To be completely honest, my biggest question is - why? Why was this topic created? If the point was to have the infraction reversed or reviewed - could that not have been done via PM to the moderation staff? :shrug: I just want to actually hear (well, read) the reason in plain English without having to read between the lines (hell, Italian or Latin would work too)
James R's Independent Review Process
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
- Status
To be completely honest, my biggest question is - why? Why was this topic created? If the point was to have the infraction reversed or reviewed - could that not have been done via PM to the moderation staff? :shrug: I just want to actually hear (well, read) the reason in plain English without having to read between the lines (hell, Italian or Latin would work too)
oh
thats easy enough. refer back to the first post
i just took my cues from a really enlightened and cool administrator
secondly, sfog in general also exists for that very purpose.
this is how sci is a cut above the rest
we encourage civic participation
we value honesty and transparency
everything is kept above board
mistakes are fearlessly acknowledged
lessons are unashamedly learned
it how we roll
its who we are
long live sci!
thats easy enough. refer back to the first post
James R said:
i just took my cues from a really enlightened and cool administrator
secondly, sfog in general also exists for that very purpose.
this is how sci is a cut above the rest
we encourage civic participation
we value honesty and transparency
everything is kept above board
mistakes are fearlessly acknowledged
lessons are unashamedly learned
it how we roll
its who we are
long live sci!
Gustav has the uncanny ability to push people's buttons.
And he has a more acute sense and drive for justice and happiness than many, if not most people.
There is the belief
"If a person does something wrong, others have the right to mistreat them indefinitely, without incurring any wrong. If I do something wrong, others have the right to mistreat me, to any extent, and I have to accept it silently."
Many, if not most, people believe this about themselves and others.
And yes, it is immature, but very common.
If I would get an infraction, justified or not, I would probably just bow and buckle, feel like shit - but I probably wouldn't object, and would allow further mistreatment, by the moderators and others.
Gustav is, fortunately, not like that.
I am sorry, Gustav, for being so slow and unintelligent.
Like I wondered earlier, I doubt you have someone to match you here.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I am no match for Gustav, but I have access to his match, for I have a large garden and the compost heap is an integral part of it.
As for blame:
"/.../Because the phrase "blaming the victim" is one of the most loaded in the English language, and its reflexive use covers up some very interesting questions.
Whenever something goes wrong in the world -- an accident, a crime, a disaster -- we are naturally compelled to try to understand it, to come up with an understanding of why it happened. And in creating a narrative of this event, we tend to see it in one of two ways.
The more intuitive way of looking at events is what I'll call the judicial perspective. When something bad happens, we want to find out who's responsible, and we want them to be punished. Only when guilt has been assigned and punishment extracted can we feel that justice has been done, and the case closed. Evolution has provided us with powerful, automatic brain circuitry for this purpose. When we see someone do wrong, we feel anger and outrage. This prompts us to extract punishment, which hopefully will prevent the evildoer from repeating his or her mistake in the future. The end result is that the social order is maintained.
The counterpart of anger is guilt. When we do something wrong -- especially something that has made other people angry at us in the past, or is making them angry at us right now -- we feel an emotion that serves as an internal deterrent to carrying out the same behavior again. We don't need to think about what happened and intellectually arrive at a conclusion for what we ought to do. On the contrary, often, it's hard to stop ourselves from doing what we ought to. Husband forgets his anniversary; wife yells at him; husband remembers next anniversary. (This is not a hypothetical.)
The alternative to the judicial perspective is what I'll call the analytical point of view. In this mode, the goal is simply to identify causes. When an airplane crashes, the National Transportation Safety Board sends a team to investigate the accident site and determine what happened. When they issue their final report, the NTSB identifies all the factors that helped contribute to the accident. The NTSB does not lay blame, nor extract punishment. The purpose of the NTSB is not to achieve justice, but to understand what happened so that rational steps can be taken so that they do not occur again.
When we look at the world from an analytical point of view, we tend to find multiple causes. An airplane crash, for instance, might have been partially caused by a line attendant who might have put the wrong kind of fuel into the airplane's tanks -- but a contributing factor might have been that the pilot failed to check the fuel. In future, we might prevent future accidents by, say, making fuel nozzles that only fit into the right kind of tank and putting a sign inside every cockpit that says, "have you checked your fuel tanks?" Multiple causes, multiple avenues to increase safety.
When we see things from the judicial perspective, on the other hand, we tend to see things in far simpler terms. Emotionally, we feel that one party is the perpetrator, the other the victim. One party is guilty, the other party is angry. This duality is implicit in the phrase "blaming the victim." The very word "victim" pre-identifies the party who is the recipient of the malfeasance. From the judicial perspective, to blame them for something does not compute.
/.../
But I question the use of the phrase "blaming the victim." I feel that it is emotionally inciting and tends to obscure rather than shed light on important issues. It's a rallying cry -- a call to action, not to thought."
From Do Crime Victims Deserve Some Blame?
"/.../Because the phrase "blaming the victim" is one of the most loaded in the English language, and its reflexive use covers up some very interesting questions.
Whenever something goes wrong in the world -- an accident, a crime, a disaster -- we are naturally compelled to try to understand it, to come up with an understanding of why it happened. And in creating a narrative of this event, we tend to see it in one of two ways.
The more intuitive way of looking at events is what I'll call the judicial perspective. When something bad happens, we want to find out who's responsible, and we want them to be punished. Only when guilt has been assigned and punishment extracted can we feel that justice has been done, and the case closed. Evolution has provided us with powerful, automatic brain circuitry for this purpose. When we see someone do wrong, we feel anger and outrage. This prompts us to extract punishment, which hopefully will prevent the evildoer from repeating his or her mistake in the future. The end result is that the social order is maintained.
