I Don't Believe You

[canpakes]

Many of my posts have been chopped up into different sub-forums. Many have been quoted, and edited within the quotes. Many of my posts are redirected into other threads.

And there’s a good example of your credibility issue.

1. If a post is moved by a moderator, it is always done so in its entirety. It is never ‘chopped up’.

2. Your posts - and mine, or anyone else’s - may be moved to a single thread as part of a derail. No one is exempt from that.

3. When you create spam by editing hundreds of posts into a symbol, single word or others, then these may be moved after your edit, into a single OD thread. That’s the forum for spam.

4. I’ve personally ‘edited’ one of your posts down to just the angry words and obscenities in a reply to you, to make a point. But I’m not aware of anyone doing this to be deceptive (“edited within the quotes”, as you put it). You should hit up the mod team with a report if you think that you’ve been deceptively quoted. Note that quoting a portion of a post in a reply isn’t deceptive, it’s normal practice.

[Some Schmo]

In my experience people need outside help in seeing their own blind spots. Outside of a work environment it seems that a trusted friend or partner is as good a helper as anyone. I'd suspect that if you looked back on some of those times you shifted your opinion it started by having your perspective opened by another, or a trusted individual sharing some information. I know even posters I've trusted on this very board have led to some change for me. Very few of us will ever pop up out of bed one day and say "Hot damn I was wrong about xxxx!" it is usually a gradual process of having your views slowly shifted until you arrive at a new position. Radicalization doesn't happen over night and neither does the reverse.

If that's what you meant, fair enough.

What I was really saying was the motivation to change your views comes from within.

And I think just about anyone can be swayed, even if as you say the time to outcome ratio isn't something everyone wants to tackle (trust me, I'm not trying to suggest you have to engage anyone you don't find value in) . Part of the battle isn't in totally pulling someone into the fold either. There are battles to be one on softening people's stances, getting them part way to truth or atleast getting them to throw off some of their previously more radicalized views.

I agree that progress is made when you can soften someone's stance. I guess we disagree on whether it's possible to soften just about anyone. They have to have at least the seed of motivation to learn.

I don't know about everyone else but a view conversations here as having a few levels. There is obviously the direct back and forth we have with one another. But there are also the lurkers to consider, there are plenty of people who read here but never post (I was one of them for years). I also often take lessons I learn here and apply them to my in real life conversations. Just because your direct interactions with a poster don't shift their position it doesn't mean that it has no value.

Also a fair point.

The part I find dehumanizing is that I see you as saying "if people don't respond or handle situations the way I would then they are brain damaged". I may vehemently disagree with them but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that there are countless ways they arrived at their positions and continue to hold to them. I understand this was likely just rethorical flourish but it hit me wrong this morning.

Yes, "brain damaged" was just an expression of frustration.

But I will completely cop to the fact that I am impatient with certain types of people. I've said this here before: talking to some people is like talking to a wall littered with graffiti. It doesn't matter what you say to the wall; it can't listen, and will always respond with the same message that's been up there since it was spray-painted. If people respond to me like a graffiti-littered wall, I will lose interest in them. There are plenty of people to talk to who aren't like that, who will actually reward the time you spend with them rather than waste it.

[Xenophon]

I've got nothing to disagree with in that, Schmo, especially in regards to wanting some change internally. Thanks for taking the time to flush out your thoughts more with me.

I certainly can't fault anyone for not wanting to engage the wall (walls here being more of positions held, not the individuals themselves. At least in my opinion). But I think even as a metaphor it highlights my point. Walls aren't actually indestructible or immovable. They can be power washed, chipped away at, eroded, and eventually torn down. Now you're absolutely correct and well within your rights to not want to put in that work, time is precious and there are so many fulfilling things to do instead. I think it is also more than fair to pick and choose the "walls" you work with so to speak.

I discussed it in a other thread by I viewed my father's own vaccine hesitancy in much the same way. It took a lot of time and patience to bring him around but that was obviously work of high personal value to me. I'm definitely in favor of using your time in ways that bring the most value to you.

[Some Schmo]

I've got nothing to disagree with in that, Schmo, especially on regards to wanting some change internally. Thanks for taking the time to flush out your thoughts more with me.

Absolutely. You are someone I consider worth the time. And incidentally, you have been the catalyst for change in me on occasion.

I certainly can't fault anyone for not wanting to engage the wall (walls here being more of positions held, not the individuals themselves. At least in my opinion). But I think even as a metaphor it highlights my point. Walls aren't actually indestructible or immovable. They can be power washed, chipped away at, eroded, and eventually torn down. Now you're absolutely correct and well within your rights to not want to put in that work, time is precious and there are so many fulfilling things to do instead. I think it is also more than fair r to pick and choose the "walls" you work with so to speak.

I admire your optimism.

I discussed it in a other thread by I viewed my father's own vaccine hesitancy in much the same way. It took a lot of time and patience to bring him around but that was obviously work of high personal value to me. I'm definitely in favor of using your time in ways that bring the most value to you.

Yeah, that's the crux of it. The effort expended should be directly proportional to the amount you care for the person you're trying to persuade.

[Morley]

I have other reasons for editing my posts. The above are not my reasons. I have just pointed out that this is the process. If you would like a different process, suggest one.

Your conclusions about me, based on edited posts, are not accurate. I would merely ask why it bothers you that I do it, regardless of why I do it.

