If I am aggressive is because people are aggressive with me

[Res Ipsa]

It's the least restrictive way we have to avoid having the board cluttered with multiple threads on the same topic. Your words aren't hidden or deleted -- they're simply consolidated.

DT might consider a megathread approach to be akin to having all of his interrelated but interspersed board content as defragged.

Genius!

[Moksha]

People treat me like sht here, how do you expect me not to be aggressive?

You are right. Your threads revolved around ideas that were meant to express your thoughts and desires. They were never meant to be disruptive like Binger's posts. The sentiments may not have been popular, but hey, this is America where everyone is accorded the right to express themselves. It is not the CCP or Sic et Non.

Likewise, other posters are free to disagree. They should not demean you in their disagreement.

[Marcus]

People treat me like sht here, how do you expect me not to be aggressive?

You are right. Your threads revolved around ideas that were meant to express your thoughts and desires. They were never meant to be disruptive like Binger's posts. The sentiments may not have been popular, but hey, this is America where everyone is accorded the right to express themselves. It is not the CCP or Sic et Non.

Likewise, other posters are free to disagree. They should not demean you in their disagreement.

Lol. You clearly have not followed the abuse this poster has heaped on people, especially those he knows are women. He has made threats, he has stated how sad it would be if family members of the women he responds to were to be hurt in some way. (To be more specific, he speculated that their sons would be raped.)

He has harrassed women here, he has subjected them to bigotry and abuse, he had stereotyped them, he has violated every online rule of behavior. He speaks repeatedly about women as things. Things he thinks he has a right to use and own, however he wants.

But, others should not "demean" him in their disagreement.

No, my dear petulant penguin, you are wrong. Others should most definitely object to his sexist, demeaning, hurtful, damaging threats. If you think that "demeaning" him is wrong, in response to how he demeans women, then shame on you.

[Some Schmo]

No, my dear petulant penguin, you are wrong. Others should most definitely object to his sexist, demeaning, hurtful, damaging threats. If you think that "demeaning" him is wrong, in response to how he demeans women, then shame on you.

Agreed.

There are only a couple ways to appropriately respond to DTs posts: ignore them, or call them out for the trash they are (or both).

DT certainly does have the right to say whatever he wants here, but he doesn't get to control how people react. That's what the damned rightwing fruitcakes who vehemently defend free speech without limits don't seem to comprehend. Nobody's free speech is threatened, but it doesn't mean you can get away with saying whatever the Screw you want.

There's a difference between people reacting to what you say and you not being allowed to say something in the first place. Free speech only defies the latter.

[Res Ipsa]

I agree with Mr. penguin that I should not demean doubtingthomas as a person. My personal behavior falls short of my aspirations, and I own that. However, the less than honest and manipulative conduct he engages in on the board should, in my opinion, be identified and strongly condemned even though he will experience it as personally demeaning.

I am quite sure he doesn't see his conduct as dishonest or manipulative, but that doesn't change the nature of the conduct. It's pervasive. Look at this exchange with me yesterday:

12:26 p.m.

Your unwillingness to accept responsibility for your own behavior lies at the root of your obsession with young women's choices of romantic and sexual partners.

12:29 p.m.

BS! I haven't talked about that in a long time. It's just your goddamn confirmation bias.

Just 17 minutes before DT made that statement, he said this to Gadianton:

Feminists hate it when men date women in their 20s. Feminists are trying to influence young women to avoid older men.

Apparently, 17 minutes is a "long time."

I don't dislike DT. If I disliked him, I'd ignore him, as interacting with him is extremely frustrating.

He's trapped himself in a system of thought that leads to no good place, and he's completely blind to it. It's a damned shame.

[Marcus]

No, my dear petulant penguin, you are wrong. Others should most definitely object to his sexist, demeaning, hurtful, damaging threats. If you think that "demeaning" him is wrong, in response to how he demeans women, then shame on you.

Agreed.

