Memes and stuff

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related. No insults or personal attacks allowed. Rated G.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Biden's Economy?

Post by Res Ipsa »

Binger wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:58 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:47 am
So, at the time you posted the meme, what, if anything, did you intend to communicate to readers of the thread[?]
Part 2 or 3, but who is counting?

Like other posts in any forum, what one intends to communicate is a part of a post. Another part of the post is the intent to participate. Another part may be the intent to create participation or reactions from others. If you look at what I listed in the above post, some items were related to the content of the communication, though they were at best tangential and ambiguous. This is something you pointed out, Res. Ambiguity or being tangentially on-topic may even be something that frustrates you or another forum participant.

Treading lightly and vulnerably here...... the point where the reaction we generate is the primary motivation of our participation (in whole or in part) is where we may enter passive aggression territory with communication, in my opinion.

Let's use something else I did as an example, since we have already gone into vulnerable spaces. I took the literal suggestion of the moderators and another poster to start new threads rather than go off topic. I started threads with "From: " in the subject. Hilarious. The opening was there, and I was going to shoot the gap, so I did. Was the intent to communicate something that I thought was important and worth extracting from a thread? Heck no. The intent was to lampoon the conversation, mock the process, highlight the limitations or conditions, and trigger the moderators. The intent was to GET A REACTION! I doubled down, and even reached out to the moderators and Dr. Shades (who brilliantly saw through it all and called out the entirety of the process with an invitation, which I am violating a rule by vulnerably sharing here.) Now, I did not intend to get banned (that was a reaction I did not choose, but got), but I darn sure intended to mock what I considered was nonsensical chopping of conversations with new threads beginning with "From: ". Reminder: this is SSP and we are talking about intentions, triggers, reactions, memes, process etc.

I do not share any of that as some sort of confession or admission. It was all rather obvious to anyone and everyone, right? The less obvious part is that this is something we all do, all the time. We do not always shoot the gap and exploit loopholes. But we do things that are meant to get reactions. And we react to things. We do this within environments and relationships, both real and virtual. The environment includes all the conditions, not just rules, not just new rules about using "From: ". What we do not all or always do, is willingly surrender to the facts. And by facts, I would include the conditions.
That's interesting, because, in all vulnerability and honesty, you've made me look like an idiot for giving you the benefit of the doubt with respect to that interaction. I explained in great detail yesterday why I interpreted the one "from" you made that I saw as an understandable act not intended to cause any confusion at all. Let me quote myself:
[About two weeks ago] I noticed a thread Binger had started using the From: format. It threw me off for a minute because I first thought it was a mod split. At the time, I didn’t think it was intended to confuse. If, as a user, I wanted to start a version of a thread in a different kingdom, I likely would have copied the mod’s titling convention because that’s how versions of threads in different kingdoms are customarily identified.
So, when I'm consciously trying to be the best version of Res Ipsa, I try to follow the general rule that goes something like: never presume malicious intent when stupidity is a sufficient explanation. Which is rude way of putting "never presume bad intent when good-faith mistake is a sufficient explanation." In my experience, it's been a very good heuristic.

In this case, it was a bad one, as I completely misunderstood the purpose of what you posted. And, naturally, it pisses me off for being wrong after doing what I considered to be the right thing. But in this thread, I don't think that's important in this thread. I think what's important was that there was a complete failure of communication between you and me. As Res Ipsa, I think that's dysfunction that I generally like to avoid. And as Res Ipsa, it prevents me from doing a good job as a moderator.

So we've got two examples we could ground our discussion in. (by the way, don't worry about being disorganized -- I just have little slivers of thought on the general topic of communications, so I can't even pretend to have thought through the issues we're talking about systematically.) Let's start with the first. You and I have discussed the general topic of communication styles off board (which I am disclosing with your consent). I think one thing we have in common is that we view what and how we communicate as a choice. Let's start there.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm a mind reader, but one of the things we've discussed is a model of interpersonal communication that you use. I think our brains all have them, whether explicit or implicit. After all, the ambiguity I've pointed out in memes is just an extreme example of the ambiguity that exists in all communication. So, our brains all have a model of what people mean when they communicate in various ways. You've thought about yours in much more explicit terms than I've ever thought about mine. And, after discussing yours, my tentative hypothesis is that most of the confrontational aspects of the communication between us to date is an artifact of conflict in models of communication.

