Thread: Calling Russ, You Callous Bastard Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005671
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Yes you. Isn't this one of the nastiest posts the Ship has ever seen?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This one?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe "the poor" are more principled and less self-interested than some well-meaning materialists give them credit for ?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This one?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe "the poor" are more principled and less self-interested than some well-meaning materialists give them credit for ?
Yes. Full of his usual generosity of spirit. So fucking patronising and self-indulgent.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
He will not appear here. He likes to pretend to be well intentioned and that he engages honestly, However, in one instance that he did come down, he revealed himself to be an intentional troll.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This one?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe "the poor" are more principled and less self-interested than some well-meaning materialists give them credit for ?
Yes. Full of his usual generosity of spirit. So fucking patronising and self-indulgent.
I just read what Russ said as a flip remark - can you unpack why it's so bad? I'm not doubting you when you say that it is - I'm just not really understanding but possibly my brain's given up.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This one?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe "the poor" are more principled and less self-interested than some well-meaning materialists give them credit for ?
Yes. Full of his usual generosity of spirit. So fucking patronising and self-indulgent.
I just read what Russ said as a flip remark - can you unpack why it's so bad? I'm not doubting you when you say that it is - I'm just not really understanding but possibly my brain's given up.
At the very best, and I'm probably giving credit where none is due, he is showing himself to be a sick, callous, sarcastic bastard.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Yes you. Isn't this one of the nastiest posts the Ship has ever seen?
Candidly, I doubt it makes the top ten.
It's cynical and supercilious, certainly, but it's neither crazy nor malevolent. I doubt it will be remembered for either good or ill.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
I am not sure what this is all about, but then, I never am. Whether we look down on the poor, or pretend to look up to them, they are never us - always some other group that we're glad not to be part of, but are perfectly happy to patronise. There's a woman in our congregation who is tireless in her good works, helping the neediest, and who hates the idea that anyone should know she has to visit the food bank every week to keep herself fed. Where does she fit into this? She is a real person; not a hypothetical creature for discussion.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
OK, OK, I couldn't reply to it in Purgatory nor could I leave it alone. I should on reflection have responded on the existing Russ thread in Hell. After, there should be an anti-Russ thread here in the same way as there is a gay bakery one in DH.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This one?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe "the poor" are more principled and less self-interested than some well-meaning materialists give them credit for ?
Yes. Full of his usual generosity of spirit. So fucking patronising and self-indulgent.
I just read what Russ said as a flip remark - can you unpack why it's so bad? I'm not doubting you when you say that it is - I'm just not really understanding but possibly my brain's given up.
At the very best, and I'm probably giving credit where none is due, he is showing himself to be a sick, callous, sarcastic bastard.
Perhaps I'm also missing something (it's been a long day in a long week) but I'm struggling to see how this comment is any worse or any better than many other comments in Purgatory?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I see exactly why Sioni initiated this call. Russ has a pattern of such behaviour.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I guess I have missed the context. Are we to assume that Russ's remark is not intended literally?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Context is All
If we are talking about the slum dwellers of yesteryear then principled yes, in that many did not resort to prostitution or thieving in order to put bread on the table.
Lack of self interest could be interpreted through the fact that doors were left open or unlocked so that neighbours could come in and freely borrow food items they had run out of.
The more we have the less we want to share it. Who sees hitchhikers these days? Flash cars don't stop.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
If Russ was replying to the OP, which was basically 'why are the poor voting for immoral bastards like Trump who having now exploited their votes for his own ends, will probably now ignore their needs'; then maybe Russ was insinuating that in voting as they did, the poor, in fact, were doing the right thing, for the right reasons. Or something like that? It's confusing.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Someone's going to have to spell it out. In the context of the thread I can see it meaning simply "maybe we should consider the possibility that the poor really believed this stuff was good for the country-at-large and voted that belief even though they knew their own personal interests lay the other way." Which is not IMHO derogatory of anything except their ability to see through bullshit, and that's a disability the whole human race enjoys. If anything, it gives the poor (what a phrase) credit for disinterested idealism.