There are only a couple ways to appropriately respond to DTs posts: ignore them, or call them out for the trash they are (or both).

DT certainly does have the right to say whatever he wants here, but he doesn't get to control how people react. That's what the damned rightwing fruitcakes who vehemently defend free speech without limits don't seem to comprehend. Nobody's free speech is threatened, but it doesn't mean you can get away with saying whatever the Screw you want.

There's a difference between people reacting to what you say and you not being allowed to say something in the first place. Free speech only defies the latter.

Excellent points about free speech, and the free speech of those responding to free speech. Well said.

[Marcus]

I agree with Mr. penguin that I should not demean doubtingthomas as a person. My personal behavior falls short of my aspirations, and I own that. However, the less than honest and manipulative conduct he engages in on the board should, in my opinion, be identified and strongly condemned even though he will experience it as personally demeaning….

good point. I agree there is a difference between demeaning someone and someone experiencing disagreement as demeaning.

Because this is a board about Mormon topics and NOT because it’s the case here, my favorite example of this is when an lds person might say, ‘when you say something bad about my church, I take it as a personal insult.’ BUT, this person, at the same time, will be utterly surprised if a non-lds person is offended when the lds person might say negative things about their religion. ‘But that was my opinion about your religion, not you, why do you take offense? ‘ it’s a bizarre juxtaposition, and not consistent at all. I think Midgley a pretty clear example of this, if only because he is so completely oblivious to the inconsistency and writes accordingly.

[Res Ipsa]

I agree with Mr. penguin that I should not demean doubtingthomas as a person. My personal behavior falls short of my aspirations, and I own that. However, the less than honest and manipulative conduct he engages in on the board should, in my opinion, be identified and strongly condemned even though he will experience it as personally demeaning….

good point. I agree there is a difference between demeaning someone and someone experiencing disagreement as demeaning.

Because this is a board about Mormon topics and NOT because it’s the case here, my favorite example of this is when an LDS person might say, ‘when you say something bad about my church, I take it as a personal insult.’ BUT, this person, at the same time, will be utterly surprised if a non-lds person is offended when the LDS person might say negative things about their religion. ‘But that was my opinion about your religion, not you, why do you take offense? ‘ it’s a bizarre juxtaposition, and not consistent at all. I think Midgley a pretty clear example of this, if only because he is so completely oblivious to the inconsistency and writes accordingly.

Good point as well. For a long time, I insisted that there was a clear distinction between criticizing a person and criticizing a belief. So, like you, I would argue that criticizing the Mormon church, including its doctrine and history, was not a criticism of individual Mormons. I'm currently convinced that that's just not how our brains work. I think we incorporate all kinds of external ideas into our sense of self. For example, if you criticize my kids, I feel that as personal criticism because I experience my kids as part of my identity. For Mormons, the religion is so integrated into who they are, that criticism of the religion is experienced as criticism of the self. If I mock the temple ceremony, for example, that carries a strong implication that only an idiot would take it seriously.

So, I see the separation of the person from the person's beliefs or ideas as one of those distinctions that are easy to draw when we talk about ideas that are important to others, but not easy at all when others talk about us. The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head would be the fundamental attribution error. Our brains simply do not think of ourselves in the same way they think about others.

I think the best we can do when criticizing something that is important to others is to understand that it will cause some pain to those others, and try as best we can to consider that when we choose our words.

[Kishkumen]

This situation seems stuck in a very bad place. I check in from time to time and find very little movement. I would be surprised if any of us did not feel, at times, like others here were not kind to us. There are also some relationships between posters that have a very poor chance of working smoothly. You just have to accept these facts.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think the best we can do when criticizing something that is important to others is to understand that it will cause some pain to those others, and try as best we can to consider that when we choose our words.

Sure. Diplomacy and tactfulness are nice tools to employ. There are also very good reasons why, at some point, embassy personnel are recalled and *insert war analogy here*. I suppose each individual has to figure that out for themselves.

- Doc