Now, you have a chart for your model. There are so many things packed into that chart that I found it hard to wrap my brain around. So, I'm going to suggest that you hold off of introducing the chart until later in the discussion. Instead, I'd like to apply the concepts in baby steps, which gives you the chance to ferret out misunderstandings that I am sure I still have. I also want to say that I believe in the saying: no models are accurate but some models are useful. My other hypothesis this point is that there is useful stuff in your model, but I want to road test it. I'm going to try to remember to boldface terms that appear in your model, so that we both recognize that I'm using them as terms of art.

OK, out of whatever level of meta I've drifted into. Let's start with the thread splitting example. If I understand correctly, you had an opinion about thread splitting that you wanted to express. You chose mockery. And you chose a style of mockery. I'd call it implicit as opposed to explicit. I'm on board with your notion that people intend to communicate more than one thing when they communicate. I can't recall the author, but in the book The Presentation of Self in Ordinary Life, the author distinguishes between what we could call the informative component of communication and the performative component (what the cool kids today call "virtue signaling"). If I recall correctly, his theory was that every piece of communication included both. The distinction is between "here's a fact" and "here's a fact about me." For simplicity's sake, I think we could lump some of the types of intent you listed in the Biden meme example (participation, etc.) into the "performative" category without doing violence to what you expressed.

So, given the description of your intent that you provided, was mockery your sole intent? It sounds like the informative content of your post was something like "splitting posts the way the moderators do is ridiculous." In other words, the information is the content of your opinion. But the method you chose leads me to think there was also some performative communication there. Do you think there was? If so, what was it that you intended to communicate about you, in contrast to the substance of your opinion?

If I understand what you are saying, if your primary intent was to get a reaction from the moderators, you would classify that as a passive-aggressive form of communication. Did you intend a specific reaction? If so, what was it?
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Biden's Economy?

Post by Marcus »

Interesting discussion. Just one minor point, about your use of implicit and explicit, and about the intent for doing things:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 pm
OK, out of whatever level of meta I've drifted into. Let's start with the thread splitting example. If I understand correctly, you had an opinion about thread splitting that you wanted to express. You chose mockery. And you chose a style of mockery. I'd call it implicit as opposed to explicit.

...So, given the description of your intent that you provided, was mockery your sole intent? It sounds like the informative content of your post was something like "splitting posts the way the moderators do is ridiculous." In other words, the information is the content of your opinion. But the method you chose leads me to think there was also some performative communication there. Do you think there was? If so, what was it that you intended to communicate about you, in contrast to the substance of your opinion?
Just prior to Binger's mockery of the "from" format, he had been arguing, repeatedly, that canpakes moved his posts even though HE started the threads (or said he did), and the mod inappropriately called his posts derailments when they were original OPs. It was proved, using his post history, that he did NOT start the threads he argued he did. Part of the proof was that when a mod moves a post to a "from" split, the "from" is in the split thread title but NOT in the first poster's title that appears with their post. Additionally, a mod message appears, showing in red the violation. So while Binger had 13 threads were he was nominally the OP, he didn't START 10 of them, he violated rules. He then tried the victim route, lying about this, to attack moderation here.

Immediately after this was proved, Binger went on his rant about "from" in titles. The mockery seems a direct result of being caught red-handed, lying about his complaint that the mods were clandestinely relocating and mislabeling his posts.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation, in my opinion it supports a conclusion of explicit mockery, not implicit as you concluded. His intent also looked far more like petty anger at being caught than a communication attempt over a concept.