Again, you'll have to spell out what is callous here.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The context is in Russ' board MO. Just as when Beano or Roman Idiot post, you can be fairly certain is is with malice. Russ is more subtle, or cowardly, than they are but often mean spirited.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Uh, you know, citing someone's entire online board personality as evidence for "this is the most callous post ever" is a bit ... weak. How exactly do you know that Russ (or any other poster) might not have risen above themselves (or your understanding of themselves) in the post-in-question? Really, this is the logical equivalent of "X is an asshole. X wrote statement Y. Therefore, statement Y must be assholish in intent, regardless of what it says."
Seriously, if someone is an asshole to that extent, you can easily pick out a post where that is self-evident. Why base a whole Hell call on one that seems ... mundane?
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
but possibly my brain's given up.
I like that phrase and shall take it as my own.
I'm not getting what's so bad about the statement, either. I think a lot of the otherwise inexplicable votes for Trump had to do with the belief that he would put someone on the Supreme Court who would ban abortion. I guess if someone "poor," thought that was more important than their own benefits, then that would fit what Russ said.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Add me to the list of those who don't see what's wrong with Russ' comment. Getting all worked up over it seems to me to be on a par with getting angry at someone for saying "what a lovely day it is today" on the grounds that someone, somewhere, just died. Except the latter scenario at least has a grain of truth to back it up...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I'm on board with any thread bashing the useless piece of shit, so I don't much care as to why. However, in fairness to those who have not recognised his lack of worth, let us examine the offending statement.
quote:
Maybe "the poor" are more principled and less self-interested than some well-meaning materialists give them credit for ?
What does Russ' statement say? As the bellend isn't adding additional context it could mean
- the poor are poor because they want to be
- the poor are more principled than those who are criticising their voting pattern
- those criticising are horrible people for prioritising material wealth
Any interpretation I see seeks to deflect the harm done to people by their voting pattern and is naught less than a sneaky insult to other posters.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
How exactly do you know that Russ (or any other poster) might not have risen above themselves (or your understanding of themselves) in the post-in-question?
This is possible. However, as I list above, I cannot see how this post indicates he might have done.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Ohfergoshsakes, stay away from "as he isn't adding context, it COULD mean..."
So Trumpian.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ohfergoshsakes, stay away from "as he isn't adding context, it COULD mean..."
So Trumpian.
Cute. But not helpful.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm serious. Even in Hell you want more discrimination than just "I hate his guts so I'm going to attribute random assholery to him." If the brush is that broad you might as well just spit.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm serious. Even in Hell you want more discrimination than just "I hate his guts so I'm going to attribute random assholery to him." If the brush is that broad you might as well just spit.
Hell has no such requirements and I did not begin this thread.
However, If you read the post which triggered this exchange with you, I give reasons why Russ' post is offensive. If you see another interpretation, please share.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm serious. Even in Hell you want more discrimination than just "I hate his guts so I'm going to attribute random assholery to him." If the brush is that broad you might as well just spit.
You're not going to get it from me. Russ is not only a shit but unlike deano and Romanlion (who also shits, don't me wrong) he refuses to engage. That isn't random, it is systematic.
Context is everything and the above states the context. YMMV.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm serious. Even in Hell you want more discrimination than just "I hate his guts so I'm going to attribute random assholery to him." If the brush is that broad you might as well just spit.
Junior Hosting notwithstanding, Hell is as much home to the inchoate howl of rage as it is the expertly wielded rapier.
The Greek Chorus may sing along as it sees fit...
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
There was no intention of junior hosting. There was frustration with illogic. (And yes, I'm aware logic is no requirement in Hell)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Yes you. Isn't this one of the nastiest posts the Ship has ever seen?
No, you numbskull, it isn't.
30 seconds. That's how long it took to me find posts further up the thread that clearly explained why "the poor" was written in quotes.
All this complaint about Russ not providing context. Russ didn't have to provide context, it was already fucking there.
