Memes and stuff

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related. No insults or personal attacks allowed. Rated G.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5486
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Binger, I'm going to take some time and chew a little on your last post. Might not respond until later tonight.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
Marcus
God
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Memes and Stuff

Post by Marcus »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 pm
Marcus wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:15 pm

:lol: yes you do. I mean that affectionately, I've known you for a while now, and controlling a conversation is about as 'you' as a description gets!


Carry on. 8-)
I think that would be a good discussion to have. I accept at face value that you mean what you said about making the statement affectionately. Other fairly superficial exchanges, I view the communication between us as completely dysfunctional. And that's weird to me because I personally like you and find you to be a smart, interesting person. I'm about 99% sure the source of the dysfunction has to do with control. I'm not making any sort of moral judgment. I'm just trying to realistically understand the mechanics of the interaction.

From my side of the conversation, claiming that you know what I intend better than I do is a pretty extreme assertion of control. Ifc I tell you my intention is X and you tell me no, your intention is ~X, aren't you saying either that I'm lying to you about my intent or that, based solely on interactions on discussion board, you understand my intentions better than I do. It's an assertion of control over the presentation of my internal thought processes, isn't it. I suppose the equivalent would be for me to have responded by saying "No you don't mean that affectionately. You intended malice."

So, why? You could have responded to "I don't intend to exclude anyone who wants to join in" any different number of ways. Why did you choose to tell me that my intent was just the opposite rather than take my expression of intent at face value? What were the informative and performative parts of that communication, do you think?
great post.
If I tell you my intention is X and you tell me no, your intention is ~X, aren't you saying either that I'm lying to you about my intent or that, based solely on interactions on discussion board, you understand my intentions better than I do.

...I suppose the equivalent would be for me to have responded by saying "No you don't mean that affectionately. You intended malice."
Actually, no, I meant that Shades' convention requires that you not disinvite anyone, but since I know your discussion style and recognized what seemed to me an intent to really follow through with a conversation, I'd (affectionately) give you an out, but gee, thanks for convolutedly 'claiming that you know' "I intended malice."

Oh wait, claiming that you know what I intend is exactly what you imply that I do, as an attempt at control. Interesting.
...I view the communication between us as completely dysfunctional...
I'm about 99% sure the source of the dysfunction has to do with control.
Oh I agree, unequivocally.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Memes and Stuff

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 pm
I'm about 99% sure the source of the dysfunction has to do with control. I'm not making any sort of moral judgment. I'm just trying to realistically understand the mechanics of the interaction.

I removed part of this conversation. I did so because I want to talk about the process here, without taking points from the details of two people's history or conversation. I want to discuss discussing. I ain't judging a darn thing about a darn person. Just discussing discussing.

I think that we all have communication issues, and sometimes they are as simple having autocorrect on our phones and email thingies. Most the time, however, the issues are anchored, cemented and mired in control. We want to control our triggered feelings and we want to control others. We get absolutely rocked by a post, or comment, or even by the lack of a post, lack of a comment or lack of moderation. We just do this to ourselves naturally. We don't even think about it. We fire those emotions like AR-15's and react. Information comes in and off we fly into the perimeter. We spin out. We lose our poo.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 pm
From my side of the conversation, claiming that you know what I intend better than I do is a pretty extreme assertion of control. If I tell you my intention is X and you tell me no, your intention is ~X, aren't you saying either that I'm lying to you about my intent or that, based solely on interactions on discussion board, you understand my intentions better than I do. It's an assertion of control over the presentation of my internal thought processes, isn't it.
What is this in the real world? Go beyond what is happening in an online forum, please.

If one of my kids came to me and said that their spouse responds to every comment claiming to know her intent better than she knows. If she asks a question, he claims to know her intent. She can't even comment on how he looks, without him applying a motive to her comments. His point is that he knows her intentions, ALWAYS, and that he know her intentions better than she knows. And if she thinks she has an intention and even says what it is, he knows she is wrong and he knows her actual intent. If that scenario were happening, I would tell her to get the hell out of there.

In the extreme form, this may be gaslighting. And it is BRUTAL. It is mean. It is controlling. I know your intent and now I will tell you what it is, now honor what I know and be what I say and do what I want. What you think is your intent is not your intent, I know! This concept in communication is outrageous, and yet, it is, in my opinion prevalent in most relationships to a degree. This is core behavior to a lot of people. They can't fathom being in a conversation or having a connection without knowing the intent of the person on the other side. They KNOW it because they FEEL it so it must be true.