I appreciate you are being very aboveboard in your conversation attempts, but it really doesn't seem like the same sincerity and reasoning can be ascribed to Binger. His past behavior is too specific to continue to conclude that without at least acknowledging the possibility of the opposite.
res Ipsa wrote: But the method you chose leads me to think there was also some performative communication there.
Now that I agree with completely!!
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Binger »

With these long posts, I may not quote them entirely but will link when appropriate.
Responding to this:
viewtopic.php?p=2762961#p2762961

Correction on the bolding:

Aggression is in my model, but not Passive Aggression as a title. Clearly, passive aggression sucks and it fits. But it is not a title.
Reaction is in my model
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 pm
In this case, it was a bad one, as I completely misunderstood the purpose of what you posted.
This is a VERY important issue for me. VERY. I do not use aggression, reaction, selfish/selfless or even shameless pejoratively. When you say that your response or interpretation was a bad one, I have a visceral reaction to that. If it was authentic, it was not bad. If it was something that I led you to, your move or interpretation was not bad. I hope I am being very clear here, being different or having a different motivation is not bad. Even being wrong, is not bad. We teach kids to try new things and to understand that being wrong is not also being bad. I know, seems tedious, but thank you for indulging me on this one.

I think we have done a great job with the meme and the thread splitting. I am going to get to your first item, communication, and we can revisit the example.

Communication is a form of connection. This a core part of the model. On a forum like this, we are not building businesses and we are not co-investing and we are not running a dating app. We are communicating on a forum over topics, and we are, hopefully, connecting. But why? Why do we do this? Who cares if we achieve any amount of connection or entertainment on this forum? I think we have a motivation for being here, and then those motivations extend into how we exist, connect, participate and communicate.

After meeting Dr. Shades, I genuinely felt that he has a core motivation to serve others by providing this forum to its members. I believe that at my core. One could say, and I say it with conviction, that he has a selfless motivation. He also gets something from it, so it is not exclusively selfless. He has some selfish motivation and benefit. But without any reservation whatsoever, I believe that he is here and we are here largely because he is selfless.

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 pm
I think one thing we have in common is that we view what and how we communicate as a choice.

[and]

And, after discussing yours, my tentative hypothesis is that most of the confrontational aspects of the communication between us to date is an artifact of conflict in models of communication.
The quotes above are snippets, obviously. Yes, we agree that how we communicate is a choice of method and content. Yep. And I agree with your hypothesis that our past has conflicts in style or models. However, I think the conflict, communication and connections have rather basic elements. The first is what is the priority? Who is the priority? There is no question or ambiguity that you wear a red hat. You have a core motivation or role to make the group, or the board, or Dr. Shades a priority. You have agreed to have a selfless role in this forum. Communication with you, and by you, is in the context of this selfless motivation.

You also are Res the man in black, and you get to be Res and you get to respond as a selfish individual pursuing your own connections, entertainment or the preservation of your tribe.

Not everyone shares the same motivations. Some are here for their own grandiose consumption, and that is not wrong or bad. Some are here for this tribe and forum and have a selfless motivation that would align with Shades, and that is not bad or better. Without the differences, none of us would have a darn thing, darnit.

These motivations factor into our choice of how we write on this forum. They factor into the choice we make on what threads and subforums to consume. Based on the probability of getting a reaction, selflessness and selfishness factor into what we do here and how we do it.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 pm
So, given the description of your intent that you provided, was mockery your sole intent? It sounds like the informative content of your post was something like "splitting posts the way the moderators do is ridiculous." In other words, the information is the content of your opinion. But the method you chose leads me to think there was also some performative communication there.

[1] Do you think there was?
[2] If so, what was it that you intended to communicate about you, in contrast to the substance of your opinion?

If I understand what you are saying, if your primary intent was to get a reaction from the moderators, you would classify that as a passive-aggressive form of communication.

[3] Did you intend a specific reaction?
[4] If so, what was it?
[1]Like other posts I have made, I knew that the meme was garbage. Sure, Biden said it. But nobody in their right mind would possibly think that what he said was anything more than a slip of words or a public moment. I was trying to cleverly tap dance and tangentially stay on topic and say, "Yea, but what you are saying about R's is generalized and out of context, like this meme." [2] What my participation and form of communication said about me: I am not done talking about this. WE are not done with this issue.

[3]In this case specifically, the reaction is what I wanted and a reaction is what I predicted. [4] And that reaction (not the meme) was what was going to lead to a conversation about thread splitting or generalizations about R's. Make no mistake here, I was looking for a reaction and whether it was a thread split or another ban or conversation did not matter as much as the reaction. Any other motivation claim would be disingenuous, particularly given the garbage nature of the meme.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Biden's Economy?