Spare us, Lord, from merchants of manufactured outrage regardless of their place on the political spectrum.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It doesn't matter two shits whether it is written the poor or "the poor", it still counts as a shitty statement.
Though I will agree that it ranks nowhere near the top nastiest posts on the Ship.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It doesn't matter two shits whether it is written the poor or "the poor", it still counts as a shitty statement.
The thread it appears on is called "Why do the poor keep voting for poverty?".
Various answers to that question have been given on the thread, including that they are ignorant, gullible, stupid or desperate. None of those options generated outrage or Hell Calls, even though on the face of it they are far more shitty* than Russ' suggestion that it may be because they are voting for principles other than their own self-interest.
Everybody else is reading the same words that I am, right? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
.
*= which would you rather be called: ignorant, gullible, stupid, desperate or principled?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It doesn't matter two shits whether it is written the poor or "the poor", it still counts as a shitty statement.
The thread it appears on is called "Why do the poor keep voting for poverty?".
Various answers to that question have been given on the thread, including that they are ignorant, gullible, stupid or desperate. None of those options generated outrage or Hell Calls, even though on the face of it they are far more shitty* than Russ' suggestion that it may be because they are voting for principles other than their own self-interest.
Everybody else is reading the same words that I am, right?
.
*= which would you rather be called: ignorant, gullible, stupid, desperate or principled?
To be honest I read a hefty dose of sarcasm in Russ's post, which pissed me off no end. Maybe one day I'll find something warm in a post from Russ: when that happens, I'll let you know.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Marvin:
If a statement is made by Barnabas62, I will likely see it in the best possible light. And that is because he is kind, intelligent and reasonable.
If beano made the same statement, I would view it with suspicion, because he is a worthless shit whose posts are bilious chunks of hate.
Who said what matters to the interpretation, statement rarely exist in a vacuum. Russ is far closer to beano and roman idiot than he is to a worthwhile human.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It doesn't matter two shits whether it is written the poor or "the poor", it still counts as a shitty statement.
Though I will agree that it ranks nowhere near the top nastiest posts on the Ship.
What's shitty about it? Oh my God, he suggested people might have principles!
The only thing I see is a suggestion that the rest of the folk forensically picking over the voting patterns of others might be missing something. That's it. It's not even a statement about the poor. It's a statement about people on the Ship of Fools who are completely unable to accept that anyone could think differently to the way Shipmates think.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Seriously, the thread in question is basically on a theme that I've seen all too often recently: "you're poor, and your vote didn't lead to you being less poor, so therefore I think you must have voted wrong".
And Russ is critiquing that. And you think Russ is the shitty person? For calling out the notion that one's vote should be determined by its effect on one's own wealth?
We spend large amounts of time criticising the rich for doing exactly that, for organising things for their own narrow self-interest. But hey, when it comes to poor people we're asking, "why didn't you vote for your own narrow self-interest"?
And when someone calls out that attitude - not the attitude of the poor, but the attitude of the folk who are demanding to know why the poor vote "wrong" - it gets described as one of the nastiest posts ever and dragged to Hell.
Utterly pathetic.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Marvin:
If a statement is made by Barnabas62, I will likely see it in the best possible light. And that is because he is kind, intelligent and reasonable.
If beano made the same statement, I would view it with suspicion, because he is a worthless shit whose posts are bilious chunks of hate.
Who said what matters to the interpretation, statement rarely exist in a vacuum. Russ is far closer to beano and roman idiot than he is to a worthwhile human.
And this is what is wrong with politics today. I don't have time to read the message, far too busy fanning my dislike of the messenger.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
<snip> "why didn't you vote for your own narrow self-interest"?
If you can't understand the question, what chance is there that you will understand the answer?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
<snip> "why didn't you vote for your own narrow self-interest"?
If you can't understand the question, what chance is there that you will understand the answer?
What is it do you think I'm not understanding? The voting of "the poor" being directly linked to "poverty" is focusing entirely on people's material circumstances.
As for "the answer"... what fucking answer? The one thing no-one is doing is actually going and asking the poor about their reasons for voting.