Now here is the tough part of this - the person claiming they know our intent, believes they are right. They believe they know why something was said, and they convert this belief to truth. Someone believes that Dr. Shades intended to embarrass them by not removing a post from the forum. They know he wants to hurt them. They know Dr. Shades is doing it on purpose. They KNOW IT THEY KNOW IT THEY KNOW IT! In the meantime, Dr. Shades is seeing both sides and letting it ride and enjoying a lamb shawarma.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 pm
So, why? You could have responded to "I don't intend to exclude anyone who wants to join in" any different number of ways. Why did you choose to tell me that my intent was just the opposite rather than take my expression of intent at face value? What were the informative and performative parts of that communication, do you think?
This again, highlights a few key things. Res points out that there is a response that does not manipulate or control. It may involve curiosity or awareness. Where the manipulation and hyper conscientiousness of the almighty knowing is the extreme controlling condition, dialing back and asking for clarification is the metered response. When faced with that controlling and manipulative position of someone knowing our intentions we can punch them right in the mouth (aggression), pull the same stunt back at them and manipulate (victimization), just give up and let them win (submission), or bro it out bro (imitation). Responding without our own extreme reaction is more better.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5486
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Marcus,

OK, I'm not understanding a couple things you said, so I'm going to add some context and ask you to clarify:

First interaction:

Res: "I don't intend to exclude anyone who wants to join in."

Marcus: ":lol: yes you do. I mean that affectionately, I've known you on this board for a while now, and controlling a conversation is about as 'you' as a description gets!"

Res: "If I tell you my intention is X and you tell me no, your intention is ~X, aren't you saying either that I'm lying to you about my intent or that, based solely on interactions on discussion board, you understand my intentions better than I do."

Marcus: "Actually, no, I meant that Shades' convention requires that you not disinvite anyone, but since I know your discussion style and recognized what seemed to me an intent to really follow through with a conversation, I'd (affectionately) give you an out..."

(I've omitted portions that I don't think are relevant to the interaction, but if I'm wrong, please add anything relevant that I've omitted.)

I do not understand that last response. It is true that the rules prohibit disinviting anyone, but I don't understand the relevance of that to my actual intention when I posted the first line above. And it's absolutely true that, when advocating for a position in an argument, I will attempt to exercise control over certain aspects of the conversation. Occupational hazard. 80% of persuading a judge involves controlling how the issue is framed.

But I do consciously vary my style depending on what I'm interested in. And since I'm acutely aware that control is going to be a central issue in the back and forth between Binger and I, I'm paying attention to the control issues. And given the control dynamics in our past conversations, I wanted to expressly communicate to you that I had no intent to try and exercise any control over who participates in the conversation. So, when I said that I don't intend to exclude anyone and the response from you is "LOL. Yes you do" I experienced that as a complete failure of communication combined with a pretty aggressive control move.

Also, I literally do not understand this phrase: "I ... recognized what seemed to me an intent to really follow through with a conversation." Can you point me to the portion of our interaction that caused you "recognize" some kind of intent? And are you saying that you understood that I intended to really follow through with a conversation before you posted "yes you do?" Or is there a word or two missing. I'm sincerely puzzled.

Finally, If that last response was intended to give me an out, I didn't understand that at all. I understood it as an absolute denial of my statement of my intention. Which part of the sentence did you intend to be an out? Again, puzzled.

Second interaction:

Res: I accept at face value that you mean what you said about making the statement affectionately.

Also Res: From my side of the conversation, claiming that you know what I intend better than I do is a pretty extreme assertion of control. Ifc [sic] I tell you my intention is X and you tell me no, your intention is ~X, aren't you saying either that I'm lying to you about my intent or that, based solely on interactions on discussion board, you understand my intentions better than I do. It's an assertion of control over the presentation of my internal thought processes, isn't it. I suppose the equivalent would be for me to have responded by saying "No you don't mean that affectionately. You intended malice."

Marcus: but gee, thanks for convolutedly 'claiming that you know' "I intended malice."