Post by Res Ipsa »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:50 pm
Interesting discussion. Just one minor point, about your use of implicit and explicit, and about the intent for doing things:
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 pm
OK, out of whatever level of meta I've drifted into. Let's start with the thread splitting example. If I understand correctly, you had an opinion about thread splitting that you wanted to express. You chose mockery. And you chose a style of mockery. I'd call it implicit as opposed to explicit.

...So, given the description of your intent that you provided, was mockery your sole intent? It sounds like the informative content of your post was something like "splitting posts the way the moderators do is ridiculous." In other words, the information is the content of your opinion. But the method you chose leads me to think there was also some performative communication there. Do you think there was? If so, what was it that you intended to communicate about you, in contrast to the substance of your opinion?
Just prior to Binger's mockery of the "from" format, he had been arguing, repeatedly, that canpakes moved his posts even though HE started the threads (or said he did), and the mod inappropriately called his posts derailments when they were original OPs. It was proved, using his post history, that he did NOT start the threads he argued he did. Part of the proof was that when a mod moves a post to a "from" split, the "from" is in the split thread title but NOT in the first poster's title that appears with their post. Additionally, a mod message appears, showing in red the violation. So while Binger had 13 threads were he was nominally the OP, he didn't START 10 of them, he violated rules. He then tried the victim route, lying about this, to attack moderation here.

Immediately after this was proved, Binger went on his rant about "from" in titles. The mockery seems a direct result of being caught red-handed, lying about his complaint that the mods were clandestinely relocating and mislabeling his posts.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation, in my opinion it supports a conclusion of explicit mockery, not implicit as you concluded. His intent also looked far more like petty anger at being caught than a communication attempt over a concept.

I appreciate you are being very aboveboard in your conversation attempts, but it really doesn't seem like the same sincerity and reasoning can be ascribed to Binger. His past behavior is too specific to continue to conclude that without at least acknowledging the possibility of the opposite.
res Ipsa wrote: But the method you chose leads me to think there was also some performative communication there.
Now that I agree with completely!!
Marcus, I'm aware of the protracted discussion on this topic that has taken place since Binger's suspension ended. I'm not interested in weighing in on that. I'm addressing a discrete example of miscommunication to analyze. That happened before Binger's suspension began and is based on what I saw and recall. I don't recall the context, but I recall seeing a thread that appeared to be a mod split but wasn't. I don't believe it included the typical explanation in red for the split. I believe I looked at the mod log and couldn't find an entry for the split. I concluded that Binger, who was the OP in the thread, had started his own version of an existing thread in a different kingdom using the same notation we as mods use for a split. I didn't make an issue out of it at the time, as I had repeatedly asked Binger and/or Atlanticmike to start a new version of a topic in the appropriate forum if they wanted to engage in personal attacks and it seemed reasonable to me at the time that he used the same format we do when we start a new version of an existing thread by splitting posts out. I suppose I could spend a few hours with the mod log and try to reconstruct the state of the board two weeks ago to confirm my recollection. Starting a thread will not appear in the mod log, but any changes to a post or thread will show up. But I don't care. For purposes of this discussion, both Binger and I have a common recollection of one thread. And he appears to have intended to communicate something to me that he failed to communicate. In fact, although he intended to provoke a reaction from the mods at the time he posted, I believe he completely failed to do so. I don't believe he got a reaction until he started talking after the suspension about what happened.

So, what I think you correctly labeled as explicit mockery is not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the intended mockery that occurred three weeks ago that I don't believe anyone responded to. If I've got something wrong there, I'm more than happy to be corrected.

For purposes of this conversation, I'm explicitly putting aside any judgments about truthfulness or sincerity. Whatever else may be true, I'm testing a couple hypotheses that are focussed on the nature of the communications. Maybe they're accurate. Maybe they aren't. Maybe the conversation will be informative. Maybe it won't. We'll see. If you're into mindfulness at all, I'm attempting to approach this conversation with what folks call "beginner's mind." It's a good exercise, if nothing else.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Biden's Economy?