[ 23. March 2017, 21:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Everybody else is reading the same words that I am, right?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And when someone calls out that attitude - not the attitude of the poor, but the attitude of the folk who are demanding to know why the poor vote "wrong" - it gets described as one of the nastiest posts ever and dragged to Hell.
Utterly pathetic.
Thank you for this. I couldn't work out what I was missing. Now I see I wasn't missing anything.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Marvin:
If a statement is made by Barnabas62, I will likely see it in the best possible light. And that is because he is kind, intelligent and reasonable.
If beano made the same statement, I would view it with suspicion, because he is a worthless shit whose posts are bilious chunks of hate.
Who said what matters to the interpretation, statement rarely exist in a vacuum. Russ is far closer to beano and roman idiot than he is to a worthwhile human.
And this is what is wrong with politics today. I don't have time to read the message, far too busy fanning my dislike of the messenger.
I read the message. I have three interpretation of that message I read. Or didn't you read what I wrote?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I did read it. Which of those interpretations was so awful that Russ should be scolded for it?
Because the one that was clearly meant, a dig at Shipmates rather than "the poor", was a quite mild and perfectly justified suggestion that focusing entirely on someone's material circumstances might miss key information.
Heck, he even said "well-meaning". That's being quite nice rather than really putting the boot in. You decided to paraphrase it as "horrible people" but that's your woefully poor paraphrase, not what Russ actually wrote.
[ 24. March 2017, 03:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
This is the second thread in quick succession where you've invented something to be opposed to that only bears a slight resemblance to what was actually written. Last time it was the Milo thread where you imported an implication of adult-child relationships where it didn't belong.
Instead of asking whether I read your stuff, try spending more time rechecking what other people wrote.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As for "the answer"... what fucking answer? The one thing no-one is doing is actually going and asking the poor about their reasons for voting.
For what it's worth (i.e. nothing), I've gone and asked them. That is, the handful I personally have access to. In several cases it comes down to "I had a specific concern about foreign policy I thought Trump would handle better than Clinton." In a couple cases it was the abortion issue. In no case was it "I thought Trump would somehow make my personal situation better."
But surely this isn't surprising? I mean, don't normal people of all economic levels have some principles, as well as straightforward "do me a favor here"?
IMHO what Russ said reads as a "duh" statement that could be made about any economic level.
But then, it's true I haven't been following him about the Ship looking for the whole broad context of his personality in order to interpret this single post.
Still, for the downright shittiness award, I'd prefer a post which didn't require that kind of massive effort to interpret correctly.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But then, it's true I haven't been following him about the Ship looking for the whole broad context of his personality in order to interpret this single post.
So, you evaluate everyone you encounter thought by thought? You never consider the source? That is simply strange. It is not how most humans seem to work, and doesn't appear very efficient or accurate. But whatever.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But then, it's true I haven't been following him about the Ship looking for the whole broad context of his personality in order to interpret this single post.
So, you evaluate everyone you encounter thought by thought? You never consider the source? That is simply strange. It is not how most humans seem to work, and doesn't appear very efficient or accurate.
It's also not what she said.
[ 24. March 2017, 10:39: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Marvin:
If a statement is made by Barnabas62, I will likely see it in the best possible light. And that is because he is kind, intelligent and reasonable.
If beano made the same statement, I would view it with suspicion, because he is a worthless shit whose posts are bilious chunks of hate.
Who said what matters to the interpretation, statement rarely exist in a vacuum. Russ is far closer to beano and roman idiot than he is to a worthwhile human.
How very prejudiced of you.
Of course, such an admission means the rest of us should henceforth ignore any responses you may make to people's posts on the grounds that they will have nothing to do with the post content and everything to do with whether you like the person or not.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's also not what she said.
No, not what she said. What she did say was phrased in a way generally considered snarky, and that annoyed me. So I responded to an extended version. One needn't "follow" anyone around, simply pay attention.