I think this is a great example of the point at which communication fails between us. From my side of the conversation, I expressly stated that I accepted your description of your intent. I said it because I accepted it at the time and I'll reaffirm what I said because I still accept it right now. Then, when describing my reaction to your statement, I made an analogy to encourage you to put yourself in my shoes. I used the subjunctive to communicate that I was describing a hypothetical example, and not my actual response (which I had already given you). That's why the quoted portion is preceded by: "I suppose the equivalent would be for me to have responded by saying ..."

If I understand the substance of your response correctly, you interpreted my words as saying: "Marcus, I know that you intended malice."

I am completely baffled as to how you got from my actual words to "I know that you intended malice." My intent in posing the hypothetical was nothing more than "put yourself in my place" or "walk a mile in my shoes," but what you understood was almost the compete opposite of what I intended to communicate. It's a complete mess in terms of communication. So how and why did it happen?

I agree with you what you understood me as saying is "convoluted." Applying my discussion with Binger here, language necessarily involves some ambiguity, which requires us to make some choices about how to interpret others' words. As an example: You stated that you were making a comment a affectionately. I could choose to interpret your remark as sincere. I could choose to interpret your remark as ironic. I could choose to interpret your remark as insincere and malicious. Given that we don't have audible or visual cues from each other, the range of possible interpretations is huge. I chose to communicate that I understood your description as sincere. Why? Because I have no reason to dispute your description of your own intent. In terms of control, I have no reason to try to control your portray of yourself. In addition, given my belief that the source of our dysfunctional communication has something to do with control, it would be unproductive for me to try to exercise control over the performative aspects of your communications.

So, what did I say in our interaction that led you to conclude that what I intended as a hypothetical to elicit empathy was actually an assertion that I knew your actual intent and the intent was malicious? If you were to take me at my word -- that I intended to pose a hypothetical to encourage you to see things from my position, how could I have worded it so that you would led to understand my words as I intended them to be understood?

This part I'd like to put a pin in and come back to:

Marcus: "Oh wait, claiming that you know what I intend is exactly what you imply that I do, as an attempt at control. Interesting."
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Memes and Stuff

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:06 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 pm


I think that would be a good discussion to have. I accept at face value that you mean what you said about making the statement affectionately. Other fairly superficial exchanges, I view the communication between us as completely dysfunctional. And that's weird to me because I personally like you and find you to be a smart, interesting person. I'm about 99% sure the source of the dysfunction has to do with control. I'm not making any sort of moral judgment. I'm just trying to realistically understand the mechanics of the interaction.

From my side of the conversation, claiming that you know what I intend better than I do is a pretty extreme assertion of control. Ifc I tell you my intention is X and you tell me no, your intention is ~X, aren't you saying either that I'm lying to you about my intent or that, based solely on interactions on discussion board, you understand my intentions better than I do. It's an assertion of control over the presentation of my internal thought processes, isn't it. I suppose the equivalent would be for me to have responded by saying "No you don't mean that affectionately. You intended malice."

So, why? You could have responded to "I don't intend to exclude anyone who wants to join in" any different number of ways. Why did you choose to tell me that my intent was just the opposite rather than take my expression of intent at face value? What were the informative and performative parts of that communication, do you think?
great post.
If I tell you my intention is X and you tell me no, your intention is ~X, aren't you saying either that I'm lying to you about my intent or that, based solely on interactions on discussion board, you understand my intentions better than I do.

...I suppose the equivalent would be for me to have responded by saying "No you don't mean that affectionately. You intended malice."
Actually, no, I meant that Shades' convention requires that you not disinvite anyone, but since I know your discussion style and recognized what seemed to me an intent to really follow through with a conversation, I'd (affectionately) give you an out, but gee, thanks for convolutedly 'claiming that you know' "I intended malice."