Post by Marcus »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:42 pm
Marcus, I'm aware of the protracted discussion on this topic that has taken place since Binger's suspension ended. I'm not interested in weighing in on that. I'm addressing a discrete example of miscommunication to analyze. That happened before Binger's suspension began and is based on what I saw and recall. I don't recall the context, but I recall seeing a thread that appeared to be a mod split but wasn't. I don't believe it included the typical explanation in red for the split. I believe I looked at the mod log and couldn't find an entry for the split. I concluded that Binger, who was the OP in the thread, had started his own version of an existing thread in a different kingdom using the same notation we as mods use for a split. I didn't make an issue out of it at the time, as I had repeatedly asked Binger and/or Atlanticmike to start a new version of a topic in the appropriate forum if they wanted to engage in personal attacks and it seemed reasonable to me at the time that he used the same format we do when we start a new version of an existing thread by splitting posts out. I suppose I could spend a few hours with the mod log and try to reconstruct the state of the board two weeks ago to confirm my recollection. Starting a thread will not appear in the mod log, but any changes to a post or thread will show up. But I don't care. For purposes of this discussion, both Binger and I have a common recollection of one thread. And he appears to have intended to communicate something to me that he failed to communicate. In fact, although he intended to provoke a reaction from the mods at the time he posted, I believe he completely failed to do so. I don't believe he got a reaction until he started talking after the suspension about what happened.

So, what I think you correctly labeled as explicit mockery is not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the intended mockery that occurred three weeks ago that I don't believe anyone responded to. If I've got something wrong there, I'm more than happy to be corrected.

For purposes of this conversation, I'm explicitly putting aside any judgments about truthfulness or sincerity. Whatever else may be true, I'm testing a couple hypotheses that are focussed on the nature of the communications. Maybe they're accurate. Maybe they aren't. Maybe the conversation will be informative. Maybe it won't. We'll see. If you're into mindfulness at all, I'm attempting to approach this conversation with what folks call "beginner's mind." It's a good exercise, if nothing else.
No problem, I just wanted to point out that your comments re explicit or implicit mockery seemed personally assessed. As, of course, are mine, and everyone else's. :roll:
I'm addressing the intended mockery that occurred three weeks ago that I don't believe anyone responded to. If I've got something wrong there, I'm more than happy to be corrected.
i see. No, I didn't catch that you were referring to your memories of a possible earlier incident, my apologies.

And yes, I can appreciate the beginner's mind approach. If I recall correctly, you've done that a number of times with this poster. Personally, I don't find that as useful if it's already been attempted, but it's your conversation so I'll step off if you would prefer no comments from others as you go through this.
Last edited by Marcus on Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Binger wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:06 pm
With these long posts, I may not quote them entirely but will link when appropriate.
Responding to this:
viewtopic.php?p=2762961#p2762961

Correction on the bolding:

Aggression is in my model, but not Passive Aggression as a title. Clearly, passive aggression sucks and it fits. But it is not a title.
Reaction is in my model
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 pm
In this case, it was a bad one, as I completely misunderstood the purpose of what you posted.
This is a VERY important issue for me. VERY. I do not use aggression, reaction, selfish/selfless or even shameless pejoratively. When you say that your response or interpretation was a bad one, I have a visceral reaction to that. If it was authentic, it was not bad. If it was something that I led you to, your move or interpretation was not bad. I hope I am being very clear here, being different or having a different motivation is not bad. Even being wrong, is not bad. We teach kids to try new things and to understand that being wrong is not also being bad. I know, seems tedious, but thank you for indulging me on this one.

I think we have done a great job with the meme and the thread splitting. I am going to get to your first item, communication, and we can revisit the example.

Communication is a form of connection. This a core part of the model. On a forum like this, we are not building businesses and we are not co-investing and we are not running a dating app. We are communicating on a forum over topics, and we are, hopefully, connecting. But why? Why do we do this? Who cares if we achieve any amount of connection or entertainment on this forum? I think we have a motivation for being here, and then those motivations extend into how we exist, connect, participate and communicate.

After meeting Dr. Shades, I genuinely felt that he has a core motivation to serve others by providing this forum to its members. I believe that at my core. One could say, and I say it with conviction, that he has a selfless motivation. He also gets something from it, so it is not exclusively selfless. He has some selfish motivation and benefit. But without any reservation whatsoever, I believe that he is here and we are here largely because he is selfless.

