Splinter: Rhetorical Ethics (Those Astonishing Heteros)

[Tiassa]

The trolling moan gathers much dross

I disagree, Tiassa, it's exactly the same!!

Of course it looks that way to you. That fits with your outlook.

And even more interesting is how you're doing exactly the same as racists and bigots ......trying to show how there's a difference between "your bigotry" and "real" bigotry!

And yet you're overlooking one vital element. Perhaps you really don't see it, but that outcome also fits with your outlook.

Now then, why won't you answer the questions, Max?

• Who said this thread is dedicated to denigrating heterosexuals?

• Or are you admitting that you've been intentionally degrading homosexuals the whole time?​

 

[swarm]

• ... my standards are so deeply questioned right now that what I'd normally call bigotry doesn't seem to be bigotry ....​

The excesses of others do not justify your excesses.

• The general theme, however, is that I'm recognizing other people's standards. You know, as in, not insisting on my own.​

You are at equal fault when you adopt the same tactics as those who persecute you.

[lame excuses snipped]

Who said this thread is dedicated to denigrating heterosexuals?​

You did and do so again here: "What's fair is fair .... I'm trying to treat the hets equally here, and all you can do is complain, complain, complain."

You'll notice he never answered either of the questions above. In fact, he changed the subject, which is about what I expect.

I am not him and you are changing the subject to try and avoid the issue that you are doing wrong.

[more excuses snipped]

Sorry, man. My sympathies on this occasion are split. I see what you're getting at, but it would seem you refuse to look at what I'm trying to point out. What did you ever do? I have no idea.

More the pity.

This isn't about you as an individual, and if you want to feel hurt, there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise. After all, you are obviously the most important aspect of this discussion, right?

That's pretty pathetic. Do you really want to be the gay version of baron?

 

[Tiassa]

If that's how you want to be, Swarm ....

[lame excuses snipped]

[more excuses snipped]

That you actually went out of your way to type those phrases instead of using a little device called an ellipsis is a curious commentary on your perspective.

You did and do so again here: "What's fair is fair .... I'm trying to treat the hets equally here, and all you can do is complain, complain, complain."

That's absolutely pathetic. What you're telling me is that I'm not allowed to apply other people's standards in order to explore an idea. And why? For your petty, stupid pride that absolutely must come first, before anything else?

(And don't try to duck that last, Swarm. After all, you did whine and cry: "So what cruelty did I participate in to deserve your cruelty?" Oh, poor you.)

I am not him and you are changing the subject to try and avoid the issue that you are doing wrong.

That is so dishonest, Swarm. Especially given your deliberate efforts to distort the portions of the post you highlight for response.

More the pity.

Actually, I can tell you a bit more, now. My sympathies are officially zero on this count. And, in truth, my respect is declining rather quickly, since this is apparently all about you.

Pathetic. Disgusting. Your arrogance is only matched by your insecurity.

That's pretty pathetic. Do you really want to be the gay version of baron?

I'm sorry if the issue is too complex for your fragile ego to handle, Swarm. But the dishonesty and cowardice of your post—your refusal to address the issues put before you—is what's pathetic. Dismissing what you are incapable of handling as "lame excuses" isn't exactly a new tactic around here.

Perhaps most disturbing is that the obvious recourse is so goddamned simple that I can't figure out if it's stupidity or accidental blindness resulting from excessive egocentrism.

Look beyond yourself, Swarm, and don't give me that half-witted shit. It's not that I'm always right, man. For instance, I thought you were smarter than this. But no, your poor ego is not something I'm tremendously worried about.

 

[Baron Max]

That's absolutely pathetic. ... And why? For your petty, stupid pride that absolutely must come first, before anything else?

(And don't try to duck that last, Swarm. After all, you did whine and cry: "So what cruelty did I participate in to deserve your cruelty?" Oh, poor you.)

That is so dishonest, Swarm. ....

... And, in truth, my respect is declining rather quickly, since this is apparently all about you.

Pathetic. Disgusting. Your arrogance is only matched by your insecurity.

I'm sorry if the issue is too complex for your fragile ego to handle, Swarm. But the dishonesty and cowardice of your post—....—is what's pathetic.

Perhaps most disturbing is that the obvious recourse is so goddamned simple that I can't figure out if it's stupidity or accidental blindness resulting from excessive egocentrism.

Look beyond yourself, Swarm, and don't give me that half-witted shit. .... But no, your poor ego is not something I'm tremendously worried about.

Wow, Tiassa, really going on the personal attack this morning, huh?

Is such tactics permitted by the moderators of this site? Oops, wait, you're a moderator, ain't ya'? Sorry, ...y'all can break any of the rules that you want to.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Come on, Max, I dare you to be honest for once

Wow, Tiassa, really going on the personal attack this morning, huh?