The concept that every post here is evaluated in and of itself is ridiculous. It is not how the vast majority of people interact and it certainly is not how most people here interact.
Though some respond as if they do, speaking of which...
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]How very prejudiced of you.
Of course, such an admission means the rest of us should henceforth ignore any responses you may make to people's posts on the grounds that they will have nothing to do with the post content and everything to do with whether you like the person or not.
Holy fuck, Marvin. Can you at least once demonstrate the ability to read and process a complete post? It seems beyond you to read further than this, but at least one post?
Ok, then, let us start with one Sentence.
quote:
Who said what matters to the interpretation, statement(s) rarely exist in a vacuum.
Do you see the word solely or only or any word with a similar meaning attached to that sentence? What is said and who said it are part of how humans tend to evaluate meaning. See? two concepts working together. Does it blow your mind? I've probably reached your limit of interaction sentences ago, so I'll stop for now.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you see the word solely or only or any word with a similar meaning attached to that sentence?
No, I see it in the way you're calling a perfectly ordinary post "shitty" based purely on who posted it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Heck, Marvin, every Shipmate creates a track record by what they post and how they post it. It's a discipline outside of Hell to leave personal animus aside. But in Hell any Shipmate can let it all hang out.
I reckon deano has earned a fair measure of distrust. Is that prejudice, or simply based on his posting patterns here? Well, I guess you could argue prejudice, but that strikes me as pretty purist for Hell. And pretty harsh to label lilBuddha that way. Based on lilBuddha's posting patterns.
YMMV, that's your privilege.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The concept that every post here is evaluated in and of itself is ridiculous. It is not how the vast majority of people interact and it certainly is not how most people here interact.
Way to miss the point. The concept is how things SHOULD be evaluated.
Well done for spotting that we're not all perfect. But maybe some of us occasionally spend some time trying to make sure our prejudices don't prevent us from seeing what's written, instead of publicly embracing those prejudices the way you did.
It's not about ignoring all history, but it's about the WEIGHT you place on it. Jumping on the "it was Russ so it must have been bad" train is using way too much weight.
And yes, deano also does occasionally manage to say something that isn't horrible.
[ 25. March 2017, 00:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not about ignoring all history, but it's about the WEIGHT you place on it. Jumping on the "it was Russ so it must have been bad" train is using way too much weight.
I initially thought him to be like our good-hearted, but slightly racist gran and treated him so. I gave him chance after chance until he revealed himself to be a duplicitous bastard. I do not care that he might occasionally say something decent, not any more.
quote:
And yes, deano also does occasionally manage to say something that isn't horrible.
Likely by accident. But I'll give deano this over Russ: he is honest in his hate. Russ is not.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not care that he might occasionally say something decent, not any more.
And also with you.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not care that he might occasionally say something decent, not any more.
And also with you.
I do not pretend that I am a good person. And I can be mean.
But if you are seriously putting me in the same catagory as those wastes of carbon, then fuck the hell off.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes, because I am committed to permanently putting people in categories. FFS.
You might not pretend to be a good person, but you generally do a fairly good impression of an intelligent one. But wow are you being dumb right now. You're engaging in the kind of petulance I more generally associate with the President of the United States.
You are openly saying that if Russ dropped an utter pearl of wisdom you would reject it. Have you actually stopped, for one second, to consider what he said? Did it get through when I said it instead, or am I as equally valueless? Or is the thought permanently tainted once you know Russ had it?
Do you not realise how UTTERLY open to manipulation you are if you only care about the messenger and not the message? After all, this is exactly how politics works now. People who live in thought bubbles where they blindly accept what the "right" person says and immediately reject what the "wrong" person says. And you're fucking embracing that approach.
[ 25. March 2017, 13:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You are openly saying that if Russ dropped an utter pearl of wisdom you would reject it.
Not exactly what I said. But let me clarify things for you.
If Russ said he liked puppies, I am not going to assume he is lying or that he means he likes to squish his toes in the entrails of still writhing puppies. I would assume, barring further content, that he means he likes them for the same reason most people do; they are furry babies.