The counterpart of anger is guilt. When we do something wrong -- especially something that has made other people angry at us in the past, or is making them angry at us right now -- we feel an emotion that serves as an internal deterrent to carrying out the same behavior again. We don't need to think about what happened and intellectually arrive at a conclusion for what we ought to do. On the contrary, often, it's hard to stop ourselves from doing what we ought to. Husband forgets his anniversary; wife yells at him; husband remembers next anniversary. (This is not a hypothetical.)
The alternative to the judicial perspective is what I'll call the analytical point of view. In this mode, the goal is simply to identify causes. When an airplane crashes, the National Transportation Safety Board sends a team to investigate the accident site and determine what happened. When they issue their final report, the NTSB identifies all the factors that helped contribute to the accident. The NTSB does not lay blame, nor extract punishment. The purpose of the NTSB is not to achieve justice, but to understand what happened so that rational steps can be taken so that they do not occur again.
When we look at the world from an analytical point of view, we tend to find multiple causes. An airplane crash, for instance, might have been partially caused by a line attendant who might have put the wrong kind of fuel into the airplane's tanks -- but a contributing factor might have been that the pilot failed to check the fuel. In future, we might prevent future accidents by, say, making fuel nozzles that only fit into the right kind of tank and putting a sign inside every cockpit that says, "have you checked your fuel tanks?" Multiple causes, multiple avenues to increase safety.
When we see things from the judicial perspective, on the other hand, we tend to see things in far simpler terms. Emotionally, we feel that one party is the perpetrator, the other the victim. One party is guilty, the other party is angry. This duality is implicit in the phrase "blaming the victim." The very word "victim" pre-identifies the party who is the recipient of the malfeasance. From the judicial perspective, to blame them for something does not compute.
/.../
But I question the use of the phrase "blaming the victim." I feel that it is emotionally inciting and tends to obscure rather than shed light on important issues. It's a rallying cry -- a call to action, not to thought."
From Do Crime Victims Deserve Some Blame?
In fact I expected this level of reply after having spanked you several times recently. :spank:
Not at all, you're juvenile antics are frankly quite obvious and not nearly as funny as you think they are.
You must be thinking of a different forum, because I have to specify indent and change the font for quotes on this one, it's not automatic.
Regardless, your intitial post to me is left justified, your Cain quote is a different font and indented and then your comment with the link named Retard is once again left justified and the same font as your prior response to me, so yes it does make it appear that that insult is also directed at me.
Since we know from other recent posts that you like to do this sort of thing why should we not presume you are not doing it again?
Just like your initial attempts to claim that your "You're a fucking idiot" post wasn't a (ban worthy) insult to the user "nobody", no one believes you on this one either
NOT in the thread where it occured. No way of telling if "nobody" even saw that other thread.
And as everyone could see in the poll thread you started, with your first arguing that it wasn't an insult, that it was just another example of you doing a typical childish post just to stir up shit.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2846054&postcount=24
The fact is Gustav, you have all these infractions because you enjoy the attention.
Indeed you appear to crave it.
After this though, you are on my IGNORE list as you are childish and rarely have anything worthwhile to add to any adult discussion.
I hope others will do the same.
Nah, but since I'm sure you know and enjoy how it tastes, eat all you want.
AMF
i remember having a conversation with an individual irl who exhibited the same illogical, stunted and utterly disingenuous level of discourse
he was the village idiot
i pelted the pathetic sod with rotton eggs and tomatoes, then planted my foot firmly up his ass.
what a pathetic and juvenile response
the true measure of a man is his word.
epic fail
/spits
ahh
that transpired a little differently
you happily wriggled on my boot
the true measure of a man is his word.
epic fail
/spits
ahh
that transpired a little differently
you happily wriggled on my boot
In your dreams Gustav, in your dreams.
This is all I'd need for the likes of you:
Now that wouldn't be in accordance with the Three Laws now, would it?
Unless... you are a product of Cyberdine Industries. Yikes.
Maybe it would be an action in accordance with the Zeroth law.
LOL, You can't even come up with original put downs.
Gustav's theme song....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm7u25wRiV8&feature=related
Mod Hat
*sits Gustav in one corner and Adoucette in another*
Okay kids, you're both on timeout... as much for egging on the other as for the initial fighting... I think enough is enough - if you don't like one another, feel free to simply ignore the other... but the public cat fights can stop, especially when they devolve into such things as the last few posts... feel free to stare at the wall for a few minutes while you calm down, then simply add each other to the ignore list if you must.
C'mon ya'll... time to be civil doncha think?
*sits Gustav in one corner and Adoucette in another*
Okay kids, you're both on timeout... as much for egging on the other as for the initial fighting... I think enough is enough - if you don't like one another, feel free to simply ignore the other... but the public cat fights can stop, especially when they devolve into such things as the last few posts... feel free to stare at the wall for a few minutes while you calm down, then simply add each other to the ignore list if you must.
C'mon ya'll... time to be civil doncha think?
But then that wouldn't be in accordance with my theory that "he" is a time traveling robot from the 1950's--Robots and Empire, published 1985. Yes, Dr. Calvin hypothesized as much in "The Evitable Conflict" (1950), but it was by no means a common phenomenon and, as such, was only evinced by robots of the highest caliber and most advanced programming. And needless to say...
Well, I suspect we may be dealing with something more akin to this:
Last edited:
- Status