Oh wait, claiming that you know what I intend is exactly what you imply that I do, as an attempt at control. Interesting.
...I view the communication between us as completely dysfunctional...
I'm about 99% sure the source of the dysfunction has to do with control.
Oh I agree, unequivocally.
I don’t know if RI has the wiring to admit what you’re saying is factual. He’ll spend 10,000 words arguing his case, carefully framing the conversation to box acceptable discussion points or parameters, or at best feel burned out and take a few days off when someone gets his goat. RI, this isn’t meant as an insult, nor is it meant to change your behavior, it’s just meant to provide an outside perspective to your discussion style. The control is 100% coming from your end and I think you’re kind of aware of it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re ‘noseblind’ to it. Heres the thing, though. Sometimes it’s just better to own who and what you are - I’ve been told many times I’m an asshole, and I am. I’m also a other attributes, but an asshole is definitely one of them. So, take it in that vein. You’re not a “controlling person”, but control certainly factors into your discussion style. I don’t even know if it’s anything to improve upon, To be honest. I just think it’s your communication narrative.

eta: I was crafting this post as RI was posting his response to Marcus above. Make of that what you will.

- Doc
1. Speech is aggression.
2. Every utterance has a winner or a loser.
3. Curiosity is feigned.
4. Lying is performative.
5. Stupidity is power.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:55 pm
"Oh wait, claiming that you know what I intend is exactly what you imply that I do, as an attempt at control. Interesting."
Names removed. I will say it again, I am agnostic on the names here, I am discussing discussing, and I love it! I know that this was designated for a pin. I am ready to rock and roll with this one. Forgiveness wanted in advance.

This expression, as a form of communication is absolutely impossible to work with. It is basically this: I am doing what I am accusing you of doing and I am doing it better so I am in control. This position is an effective shutdown of communication and logic. This response, online or within a personal or family relationship is devastating.

Many of us may have had a friend as a kid who did not get along with their parent at all. There was a level of distrust that was crippling. Jersey Girl has made comments about childhood developments that play out in adults. Communication is certainly one of those developments. Trust too. Trust issues, I think is the word they use these days.

Imagine being told as a kid, by an adult, that they knew what your intent was and that was that. If the kid is told his intent was to spill milk, but his intent was actually to not miss the bus..... that kid will lose ALL trust and that adult will lose ALL credibility. And the chaos will ensue. When we imply that we know someone's intent, and we are wrong, we lose. We may win the conversation. In fact, we will most often win the conversation, but we have lost connection entirely.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Memes and Stuff

Post by Binger »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:01 am
I’ve been told many times I’m an asshole, and I am. I’m also a other attributes, but an asshole is definitely one of them. So, take it in that vein. You’re not a “controlling person”, but control certainly factors into your discussion style. I don’t even know if it’s anything to improve upon, To be honest. I just think it’s your communication narrative.


- Doc
Me too. Definitely an asshole. No question about it. And it is a part of me. It is just a part me. But there is no reason to debate this at all, really.

When triggered particularly, I go to shameless selfishness. No, question, about it.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5486
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Memes and Stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:01 am
Marcus wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:06 pm


great post.

Actually, no, I meant that Shades' convention requires that you not disinvite anyone, but since I know your discussion style and recognized what seemed to me an intent to really follow through with a conversation, I'd (affectionately) give you an out, but gee, thanks for convolutedly 'claiming that you know' "I intended malice."

Oh wait, claiming that you know what I intend is exactly what you imply that I do, as an attempt at control. Interesting.

Oh I agree, unequivocally.
I don’t know if RI has the wiring to admit what you’re saying is factual. He’ll spend 10,000 words arguing his case, carefully framing the conversation to box acceptable discussion points or parameters, or at best feel burned out and take a few days off when someone gets his goat. RI, this isn’t meant as an insult, nor is it meant to change your behavior, it’s just meant to provide an outside perspective to your discussion style. The control is 100% coming from your end and I think you’re kind of aware of it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re ‘noseblind’ to it. Heres the thing, though. Sometimes it’s just better to own who and what you are - I’ve been told many times I’m an asshole, and I am. I’m also a other attributes, but an asshole is definitely one of them. So, take it in that vein. You’re not a “controlling person”, but control certainly factors into your discussion style. I don’t even know if it’s anything to improve upon, To be honest. I just think it’s your communication narrative.

eta: I was crafting this post as RI was posting his response to Marcus above. Make of that what you will.

- Doc
I'm not arguing a case, Doc. I've identified a communication problem that both Marcus and I recognize exists and I'm trying to understand the dynamics of how that happens and see it can be avoided in the future. I'm not taking anything you say as insulting, and observations are helpful to me. As I acknowledged in my last response to Marcus, when pursuing an argument I deliberately try to exercise control to my advantage. I'll also cop to being wordy. I don't think it's a secret that I view most interesting issues as being complicated, and it takes me lots of words to explain what I think about complicated issues.