However, given a statement which can be viewed negatively, I am going to assume it negative given his posting history. Unless he gives evidence otherwise.
quote:
Have you actually stopped, for one second, to consider what he said?
Yes, and gave three interpretations of what he said.
quote:
Did it get through when I said it instead, or am I as equally valueless? Or is the thought permanently tainted once you know Russ had it?
You are making your evaluation of what you think he might be saying with less evidence or context than I am.
You aren't worthless, BTW. Annoying at times, but not worthless.
quote:
Do you not realise how UTTERLY open to manipulation you are if you only care about the messenger and not the message? After all, this is exactly how politics works now. People who live in thought bubbles where they blindly accept what the "right" person says and immediately reject what the "wrong" person says. And you're fucking embracing that approach.
That is one hell of an extrapolation. I don't even do that here.
When Russ utters a pearl of wisdom, let me know. Until then, I will be cautious stepping in what he typically utters?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh for fuck's sake I am NOT using less evidence or context. I READ THE THREAD HE POSTED ON!
Gosh, what a surprising idea, eh? Instead of citing the whole History of Russ, I looked at the conversation with which Russ was involved. The one where he wasn't the first person to put "poor" in quotes.
The one where it's easy to figure out that Russ was targeting well-meaning materialists because there's a bunch of people discussing the motives of the poor in a way that assumes being poor ought to determine one's vote.
I'm not using less context than you. I'm using context that makes SENSE.
Go on, any minute now you'll say "I missed that". The way you did after God knows how many posts suggesting a journalist wrote sympathetically about pedophilia when I finally got you to reread the relevant material.
Either that or you'll confirm how you don't care what anyone else said in the thread because it's all Russ, Russ, Russ, drowning out in your head any context that wasn't penned by Russ. You keep talking about Russ instead of talking about the thread.
[ 25. March 2017, 21:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Of course it is about Russ. He said what he did, no one said it for him.
How does it matter if he was the first one to use "the poor" in quotes?
You are using the context that supports your argument. How can it not make sense to consider the track record of someone made a statement?
Especially when that statement doesn't appear to be a direct response to any post anywhere near it and there is no follow up to clarify.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course it is about Russ. He said what he did, no one said it for him.
How does it matter if he was the first one to use "the poor" in quotes?
Right. We're going with ongoing allegiance to stupidity, then. Carry on, I'm done.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course it is about Russ. He said what he did, no one said it for him.
How does it matter if he was the first one to use "the poor" in quotes?
Right. We're going with ongoing allegiance to stupidity, then. Carry on, I'm done.
Cute. Russ' post wasn't tied very strongly to what was being said, but whatever floats your boat.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
<Munches warm cashews. Drinks Mousethief Cooler.>
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ah, cashews.
I fear your entertainment might be petering out, though. You see, when someone makes a nasty post and gets called to Hell for it, there is usually a steady entry of new people turning up to explain why the post was nasty.
This isn't happening in this case. This is following the other path of Hell calls, which is "why the fuck are you calling someone to Hell over that thoroughly reasonable post?", and it tends to peter out a lot more quickly. There being no genuine fuel for the fire. The anger is only secondary.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The way I see it is that they are not aware of Russ' pattern of posting. He has a tendency to post in a way that appears misguided, but might not be ill-intentioned. Like your racist, homophobic "that is the was it was" grand-parent. But the mask slipped down here and he fully revealed this was a guise. He is a troll. Perhaps only part-time, but a troll no less.
I owe him no consideration.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
<Munches warm cashews. Drinks Mousethief Cooler.>
{Passes Camp Fire Thin Mints around.}
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Mmmmmmm. I missed them this year.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The way I see it is that they are not aware of Russ' pattern of posting.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The way I see it, any time a crime is committed all the people roundabout who've been in jail should be rounded up. They did it before, chances are they did it this time too.
So let's just assume that. Let's not gather evidence about what happened THIS time, it'll take too much effort.