Is such tactics permitted by the moderators of this site? Oops, wait, you're a moderator, ain't ya'? Sorry, ...y'all can break any of the rules that you want to.

Still waiting, Max ....

• Who said this thread is dedicated to denigrating heterosexuals?

• Or are you admitting that you've been intentionally degrading homosexuals the whole time?​

What's the matter, Max? Are the questions too complicated for you to understand? Are you afraid to answer them honestly? Or are you just trolling?

 

[joepistole]

Tiassa is just using a little humor...nothing wrong with that. Gay folks have an interesting sense of humor. They like a lot of other folks are all Gods children. And if you belive the Bilble, we are all creations of God. So why would God create beings he did not want?

 

[Tiassa]

God is not bound by logic

And if you belive the Bilble, we are all creations of God. So why would God create beings he did not want?

There goes Original Sin. Of course, if one thing is clear through the millennia, God is not bound by logic.

 

[Baron Max]

Still waiting, Max ....

• Who said this thread is dedicated to denigrating heterosexuals?

I think it's obvious, Tiassa, what other purpose could there be? And coming from you, it makes it even more obvious that it's intended to poke fun at, to tease "hets".

Remember when you PMed me and made a threatening comment that my use of "homo" was denigrating to ...homosexuals? Yet you use a derogatory term of "het" in exactly the same way towards heterosexuals. Are you getting away with it because you're a moderator?

And then, you go on personal attack against anothr poster, with equal immunity. But when I did it, you deleted my posts. ????

• Or are you admitting that you've been intentionally degrading homosexuals the whole time?

That has no bearing on anything.

What's the matter, Max? Are the questions too complicated for you to understand? Are you afraid to answer them honestly? Or are you just trolling?

Not trolling, it's just that answers to those questions have virtually no bearing on anything in this thread.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Tiassa is just using a little humor...nothing wrong with that.

Would he or the other moderators let me make a similar post about ...niggers? Or maybe Muslims? Just a little humor, no offense meant at all, just a little innocent humor?

Gay folks have an interesting sense of humor.

All gays have interesting sense of humor? All of them?

Baron Max

 

[Balerion]

I think it's obvious, Tiassa, what other purpose could there be? And coming from you, it makes it even more obvious that it's intended to poke fun at, to tease "hets".

Couple of problems with this, Baron. First, "hetero" and "het" have never served as derogatory or inflammatory slurs. Second, what power could it have if it came from such a minority? Consider actual derogatory slurs such as "honky" or "cracker"; do either of those have any power? Or do those get regular airplay while having no real meaning whatsoever?

Remember when you PMed me and made a threatening comment that my use of "homo" was denigrating to ...homosexuals? Yet you use a derogatory term of "het" in exactly the same way towards heterosexuals. Are you getting away with it because you're a moderator?

The term "homo", at least in the context you have used it, has a history. It actually hurts people, and has been used by those in power while they oppress those they label with the slur. And you, sir, obviously use it in a derogatory sense, much in the same way you've referred to homosexuals as "odd" and "perverse" and "strange". Your goal is degradation; hers is not.

 

[Tiassa]

Be thankful, Max, and try a little honesty

I think it's obvious, Tiassa, what other purpose could there be?

That's not a useful answer, Max. That's a dodge. Especially when coming from someone who has previously expressed that it his job, duty, mission, or some such to oppose me.

Remember when you PMed me and made a threatening comment that my use of "homo" was denigrating to ...homosexuals?

When was that? I still have all my private messages—or, at least, should—from the last few years. There's a lot of them to search through. 568 messages sent, at present.

Yet you use a derogatory term of "het" in exactly the same way towards heterosexuals. Are you getting away with it because you're a moderator?

You might be the first person I've known to be offended by the word "het". I'll take it under consideration.

Consider JDawg's point:

First, "hetero" and "het" have never served as derogatory or inflammatory slurs. Second, what power could it have if it came from such a minority? Consider actual derogatory slurs such as "honky" or "cracker"; do either of those have any power?

Tell you what, Max: provide me some reliable reference showing that a man has assaulted another for being called heterosexual, hetero, or het, and you will accomplish at least one of the things you need to do in order to make your case.

And then, you go on personal attack against anothr poster, with equal immunity. But when I did it, you deleted my posts. ????

I stand by my posts.

And, by precedent, I can delete these points again. You are, on this point, arguing with a moderator note. That you're afraid to take your case up the ladder isn't my problem. So be thankful, Max, that I'm wasting my time dealing with you in black ink, and try giving an honest answer, for once. For instance:

That has no bearing on anything.

Actually, it does. See, you spend so much time dodging issues that it seems you forget the train of the conversation. You complained, but refused to address what problems you found with the explanation on the record. That explanation has since been reiterated and clarified, yet your only argument is one that depends entirely on credibility that you do not, on this occasion, have.