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 pm
I think one thing we have in common is that we view what and how we communicate as a choice.

[and]

And, after discussing yours, my tentative hypothesis is that most of the confrontational aspects of the communication between us to date is an artifact of conflict in models of communication.
The quotes above are snippets, obviously. Yes, we agree that how we communicate is a choice of method and content. Yep. And I agree with your hypothesis that our past has conflicts in style or models. However, I think the conflict, communication and connections have rather basic elements. The first is what is the priority? Who is the priority? There is no question or ambiguity that you wear a red hat. You have a core motivation or role to make the group, or the board, or Dr. Shades a priority. You have agreed to have a selfless role in this forum. Communication with you, and by you, is in the context of this selfless motivation.

You also are Res the man in black, and you get to be Res and you get to respond as a selfish individual pursuing your own connections, entertainment or the preservation of your tribe.

Not everyone shares the same motivations. Some are here for their own grandiose consumption, and that is not wrong or bad. Some are here for this tribe and forum and have a selfless motivation that would align with Shades, and that is not bad or better. Without the differences, none of us would have a darn thing, darnit.

These motivations factor into our choice of how we write on this forum. They factor into the choice we make on what threads and subforums to consume. Based on the probability of getting a reaction, selflessness and selfishness factor into what we do here and how we do it.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 pm
So, given the description of your intent that you provided, was mockery your sole intent? It sounds like the informative content of your post was something like "splitting posts the way the moderators do is ridiculous." In other words, the information is the content of your opinion. But the method you chose leads me to think there was also some performative communication there.

[1] Do you think there was?
[2] If so, what was it that you intended to communicate about you, in contrast to the substance of your opinion?

If I understand what you are saying, if your primary intent was to get a reaction from the moderators, you would classify that as a passive-aggressive form of communication.

[3] Did you intend a specific reaction?
[4] If so, what was it?
[1]Like other posts I have made, I knew that the meme was garbage. Sure, Biden said it. But nobody in their right mind would possibly think that what he said was anything more than a slip of words or a public moment. I was trying to cleverly tap dance and tangentially stay on topic and say, "Yea, but what you are saying about R's is generalized and out of context, like this meme." [2] What my participation and form of communication said about me: I am not done talking about this. WE are not done with this issue.

[3]In this case specifically, the reaction is what I wanted and a reaction is what I predicted. [4] And that reaction (not the meme) was what was going to lead to a conversation about thread splitting or generalizations about R's. Make no mistake here, I was looking for a reaction and whether it was a thread split or another ban or conversation did not matter as much as the reaction. Any other motivation claim would be disingenuous, particularly given the garbage nature of the meme.
Quoting snippets to save time and space is fine with me. If I think we should consider additional context, I'll just add it.

Thanks for your correction on the model's terminology. Please keep doing so when I get it wrong.

I think you make an excellent point on my use of "bad." It was poor choice of words that injected a moral judgment into something that I had intended to be merely descriptive. I think "inaccurate" would be a better term. In the case of the Biden meme, I did not understand your informative intent at all, so I asked "what is this." I was pretty sure you didn't mean "Here is evidence that Biden is part of an organization whose goal is to commit election fraud," but that still left several other possible informative possibilities. So, my reaction or response (not sure which to use, but since I thought about it first, I think response) to the trigger was to seek clarification. I'm not sure how that fits in your model. In the case of the from: post, I thought I understood the informative communication, but my response was not to respond. Not sure how that fits either. Regardless, I completely misunderstood the informative part of the post.

I've spent an evening with Shades, and I agree completely with your impression of him. I also agree with your view of my contrasting roles in red and black.

The use of generalizations is a topic I'd like to put a pin in and discuss more at some point.

One thing that caught my eye. "[2] What my participation and form of communication said about me: I am not done talking about this. WE are not done with this issue." I think that brings out an issue that sort of pervades our discussions about communications: control. If I recall correctly, you've explicitly said "WE are not done with this issue" or words to that effect on several occasions. My reaction to that trigger is "you don't get to decide whether I am done with an issue or not." Emotionally, it feels like a power struggle over control of the conversation. I suspect that leads us right to what you describe as conditions. If so, I'd like to copy and paste our earlier discussion about conditions here so we don't have to start from scratch. If we're not quite to conditions, I'll hold off.