Lilbuddha, every time you double down on justifying why you shouldn't have to consider the contents of a particular post because you can just work off your knowledge of previous posts, I think a little less of you.
Which I will, of course, out of respect for your own beliefs, use to think less of your future posts. After all, you're showing on such a regular basis how stubbornly you can stick to a prejudice, I should just assume from now on that's probably what you're doing. It'll save me time.
You are embodying the very definition of prejudice, of judging beforehand. And you're fucking proud of it. You're urging other people to join you in your assumptions. All the people who turned up on this thread and said "I don't see anything wrong with that post by Russ", you actually hope to get them to change their view about the post they read by showing them OTHER posts.
You are quite seriously trying to prove a wrongdoing by pointing to past wrongdoings. You are the self-appointed posting police who "knows Russ' type" and, if he fails on a particular occasion to provide evidence of wrongdoing, you'll manufacture some to ensure the right result.
There is a reason why someone's past criminal history is not admissible in a criminal trial. It's precisely to prevent the flawed reasoning you are openly and repeatedly advocating.
[ 26. March 2017, 12:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I'll be honest and admit that my first reaction was a four-finger salute.
And then a scathing, biting reply.
I've an anger issue, this I've admitted and anger influences my responses, this I know.
So I had a cuppa and thought about this as dispassionately as I can, and I do not see Russ' statement in the light you do.
And here I was going to leave it, but I cannot let go pride enough to do so: I have issued far many more apologies, Mea Culpa, oops, my bad; than stubborn refusals to accede.
Pride would not let your accusation stand without response. But I will not tell you how you must, or even whether you should, evaluate this.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You see, when someone makes a nasty post and gets called to Hell for it, there is usually a steady entry of new people turning up to explain why the post was nasty.
This isn't happening in this case. This is following the other path of Hell calls, which is "why the fuck are you calling someone to Hell over that thoroughly reasonable post?", and it tends to peter out a lot more quickly. There being no genuine fuel for the fire. The anger is only secondary.
Actually, Sioni Sais started the thread, and Callan said he thought the post was cynical and supercilious, though not in the top 10 (whether he meant the top 10 mean Russ posts or the top 10 mean posts ever I can't tell). lilBuddha isn't all alone.
Personally I wonder how on earth Russ can possibly have any insight into the motivation of the many disparate people who make up "the poor," given his long history of demonstrating no feeling whatsoever for people who are not like him.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Oh, and just as soon as the rules of courts of law apply here, you'll be among the first to know.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Orfeo,it's often no longer the case that an accused's history is inadmissible - think of the growth of tendency evidence in cases of child sexual abuse. I don't like it one little bit, but prosecutors have been given it and use it. One thing if an accused gives evidence of good character - the prosecution has plenty of power to bring in contrary evidence; very much another to allow it to be slipped in at an early stage in a trial. A lazy technique.
I still don't see what was so bad about this particular post to justify the Hell call as one of the 10 nastiest ever. I thought that it may have been the last straw.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Personally I wonder how on earth Russ can possibly have any insight into the motivation of the many disparate people who make up "the poor," given his long history of demonstrating no feeling whatsoever for people who are not like him.
I saw him as commenting more on the way in which other Shipmates were claiming insight into the motivation of the poor.
And indeed, the way in which the poor were being defined purely by their material circumstances (rather than being "many disparate people"), and examined en masse for having failed to vote themselves out of poverty.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo,it's often no longer the case that an accused's history is inadmissible - think of the growth of tendency evidence in cases of child sexual abuse. I don't like it one little bit, but prosecutors have been given it and use it. One thing if an accused gives evidence of good character - the prosecution has plenty of power to bring in contrary evidence; very much another to allow it to be slipped in at an early stage in a trial. A lazy technique.
I still don't see what was so bad about this particular post to justify the Hell call as one of the 10 nastiest ever. I thought that it may have been the last straw.
I guess that was it. Russ had passed into the zone where found debate useless. Something Had To Be Done. It wasn't very good, but it stood for something.
As I said earlier, I should have posted on the existing Russ thread.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0