These got nowhere. And almost a year on, we've still got nowhere.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Changing that dynamic requires goodwill and change by both parties. If you scroll back to here, you'll see that I offered some constructive ways forward to @lilbuddha. These got nowhere. And almost a year on, we've still got nowhere.

    It depends on good will, and also on whether people are enjoying it too much. Scapegoats are like trolls, every forum needs a couple.
  • I don't enjoy this behaviour by @lilbuddha, even perversely. It's destructive and self-destructive: c.f. Agrajag.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    We've been asked not to psychologize.

    We were asked not to give clinical diagnoses, which I wasn't. I was highlighting that basically - if you go full attack dog at someone and give them no face saving options, it is unlikely you will get the result you are looking for. And the fact that this is so, is common to how humans work, rather than some exotic lb deficit.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I don't enjoy this behaviour by @lilbuddha, even perversely. It's destructive and self-destructive: c.f. Agrajag.
    Agreed. Lilbuddha has a lot going for her; she's intelligent and well-read, and sometimes she makes a really good point. If she cared to, she could add a lot to the discussions here. But Eutychus and Ohher are not making up the problems with her posting style, which are massive and ubiquitous. No one likes to admit to being wrong, but sometimes it's just necessary.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    We've been asked not to psychologize.

    We were asked not to give clinical diagnoses, which I wasn't. I was highlighting that basically - if you go full attack dog at someone and give them no face saving options, it is unlikely you will get the result you are looking for. And the fact that this is so, is common to how humans work, rather than some exotic lb deficit.

    I am not sure what is worse: dogpiling, or offering this kind of analysis of a person's behaviour as if they are not present and cannot read it (i.e. acting as if they are not present when they actually are). Personally, I would hate either.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    mousethief wrote: »
    We've been asked not to psychologize.

    We were asked not to give clinical diagnoses, which I wasn't. I was highlighting that basically - if you go full attack dog at someone and give them no face saving options, it is unlikely you will get the result you are looking for. And the fact that this is so, is common to how humans work, rather than some exotic lb deficit.

    I am not sure what is worse: dogpiling, or offering this kind of analysis of a person's behaviour as if they are not present and cannot read it (i.e. acting as if they are not present when they actually are). Personally, I would hate either.

    That's an interesting projection.
    I very much wanted to @lilbuddha to consider the reflection of how her posts appear, and Doublethink is quite obviously doing the opposite of dogpiling. Or am I reading you wrong?
  • You are. This isn't about you at all. Hush - no tears.

    Doublethink is definitely not dogpiling, I see what she is doing as psychoanalysing. And doing so as if lb is not here. Which, as I said, I would hate. As I would hate being under a dogpile. But dogpiling is what we do here, and if I had to chose between honest hostility and faux psychobabble, I would prefer the former every time.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 24
    Psychoanalysis and asking people to consider how people, generic everybody, actually think; are not the same thing.

    If you read this thread, you will see people saying extremely vicious things to lb - far more offensive, I would argue, than what she said to Ross - and doing so repeatedly. Their apparent justification for doing this is not 'venting', it is ostensibly some kind of belief it will make lb behave the way they want her to. I was pointing to the fact that it is highly unlikely to do so. And if it won't, how do you justify speaking to someone that way - exactly which bit of the moral high ground do you think you are standing on.

    What lb said was crass, but what has now been said to her repeatedly seems to me to have become, over time, worse than that.
  • Yes, it's not psychoanalysis. I also agree about the viciousness. It's the internet, scapegoats, self-righteousness, blah blah.
  • You're right: comparing frisbee throwing keepy off (I am glad that shrinks were on hand to tell us that rejection is painful, otherwise how would we ever know?) and dogpiling in an online thread does not constitute psychoanalysis. My mistake. "Nonsense" might be a better characterisation. As for "no face saving options" - you know none of us are coerced into being here, right? Apologising does tend to release the pressure valve, or just leaving for a bit tends to have the same effect.

    And scapegoating is not the only pattern on display - whenever there is a dogpile down here, there seems to be a contingent of bystanders wringing their hands and moaning "Good God, what have we done?" It never gets old.
  • Yes, that's probably correct. You could outline an archetypal drama here with scapegoats, angry victims, resistant stoics, vehement accusers, pearl clutchers, and so on. I assume most people are getting their rocks off somehow or other, so that's OK.
  • You do realise that if that's true, by virtue of repeatedly posting here, you're part of that merry cast?
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    You do realise that if that's true, by virtue of repeatedly posting here, you're part of that merry cast?

    Yes, I was going to cite myself as a pearl clutcher. I like to belong.
Sign In or Register to comment.