« first day (2968 days earlier)      last day (1966 days later) » 

TRiG
TRiG
00:11
@El'endiaStarman The Oa number system is very closely based on Irish.
fredsbend
fredsbend
00:22
@TRiG March 2013. I must say, there ought to be a badge or something.
TRiG
TRiG
@fredsbend If there was, I'd own it.
Peter Turner
Peter Turner
@fredsbend Ha, that one went totally over my head, I confess I only searched for pronoun. I thought I found a treasure trove, but there were a lot of "pronouncements" (windows doesn't grep -w very well). I was doing some perl scripts to help with the Chesterton digital library a few years ago so I've got a nearly Dale Alhquist level amount of Chesterton on my computer.
fredsbend
fredsbend
@TRiG Should just be called the TRiG.
 
4 hours later…
Peter Turner
Peter Turner
04:15
I HAVE the greatest respect for American slang so long as it is really slang. In so far as it is that normal popular habit of taking liberties with language, I think it is one of the most precious of that limited number of liberties which American citizens still have left. In so far as it is what is commonly called vulgar, I fully recognise that it is also vivid; it is full of pictures, like all popular traditions. For in every age the populace has been on the side of the image-makers and against the image-breakers. An image like that presented by the word "highbrow" is something that …
> G.K.'s WEEKLY, MAY 9, 1931 , Straws in the Wind, THE WORST SLANG
Feeds
Feeds
04:39
Peter Turner has stopped a feed from being posted into this room
 
6 hours later…
Caleb
Caleb
10:45
@Mr.Bultitude I don't think I'd classify is at blatant bad faith at this point. They've been nuking whole comment threads as soon as a few comments at the end get off topic. I honestly do thing there is a systemic bias at this point to what they want to be seen and what they don't because they have already decided how they want this to shake down.
In other words I think they are just as happy to see my reasoning removed but they are just doing that by letting them be collateral damage, not by singling me out.
 
2 hours later…
KorvinStarmast
KorvinStarmast
12:20
@fredsbend I think you will find this NPR podcast interesting. I heard it on the radio this morning.
The exam question in the era of outrage, and people retreating to their own echo chambers (I've been seeing this on internet forums for over a decade, this is not a new phenomenon) is "when the volume is turned up to 11 on everything (due to outrage) how do you separate the signal from the noise?" It's a question well asked.
@fredsbend There was a really good article about that in november 2018, Economist, under the Lexington editorial page. About why "voting against the other side" has become the default more than "voting for our side" ... it began for me with Al Gore. That's on the national stage. State and local I tend to vote for whom as I have a better idea who I am dealing with; my votes state and local are all over the map. (And yes, I supported Kinky Friedman for governor in 2006)
 
2 hours later…
fredsbend
fredsbend
14:58
@Mr.Bultitude From the Ministry of Truth. mobile.twitter.com/grozadarius/status/922495699895377922
Of course, to be more relatable today, you can use the image of the apple or the banana and "inform" it's a flipernic, or a gibanon, or a toofnah.
Mr. Bultitude
Mr. Bultitude
15:18
@Caleb Ah I see. I didn't read your original statement carefully enough. I thought you were saying that they were deliberately leaving up confrontational and caricuraturish comments from our side, while taking down more measured responses, in order to give a false impression of what our side is like. That was my mistake. What they're actually doing may not be malicious, but like you say, it's still not a good sign of how things will play out.
@fredsbend That's pretty funny.
Caleb
Caleb
15:51
@Mr.Bultitude Somewhere between those two things. One instance would be original thread including my highly upvoted comment suggesting a less confrontational approach to the substance of Ian's answer that was deleted, the answer itself was left and the second batch of comments it accrued were much more muddled than the first thread.
Another example would be where I replied to a post that does caricaturize my position to help clear the air and set the record straight (>+50 upvotes comment series), and after a couple back and forths the OP actually agreed he'd been unfair. Of course the post didn't get edited, the only record was comments, and the whole thread got nuked, leaving the original post in it's original state.
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
16:12
@Caleb You responding to Squeamish Ossifrage?
Caleb
Caleb
16:25
@Nathaniel No, a much earlier interaction with a different set of participants.
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
@Caleb Sorry, I mean the latest comment on my answer; I'm typing up a response but didn't want to both type the same thing :)
Caleb
Caleb
Oh hadn't seen that yet. Go for it.
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
16:53
@SqueamishOssifrage I am morally obligated to continuously improve in how I relate to all people, and where I perceive myself to be weak, I need to devote additional attention. Categorical shunning is never on the table, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. My point in the answer is that if SE mandates how people address others, and allows no alternatives (like use names instead of pronouns, recast to avoid pronouns, or simply not respond), that is a positive requirement that for some will involve a violation of conscience or principle. I'm not enforcing that. — Nathaniel 2 mins ago
hopefully that doesn't stir the pot too much
 
2 hours later…
fredsbend
fredsbend
18:41
@Caleb If meta is for discussion deleting any comments except the wildly inappropriate is an exercise in dysfunction. I hate when meta comments are curated.
Anyway, I'm considering the following post for meta SE. Some feedback, or suggestions for a different tact, whatever:
Title: Is intentional villainization of opposing ideas "unkind"?
Body: I'm trying to determine if repeated and intentional mischaracterization of an idea such that holders of that idea are considered villainous should be flagged as unkind.

