I have read your explanations. I just don't understand why you guys just can't agree to disagree. If you don't like him, just don't read his posts. But no, I don't think he's trolling. He just disagrees with you. That's just something that happens on anonymous message boards. You may disagree with what I just said and that's o.k.
I don't even know what you think I disagree with him on. I've been talking solely about his debate tactics.
I find this hilarious. My debating techniques may need some work but you have to put it in context of this thread and your own approach. You have constantly called me a troll or stated I might be which is the same thing instead of responding to what I posted.
That is hypocritical and shows a lack of integrity.
@Versatile, here are some examples of what we're talking about.
1) steveo cut your post shenlong55 was responding to which took his statement out of context. Maybe not intentional but your part of the conversation was relevant to shenlong's response. I've added it back here.
2) Starting comments with "I find this hilarious" is the text version of scoffing at someone's opinion. It serves no purpose other than to rile people up.
3) The bolded: First shenlong55 did not call him a troll, he argued why it was possible. steveo uses an OR rather than an AND so that we can't say he's lying. Trump uses that one a lot by the way.
4) steveo claims that calling someone a troll and suggesting it's possible that someone is a troll is the same thing. It's not.
5) Saying that this shows a lack of integrity borders on a personal attack and adds nothing to the comment.
6) I have no idea why steveo thinks this shows a lack of integrity. All shenlong said was that he's not commented on steveo's opinions but rather his debate tactics. Is this not true?
Do any of these points make sense to you? Can you see why one might accuse him of being a troll?
Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.
I think I've already explained where I could see others viewing him as a troll, but the caveat is that their standard does not meet my standard. People are different and that's acceptable. But yes, Steveo should stop IMPLYING what others wishes and thoughts are and just ask them. My guess is that he has become defensive from the perpetual attacks and I've found Shenlong55 to be pretty honest and inquisitive so far. However, in his defense, we had a mod that basically accused him of being a troll and threatened to ban him. The question should be what exactly is the threshold for being considered a troll? It's highly subjective, wouldn't you agree?
I would give him a chance to make his points and ask him and others to quit assuming what others intentions are. Sound fair?
Keep in mind that if someone is trolling a conversation and makes it obvious they'll be banned or ignored pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to successfully troll a conversation must keep the appearance of sincerity. If you're looking for blatant proof like calling people stupid and inflammatory rants, you're not going to find it.
Are you discussing this thread or in general? I would argue both Kris and Toque have both violated normal bounds in this conversation. Keep in mind I have been reading these forums for years and I have seen many examples of very poor behavior that has remained unchecked. I'll let you guess which side of the political spectrum they have fallen on most times.
I would like to know what violation I have committed. Disagreeing with you and pointing out sexism is not a violation.
[/quote]
Dude, pretty much everyone is familiar with Myers-Briggs.
1) Personality tests such as Myers-Briggs are not scientifically accurate.
2) Even if they were, you are not talking about the results of any test that Magdeylou has taken. You are armchair diagnosing her as a "feeler" (emotion-based) rather than a "thinker" because you think she is. That ain't Myers-Briggs. That's you imposing some sexist bullshit.
Yup. I said it. It's sexist.
Let me guess. You've taken the Myers-Briggs, and you're a "T."
Oh, and also, let me modify my response: You're gonna come back and say, "I had no idea she was a woman! No way could that be sexist!"
Except, nope. Because pretty sure you could tell she was a woman. And even if you honestly could not, "feeling" vs. "thinking" is a gendered way that society (the PATRIARCHY) has dismissed women's experience, their thoughts, their ideas, and YES, even emotions as less valid.
And, at the same time, also dismissed men's displays of emotions as "feminine" and therefore evidence of their being less manly -- and less logical.
So, GTFOH with your Myers-Briggs pop psychology diagnoses.
Dude, pretty much everyone is familiar with Myers-Briggs.
1) Personality tests such as Myers-Briggs are not scientifically accurate.
2) Even if they were, you are not talking about the results of any test that Magdeylou has taken. You are armchair diagnosing her as a "feeler" (emotion-based) rather than a "thinker" because you think she is. That ain't Myers-Briggs. That's you imposing some sexist bullshit.
Yup. I said it. It's sexist.
Let me guess. You've taken the Myers-Briggs, and you're a "T."
Oh, and also, let me modify my response: You're gonna come back and say, "I had no idea she was a woman! No way could that be sexist!"
Except, nope. Because pretty sure you could tell she was a woman. And even if you honestly could not, "feeling" vs. "thinking" is a gendered way that society (the PATRIARCHY) has dismissed women's experience, their thoughts, their ideas, and YES, even emotions as less valid.
And, at the same time, also dismissed men's displays of emotions as "feminine" and therefore evidence of their being less manly -- and less logical.
So, GTFOH with your Myers-Briggs pop psychology diagnoses.
Basically you have made up an entire scenario in your biased imagination.
Nowhere was I denigrating Madge, but you implied it
You have called me a sexist with no proof
You have also implied what I believed about Myers-Briggs based on your imagination and that I was implying I thought others were stupid because I asked Madge if she was clear what I was referring to after she misunderstood
You assumed what my designation was without asking, although you did get it right
You made up a whole conversation in your head about my responses that I never uttered
You lectured me on the Patriarchy for no reason
You accused me of making pop-psychology armchair diagnosis' when I simply asked a question
Then you told me to Get the Fuck Out
Finally your question/statement about it not being a violation to disagree with someone is valid, HOWEVER you made up this entire fiasco in your head. You were arguing with an imaginary boogeyman. Trust me, I will tell what I believe, but you have to have the decency to ask first and not make up imaginary shit.
You know what would have cleared up this whole mess? You simply asking me what I meant when I asked her about her personality type. It truly was that simple.
If you would like to have a conversation about personality traits and how they color our world than I am here for you as it is interesting.