Not trolling, it's just that answers to those questions have virtually no bearing on anything in this thread.

They would seem to have some relationship to your complaint. Of course, if you say they don't, fine. Quit trolling.

Would he or the other moderators let me make a similar post about ...niggers? Or maybe Muslims? Just a little humor, no offense meant at all, just a little innocent humor?

The humor, actually, is provided by the histrionics, which in a prior age would have been called "faggy". You know, prissy hand-wringing and wailing. I'm actually struck by the fact that people are determined to complain, and not participate in the thread according to its purpose. But, hey, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Personal insecurity is a widespread challenge among human beings.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: "And then, you go on personal attack against anothr poster, with equal immunity. But when I did it, you deleted my posts. ????"

I stand by my posts.

Yeah, and that's easy when you're a moderator.

Personal attacks have always been against the sciforum rules ....yet you not only make those attacks, you thumb your nose at the rules ...with immunity!

As to those PMs you've sent me, Tiassa, since you and I never carried on much of personal contact, I'd guess that there are only a few. check 'em out if you dare.

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

a curious commentary on your perspective.

So you are unfamiliar with that style of editorial comment. C'est la vie.

That's absolutely pathetic. What you're telling me is that I'm not allowed to apply other people's standards in order to explore an idea. And why? For your petty, stupid pride that absolutely must come first, before anything else?

The excesses of others do not excuse your own excesses. Doing what you proclaim wrong when it is done by others is not "exploring" an idea.

(And don't try to duck that last, Swarm. After all, you did whine and cry: "So what cruelty did I participate in to deserve your cruelty?" Oh, poor you.)

You have yet to answer my question. What cruelty did I participate in to deserve your cruelty?

[lame ad hominems sniped]

What you are doing is wrong and how you are responding to my criticism is just compounding the matter.

 

[Tiassa]

How many times 'round the circle?

So you are unfamiliar with that style of editorial comment. C'est la vie.

Actually I'm very familiar with it. I consider it dishonest and cowardly.

See, one of the things I've noticed over the years is that people don't like to read web discussions like they would read other material. Some people can't manage a whole sentence. Some can't deal with more than one sentence at a time. And some folks have some sort of problem with the idea that multiple paragraphs can be related.

Consider the length of some of my posts. Should I start throwing out periods, so that I don't confuse someone who might think that a full stop marks the end of contiguity? Or maybe write entire posts as one paragraph?

For instance, look at the paragraph above. There are three sentences. Yes, they are separate, but they are also related, and part of the same communication, attending the same theme, making the same point.

Now look at the preceding four paragraphs, as well as this one. Indeed, they are separate paragraphs, but they are related. The first paragraph, you'll note, includes the statement that I consider a certain "style of editorial comment" dishonest and cowardly. The next four paragraphs explain why. They are separate paragraphs, but they all lend to a common point. I consider this a very basic lesson of reading comprehension, and as such I suspect you are already aware of it. Hence, the idea of dishonesty. If you are aware of it, why do you so conveniently set it aside? Because it lets you dodge an issue? Well, I'm very much accustomed to that, which is part of the reason I think it cowardly.

The excesses of others do not excuse your own excesses. Doing what you proclaim wrong when it is done by others is not "exploring" an idea.

Are you suggesting, then, that my opinion about how things should be is absolute? That I should never try to look at things through other people's eyes?

You have yet to answer my question. What cruelty did I participate in to deserve your cruelty?

Actually, I did answer your question. Quite obviously, you found that answer unsatisfactorily, but decided not to tell me why. Rather, you chose to split up a paragraph, with the convenient result that you dodged the issue. Which, of course, brings us back to the beginning of this post.

[lame ad hominems sniped]

What you are doing is wrong and how you are responding to my criticism is just compounding the matter.

Your criticism?

(chortle!)

In the first place, you have yet to show any real understanding of what I'm doing. And, what's more, you chose a dishonest and cowardly course in order to avoid the issues. So, sir, what you are doing is wrong, and how you are responding to my posts only compounds the matter. Perhaps if you were not so presumptuous and arrogant, I would not find your presumptuousness and arrogance so dishonest, cowardly, and annoying.

So let's circle back and reiterate:

Are you suggesting, then, that my opinion about how things should be is absolute? That I should never try to look at things through other people's eyes?​

Those questions are raised by your snip job. Maybe you should have contributed something more valuable to the original thread than you did. You know, just maybe.

Anyway, it would be helpful if you could give something of a direct answer to the questions.

 

[swarm]

Anyway, it would be helpful if you could give something of a direct answer to the questions.

No. I've no more use for gay bigots than I have for straight bigots.

 

[Tiassa]

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

I've no more use for gay bigots than I have for straight bigots.

No more use than I have for fragile egocentrics with no desire or intention of understanding the issues they undertake.