(For those playing along at home, I think you can substitute "stimulus" for "trigger" In this context, the term has no pejorative connotation.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Memes and Stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:55 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:42 pm
Marcus, I'm aware of the protracted discussion on this topic that has taken place since Binger's suspension ended. I'm not interested in weighing in on that. I'm addressing a discrete example of miscommunication to analyze. That happened before Binger's suspension began and is based on what I saw and recall. I don't recall the context, but I recall seeing a thread that appeared to be a mod split but wasn't. I don't believe it included the typical explanation in red for the split. I believe I looked at the mod log and couldn't find an entry for the split. I concluded that Binger, who was the OP in the thread, had started his own version of an existing thread in a different kingdom using the same notation we as mods use for a split. I didn't make an issue out of it at the time, as I had repeatedly asked Binger and/or Atlanticmike to start a new version of a topic in the appropriate forum if they wanted to engage in personal attacks and it seemed reasonable to me at the time that he used the same format we do when we start a new version of an existing thread by splitting posts out. I suppose I could spend a few hours with the mod log and try to reconstruct the state of the board two weeks ago to confirm my recollection. Starting a thread will not appear in the mod log, but any changes to a post or thread will show up. But I don't care. For purposes of this discussion, both Binger and I have a common recollection of one thread. And he appears to have intended to communicate something to me that he failed to communicate. In fact, although he intended to provoke a reaction from the mods at the time he posted, I believe he completely failed to do so. I don't believe he got a reaction until he started talking after the suspension about what happened.

So, what I think you correctly labeled as explicit mockery is not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the intended mockery that occurred three weeks ago that I don't believe anyone responded to. If I've got something wrong there, I'm more than happy to be corrected.

For purposes of this conversation, I'm explicitly putting aside any judgments about truthfulness or sincerity. Whatever else may be true, I'm testing a couple hypotheses that are focussed on the nature of the communications. Maybe they're accurate. Maybe they aren't. Maybe the conversation will be informative. Maybe it won't. We'll see. If you're into mindfulness at all, I'm attempting to approach this conversation with what folks call "beginner's mind." It's a good exercise, if nothing else.
No problem, I just wanted to point out that your comments re explicit or implicit mockery seemed personally assessed. As, of course, are mine, and everyone else's. :roll:
I'm addressing the intended mockery that occurred three weeks ago that I don't believe anyone responded to. If I've got something wrong there, I'm more than happy to be corrected.
i see. No, I didn't catch that you were referring to an earlier incident, my apologies.

And yes, I can appreciate the beginner's mind approach. If I recall correctly, you've done that a number of times with this poster. Personally, I don't find that as useful if it's already been attempted, but it's your conversation so I'll step off if you would prefer no comments from others as you go through this.
Please feel to join the conversation at any time. I don't intend to exclude anyone who wants to join in. This started as a private conversation that both of us thought might be fun and interesting to have in public. We intentionally selected SSP as it would help us stay focussed and avoid turning the discussion into a pie fight. I gave the topic a pretty broad title, as I didn't know quite where the conversation would go. Still don't.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:14 pm
In the case of the from: post, I thought I understood the informative communication, but my response was not to respond. Not sure how that fits either. Regardless, I completely misunderstood the informative part of the post.
Neil Peart says that if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. Maybe we need a version of that for moderators. If you choose not to moderate you still have made a choice.

This distinction you are highlighting is part of the model. It is a HUGE part of the model. The reaction that is extreme is usually not thought out and is usually just us doing what we do, without a lot of thought. Trigger happens. BOOM! The blood surges and the anxiety builds and we react. We STRIKE! we submit. We accept the victim role and pout and blame and gaslight. We pretend we are cool. We do what we do. What you are describing is a healthier and thoughtful response.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:14 pm
The use of generalizations is a topic I'd like to put a pin in and discuss more at some point.
I agree. We are not there yet.

