[3/3]
There is actually a discursive idyll that starts with asking a certain kind of obvious question, but it rarely seems to work outside of cartoons and television crime serials.
We began this set of posts with
you asking↑, and it turns out that on the same day—about six minutes later, actually—you tried
declaring↗ a different version of inquiry in a thread about Covid antimaskers: "Surely," you wrote, "Vociferous isn't stepping into this thread to try to defend the woman in the opening post." File under, "Duh."
Of course not.
"If I wanted to defend anyone, I certainly wouldn't pussyfoot around it."
Vociferous replied↗. "But I can see someone might want to imply bad motives for posting such a damning video."
So let me try it your way: Certes, James, you are not so naïve as to actually believe our neighbor is posting any genuine argument? After all this time, are you really so easily deceived by commonplace bad faith? But we already know, James,
no, you're not. I mean, right? Still, I might try it this way in order to illustrate a point: What would I expect to accomplish pretending you are so naïve and gullible? Do I really think you would let me line the ducks up in an idyllic row to pick off so easily as a juvenile exercise in if/then? Why, after all this time, would I?
Thus, again: It is easy enough to wonder what you expect to accomplish by this method.
"Surely Vociferous isn't stepping into this thread to try to defend […]." Of course he isn't. Generally, he isn't really trying to do anything other than disrupt a discussion he doesn't like in order to make himself feel better. More particularly, he is protecting a larger cause. In the antimask question, he was protecting a bloc of American voters by taking a swing at Australian police in order to imply denunciation of Australia. Here's the tricky part, James, except it's not: The justification is a pretense of indignance responding to the impoliteness of observing reality. Now, I know that reads, to you, either as a great distillation or another dubious political formulation, and, sure, the only difference is whether we agree, that is, whether I've upset you, yet, or not. So think it through: Paddoboy (Australian) points to "damn insane stupidity" of Australian antimask argument; this happens to translate, across the Pacific, to a bloc of American voters who happen to coincide with who and what Vociferous advocates. What? Is that part confusing? This is a traditional staple at Sciforums, one of the fruits° cultivated over the course of years. Vociferous is responding as if the exchange is experiential and not informational, not, as he postures himself, lashing out, but defending against rude, extraneous, vicious aggression.
If I suggest you were always a sucker for this sort of pretense, it even looms in this thread, a shadow over your concern about "the kind of cancel culture in which people on the extreme left target try to 'cancel' those on the less-extreme left". It's one thing to cut breaks and throw bones, but that's never really been how it's gone. The time a moderator called Latinx immigrants an invading army, and then used his authority to censor criticism under an
ad hoc, one-time rule really should be a silly memory from once upon a time, but it was hard to not recall, years later, in the wake of President Trump's words and then a mass shooter's manifesto. While some arguments are hard to justify rationally because they are irrational, there are also certain argumentative ranges that, at Sciforums, not only are not obliged to some manner of rational discourse, are further explicitly protected because such obligations are unfair. And given enough data points over the years, it's kind of clear how that goes.
And it's within the context of that sad harvest that the question of discursive idyll arises. If you pursue a discursive idyll, it is entirely possible that another might have a reason to disagree with that pathway. But as you have either noticed or not, there are also those whose reasons to disagree are aesthetic at best, and some do not actually seek discussion, but, rather disruption.
Which brings us around to the earlier point including the jellybean thread, and the One Thread that required a second, and the point that diversity itself can disrupt idyll; again: What remains less clear is how you approach deliberate, even calculated disruption. And this is why I wonder at the prospect of playing along with a game intended to go nowhere.
I mean, if you're working the fourth wall, my technical advice is that the bit takes to long to play out when someone else behaves to disrupt not simply a potential discursive idyll, but discourse in general. Even still, there remains the mystery of what you would expect to be showing the audience. If you ever manage to make your point, what do you expect to happen?
And that's the thing: It's
nothing. At least, it looks like nothing happens.
And I'm not actually out for a piece of you, today. That's the thing, I've had parts of this post sitting around nearly from the outset. And, really, if I describe you and Vociferous as a match made in heavenly futility, you're willing to just go 'round and 'round and 'round, trying to set up the narrow lanes and boxes, and he'll just keep rubber-gluing and shifting subjects, and I really don't know what you expect to accomplish.
Then again, it's also true that our history of discussing member behavior is one of the vital bases of that futility: This strange fruit is a harvest of your preferred cultivation. We've talked about this, before, and it is by your leave that the prospect of any standard of rational discourse is anathema.
"Wasn't I clear?" you asked. Reasonably. As I said, if you were unclear it is because Vociferous, for whatever reason, cannot follow his own digression. And this is Sciforums. You could have been perfectly, explicitly clear, and even then, what, really, would you expect?
You tend to shift subjects in order to pursue an outcome; Vociferous tends to shift subjects as a manner of knockoff jihad, a throwing of stones to disrupt while fleeing from a losing field. I can easily follow you down a couple of obvious pathways when asking what gave him that idea, or were you not clear enough, but it remains unclear what you actually expect happens next.
I mean, sure, you were clear enough, but that's beside his point.
There was a time when
you asked↗ why I criticized you instead of Vociferous, and while I found that a strange pretense considering how openly I disdain his misrepresentations, self-denigrations, and pretenses of ignorance, look, I can criticize him all I want, but I still don't get what you expect to accomplish playing the slow pretense. What gave him that idea? It's what he could come up with in the moment. Were you not clear enough? Only if he's not following the discussion, even his own part. What are you actually expecting him to say when you ask?
And the reason I'm going through it this long way is because I'm not sure what else to do. I mean, I can only imagine what you would say if I simply quoted your post and left my response to the question of what you expect. There are, after all, some seemingly obvious things that you either don't notice, or, well, maybe you think you know what you're doing, but there also really are reasons it doesn't go anywhere. After a while, it's like a comedy routine built entirely of setups, and if I've long since stopped expecting the punch line, that only makes the question of what you expect to accomplish all the more compelling.
Certain prospects of futility are fascinating. Confucius never said an anvil without a hammer is just a cleat that isn't bolted to the dock; still, if it falls in the ocean, it sinks all the same.
It's not like you don't understand that certain behavior occurs. But since, at the time of actually saying those things, you knew you weren't going to get an substantial answer, the question remains what you were actually after. Given all else, it seems unlikely that you expected he would just up and walk through the logical construction with you. So, what did you think he would say? What did you think would happen next? What did you expect to accomplish?
____________________
Notes:
° Or, perhaps, a vegetable.
, to the other 
, ya'know.