Re: Memes and stuff
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:50 pm
Binger, I'm going to take some time and chew a little on your last post. Might not respond until later tonight.
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
great post.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 pmI 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?
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."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."
Oh I agree, unequivocally....I view the communication between us as completely dysfunctional...
I'm about 99% sure the source of the dysfunction has to do with control.
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.
What is this in the real world? Go beyond what is happening in an online forum, please.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 pmFrom 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.
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 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 pmSo, 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?
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.Marcus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:06 pmgreat post.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?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."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."
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 view the communication between us as completely dysfunctional...
I'm about 99% sure the source of the dysfunction has to do with control.
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.
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.Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:01 amI’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
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.Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:01 amI 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.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.
eta: I was crafting this post as RI was posting his response to Marcus above. Make of that what you will.
- Doc
Don't I know it. 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.Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:01 amI 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.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.
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. 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.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
This is his reaction: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 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.I'll be reading because it's an interesting exchange to watch but I will not be further participating in this thread.