For example:

> one of the sides in question is literally the intolerance of the other side's existence

> [sarcastic tone] We totally should consider both sides all the time. And stick up for those who want to deny existence to people

> There is nothing to be respected about the idea that LGBTQI+ are not truly people, do not have individual personalities
It's not complete, obviously, but I think you see where I'm going.
House much should I try to elucidate the actual argument is that gender is not a thing as they define it? And that there is no claim for a loss of personhood by disagreeing with that position?
How much should I try to elucidate the actual argument is that gender is not a thing as they define it? And that there is no claim for a loss of personhood by disagreeing with that position?
And that it really is just about mandating speech over requiring polite interaction?
I started copy pasting comments before I decided to save the links too. I have the links in html comments, because I was to focus the discussion on the general idea, not any individual comment.
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
Are you sure it's intentional, or could it be less malicious?
I strongly suspect that the main answer will boil down to "It's still bigotry even if you say it isn't, so it's not a mischaracterization"
 
2 hours later…
TRiG
TRiG
20:32
Some people do try to define their bigotry out of existence by sophistry.
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
Huh. Apparently one way to define "bigot" is "a person who is obstinately [...] devoted to his or her own opinions [...]". What does "obstinately" mean? Well, one possibility is "stubbornly adhering to an opinion [...] in spite of [...] arguments [...]".
So pulling it together, a "bigot" may be fairly defined to include one who "stubbornly adheres to his or her devotion to his or her own opinion, in spite of arguments".
it's almost as if the word is meaningless...
fredsbend
fredsbend
21:22
@Nathaniel That's what I want to test. SE usership's opinion on that.
@Nathaniel I think at best, it's willing ignorance. A refusal to concede that no one has said these things.
@TRiG We don't agree gender, as you define it, is a thing. Please point out my bigotry.
You did recognize that last one, right?
@Nathaniel Yeah, there's apparently no charity here that one's arguments can be unconvincing to some people.
For me, I've not been convinced that gender, a thing within your person, a thing you can find through introspection, is more than new age style nonsense.
Believe it if you want, but stop trying to change words and make me use them so that I sound like I agree with you on the issue. I don't agree.
I refuse to play these games. For now, I say "trans person", because it doesn't offend anyone yet. Ionically it does make me look like I am denying their personhood.
Good job. Apparently I'm playing right into your hands. This is obviously a game in which you are far more skilled.
I posted more along these thought lines in the chat under Caleb's resignation post.
Peter Turner
Peter Turner
21:53
> We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end
> - G.K. Chesterton, PARTIAL AND IMPARTIAL JURORS, April 20, 1907
> The bigot is not the man who thinks his opponent mistaken. The bigot is the man who will _not_ think him mistaken.
> G.K. Chesterton, THE STYLE OF THE FANATIC, March 7, 1925
> There are two kinds of peacemakers peculiar to or at least prominent in the modern world; and they are both, though in various ways, a nuisance. The first peacemaker is the man who goes about saying that he agrees with everybody. He confuses everybody.
> The second peacemaker is the man who goes about saying that everybody agrees with him. He enrages everybody. Between the two of them they produce a hundred times more disputes and distractions than we poor pugnacious people would ever have thought of in our lives. For there is something very irritating to any free man about that particular kind of comprehensiveness. The exclusive bigot is far better than the inclusive bigot.
> G.K. Chesterton, PLAIN-SPEAKING IN ELECTIONS; ART AND ARTISTS, January 20, 1906
> PATRICIA: And what are we to do with Morris? I - I believe you now, my dear. But he - he will never believe.
> CONJURER: There is no bigot like the atheist. I must think
> G.K. Chesterton, Magic, Act III
@fredsbend How do you (all) feel about chat migration on meta comments? I've only done it once on meta - I wasn't sure if it was a good idea - it was mainly to deescalate while not censoring.
^^ Top searches for "bigot" in my chesterton repo. There's A LOT more, but he's talking about people no one knows who have been dead for a hundred years.
The context around the second one is really key. I'll post it in it's entirety if anybody cares to read it.
TRiG
TRiG
22:35
@fredsbend Why does this matter to you?
And does it concern you at all that people who've spent far longer thinking about this than you ever will disagree?
fredsbend
fredsbend
@TRiG It didn't concern me at all until you 1) demanded I agree with you, 2) characterized my disagreement as "hate", 3) mandated that my speech coincide with your beliefs.
I really don't care, but even my apathy is offensive, as I'm to be a good "ally".
We're always not doing enough to be "welcoming and inclusive".
Remember like 10 years ago when no one cared? Then you wanted us all to care? And now you're complaining that we care?
2
 
1 hour later…
fredsbend
fredsbend
23:43
@PeterTurner If it's gone on enough for the auto message to suggest chat, then I favor mod migration. I understand the pragmatism in not reading all chat messages, then migrating accordingly, so I'm fine with it all going to a single bin. But I do get bothered if some comments, usually in the first few, ones that point out specific issues with a post (logic, contrast other policies, etc.), get deleted with the rest. I'd rather those stay as long as they still apply.
TRiG
TRiG
@fredsbend I've had rows about trans issues in this chat room before.

« first day (2968 days earlier)      last day (1966 days later) »