But I'm not always pursuing an argument when I post. Sometimes I'm just trying to understand stuff. Which is what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to be pretty scrupulous about not controlling anything other than my own words. But it's perfectly plausible that I don't recognize my own controlling behavior when I see it. So, would you be willing to specifically identify anything I've said in this thread that you interpret as controlling? I recognize when I'm consciously doing it. I'd like to learn to recognize it when I'm trying not to do it.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
Marcus
God
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Memes and Stuff

Post by Marcus »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:01 am
Marcus wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:06 pm

great post.

Actually, no, I meant that Shades' convention requires that you not disinvite anyone, but since I know your discussion style and recognized what seemed to me an intent to really follow through with a conversation, I'd (affectionately) give you an out, but gee, thanks for convolutedly 'claiming that you know' "I intended malice."

Oh wait, claiming that you know what I intend is exactly what you imply that I do, as an attempt at control. Interesting.

Oh I agree, unequivocally.
I don’t know if RI has the wiring to admit what you’re saying is factual. He’ll spend 10,000 words arguing his case, carefully framing the conversation to box acceptable discussion points or parameters, or at best feel burned out and take a few days off when someone gets his goat.
Don't I know it. :roll: My mistake. I try to not respond to him for that very reason, but it's not that big of a forum and I get interested in a topic, or I think I've crafted a neutral enough of a response that I can participate and even respond in a thread he's in, but.... it never works. :roll:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:01 am

RI, this isn’t meant as an insult, nor is it meant to change your behavior, it’s just meant to provide an outside perspective to your discussion style. The control is 100% coming from your end and I think you’re kind of aware of it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re ‘noseblind’ to it. Heres the thing, though. Sometimes it’s just better to own who and what you are - I’ve been told many times I’m an asshole, and I am. I’m also a other attributes, but an asshole is definitely one of them. So, take it in that vein. You’re not a “controlling person”, but control certainly factors into your discussion style. I don’t even know if it’s anything to improve upon, To be honest. I just think it’s your communication narrative.

eta: I was crafting this post as RI was posting his response to Marcus above. Make of that what you will.

- Doc
Yea, that's a pretty straightforward assessment, in my opinion. My best strategy is always just to stop cold when he starts his massively long-winded asides to me 'about' me, for 1) the reasons you articulated above, and 2) for my personal situation, and 3) because he's a moderator. It's a no-win situation and I know it, but I keep optimistically forgetting. :evil: anyway, that's my intent now- I'll be reading because it's an interesting exchange to watch but I will not be further participating in this thread.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Memes and Stuff

Post by Binger »

These are the conditions as he feels it:
for 1) the reasons you articulated above, and 2) for my personal situation, and 3) because he's a moderator. It's a no-win situation and I know it,
This is his reaction:
I'll be reading because it's an interesting exchange to watch but I will not be further participating in this thread.
This conversation is the trigger and the reaction we see here is to state one's grievances and bail. Anyone who has invested any amount of time or effort into a forum has certainly been in this situation. God knows I have.

This has all the motivations and priorities of a victimized dick. Again, that is not a pejorative or an insult. This is about him, his feelings, his experience, his status below the moderator. We are not maligning any of it, it just is what it is. It is about his personal situation. The priority here is him. Selfish. No problem at all with that. This is about him, he has a grievance with another poster so he is out of here. Goodbye.

This too is a form of control. Maybe he wants us to change the tone or maybe he does not want Res to be a moderator. Maybe he just wants us to grovel and beg him to stay. Hell, we have no idea. But this is communication by pouting and victimization to influence or control. No big deal.

We pointed this out before. In the extreme, this combination of selfishness and conscientiousness can be damn mean. In this case, it is just a breakdown or termination of communication, and the forum goes on. No big deal here. In real life, when we pull this stunt and pout and withdraw and refuse to communicate or engage because it is not going our way, well, that is a bigger deal.

Has anyone read, for amusement and S&G's or otherwise, Men are from Mars Women are from Venus? It is cringe crap bad. But this pulling away and withdrawing is a big part of the man's story in that book. The man gets to go away, to his cave, with his misunderstood grievances, and woman must wait it out and know he is misunderstood. Feels gross just typing that out.
Post Reply