Oh, I'm not bothered. Or instead of 'bothered,' are you asking why I care? That's a different question, and one I'm not going to take time to answer again.

But you do not have enough information to know that I am not well in my own skin.

You're absolutely right. I can only draw conclusions from what you choose to post or select to delete--imperfect as that inevitably is. And you certainly already know that if you wish to be inscrutable, you have to expect others to draw conclusions from the evidence you do provide.
.

[Jersey Girl]

Isn't that what you did for your first 1,000+ posts here? The posts that you modified to remove the evidence? Isn't that what you're still doing?

No. That is not what I did. No, I was not removing evidence of lies. No, that is not what I am still doing.

That's exactly what you did here. FYI: the rest of us actually read the posts you made on this board before you wiped them out. And yes, that's exactly what you are still doing.

[Morley]

Right or wrong, it comes across as lack of acceptance of yourself. Past and present. It feeds into the perception that you don't want to be held accountable for what you say and do--that you may not even believe what you yourself are typing. You talk about being a lay-it-all-out-there-and-face-the-consequences kind of guy. Then you delete your posts and suggest to everyone that that's a lie.

And yes, I'm sure you will continue to delete your posts. That way you can continue to sabotage your credibility. I think that's too bad.
.

Many of my posts have been chopped up into different sub-forums. Many have been quoted, and edited within the quotes. Many of my posts are redirected into other threads. That is all fine and great - this is a forum. Responses from the sole moderator when I joined, and the team of moderators since I joined, confirmed that I have the option of editing a post, or deleting a post that has not had a sequential response.

I have other reasons for editing my posts. The above are not my reasons. I have just pointed out that this is the process. If you would like a different process, suggest one.

Your conclusions about me, based on edited posts, are not accurate. I would merely ask why it bothers you that I do it, regardless of why I do it. I can promise you, it is not because I lie or because I reject my arguments or self. I am accountable for what I do. But this forum is a collection of people I do not know using cartoon pictures and fake names. I am writing, not archiving. If I wanted to archive, I would just use Microsoft Word instead of this forum.

I will give you a hint, Morley. If I am typing, I am in this conversation. I am not in one that happened last July. Cleaning it all up, while watching a youtube video or a playoff game, is just de-cluttering. We should all do it. So, in short, do not draw conclusions not based on fact. Honor what it makes you think of me or feel, I am cool with that. But you do not have enough information to know that I am not well in my own skin.

So, you're saying that the first paragraph has some reasons you might delete posts, but they're not your reasons. Then you ask why it bothers me. Then you say you don't delete because you're lying, nor do you do it because you reject your own reasoning. You hint it's for a reason you're not going to give. You give one of the purposes for your deletions as simple housecleaning. And you don't want to be held to what you said last July, because that's not who you are anymore.

Did I summarize correctly?

However, you do, for instance, hold Doc Cam to what he posted last July.



edited for stupidity, hopefully

[canpakes]

No. That is not what I did. No, I was not removing evidence of lies. No, that is not what I am still doing.

That's exactly what you did here. FYI: the rest of us actually read the posts you made on this board before you wiped them out. And yes, that's exactly what you are still doing.

Seems that the vast majority are captured anyway via re-quotes within the posts of others.

[canpakes]

You give one of the purposes for your deletions as simple housecleaning. And you don't want to be held to what you said last July, because that's not who you are anymore.

Did I summarize correctly?

However, you do, for instance, hold Doc Cam to what he posted last July.

Actually, the supposed offense was posted in November of 2020, to be more precise. : D

Apparently, that required Cultellus to make, then delete, over 1500 posts wherein he repeatedly lost his mind, lost control and/or shouted obscenities at multiple posters across multiple threads, with no connection to Doc’s post.

[Xenophon]

Absolutely. You are someone I consider worth the time. And incidentally, you have been the catalyst for change in me on occasion.

And you as well. I typically like to "vote with my wallet" around these parts. Namely engaging posters and more specifically, posts that I think are worth engaging (nearly every poster here has posted gold at least once). I know this leaves me on the lower end of the post count but I hope when I do post it is worth reading.

I admire your optimism.

I've got to be optimistic, this all seems pretty worthless if I don't expect we can make it better. I've already mentioned him once but I credit Daryl Davis with a lot of my hope in dealing with the "unreachable". If you haven't looked into him yet I'd recommend "Changing Minds" his podcast (available on whatever platform you digest your media). It is absolutely wild to listen to him sit down with former skin heads and hash out their ideas. It was truly eye opening me to fully understand how little effort some of the most die hard, radicalized individuals had put into their world view. It truly only requires some nudging from a trusted source to wreck their entire philosophy.

I'm not saying his approach is for everyone, it takes stones bigger than mine to have a sit down with KKK members and show them why they are wrong. But he is great for picking up some tools in dealing with folks who you are very diametrically opposed to, sometimes because of their deeply held terrible beliefs, and sometimes because you don't see your own mistakes.

Yeah, that's the crux of it. The effort expended should be directly proportional to the amount you care for the person you're trying to persuade.

Nothing to argue with here. I'd just say this forum has provided me lots of great experience and evidence to assist me in helping persuade those in my everyday life. If I can get subgenius to run off after a CFR I know that I've got a pretty good response lined up.