Leading to your next point, these extreme reactions are all a form of control. ALL of them. Even submission. Even imitation. Even victimization. Particularly aggression. In the example you used, you were exactly right in your perception that pausing and not doing anything was more controlled than a flash-bang reaction. I hope we continue to distinguish the differences between these forms of control and responses.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:14 pm
One thing that caught my eye. "[2] What my participation and form of communication said about me: I am not done talking about this. WE are not done with this issue." I think that brings out an issue that sort of pervades our discussions about communications: control. If I recall correctly, you've explicitly said "WE are not done with this issue" or words to that effect on several occasions. My reaction to that trigger is "you don't get to decide whether I am done with an issue or not." Emotionally, it feels like a power struggle over control of the conversation.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All of that. You asked what I expected or intended. My intent was to make a point that WE are not done with it and I am injecting myself into that as much as I can. My use of that word, in all caps, was intentional and meant to imply this element of control. There is no other explanation than this was me either taking or influencing control, and failing to take it but influencing enough that we are still discussing it.

I want to add emphasis on your final sentence in the previous quoted section: "Emotionally, if feels like a power struggle." I hope you or anyone else never forgets that line and that feeling. That is the point of setting conditions and these extremes. That is exactly the point. It is meant to have an emotional feeling and an emotional force. Aggression is meant to hurt, that is the point. Victimization is meant to manipulate, that is the point. Submission is meant to keep some control, by relinquishing and forcing someone to take control. That sounds bizarre, but if I force you to be in charge, I am in effect, controlling you. Imitation, particularly in leadership, is really hurtful and harmful. It is funny when dudes pretend they are cool, it is not funny when the CEO is pretending to know what he is doing as the company gets driven into a ditch.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:14 pm
I suspect that leads us right to what you describe as conditions. If so, I'd like to copy and paste our earlier discussion about conditions here so we don't have to start from scratch. If we're not quite to conditions, I'll hold off.

(For those playing along at home, I think you can substitute "stimulus" for "trigger" In this context, the term has no pejorative connotation.
I do not expect this to be a private conversation. Anyone and everyone should let it rip.

Hold tight on conditions. We have a few more rounds to go.

Before we get to Triggers, Reactions and conditions. Let's go back a bit. What is the difference between those four extremes? Aggression, victimization, imitation and submission? It is simple really - Do you care? Do you give AF? Do you not give AF? This fits on a spectrum. Some people care a lot and they are very conscientious. You can see that on this board. They care what people say, what they feel, what they might say and what they might feel. They feel and care a lot. And that is GREAT! I am not saying that caring, or conscientiousness is pejorative. In the extreme, caring about every damn thing to an outrageous level is a bit much. It gets to be rather manipulative, especially when we judge others for how much we think they do or do not care. Shamelessness, or having no f***** to give - whoa. We know that this is not a great thing and it will hurt people. But in moderation, we gotta be shameless sometimes. Like conscientiousness, shamelessness is not pejorative. Being a monster A-hole on a forum for exmormons and ceeboo is a problem. But shamelessness in moderation and in control, yeah, we can do that. We expect that from artists, entrepeneurs, inventors and moms who do not give AF what you think, they are going to do the best thing for their child. Shamelessness is cool, aggression is not always cool.

That was a lot of stuff. But I think it was valuable and important to set up the conditions conversation later. Does any of it make sense to you?

Triggers are a stimulus. That is true. The word scares us. It reminds of us of that emotional feeling you described. Being triggered makes us want that feeling to go away. It leads to those reactions, which are often extreme. But stay with me here..... just hear me out. Triggers are just information. Nothing but information. You may feel triggered or upset, but the trigger is just information. It is just a thing. What we do with that information, that is something else. But triggers are facts. Being in traffic is triggering. But it is just traffic, and what we do with that information should be a choice (response) rather than a bat***** crazy reaction.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Memes and Stuff

Post by Marcus »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:29 pm
Please feel to join the conversation at any time. I don't intend to exclude anyone who wants to join in.
: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!
This started as a private conversation that both of us thought might be fun and interesting to have in public.
Carry on. 8-)
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Memes and Stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:15 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:29 pm
Please feel to join the conversation at any time. I don't intend to exclude anyone who wants to join in.
: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!
This started as a private conversation that both of us thought might be fun and interesting to have in public.
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. 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. 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?
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Post Reply