Vijay wrote:
A lot (maybe even most) of your posts on the longer side seem to be fairly condescending if not downright rude, and I'm not even the first person to say something to that effect, so those don't seem to justify being rude or condescending as often as you are. I find all of the following to be examples of that:
No, it's the shorter remarks, like this one, that are condescending, while the longer ones are generally earnest explanation - perhaps you're simply unable to distinguish condescension from explanation of something of which you are ignorant?
a) One example is
this, where you chose to talk about "adult offspring spong[ing] off [their parents] perpetually" and so on in response to posts that were discussing my relationship with my parents, which you know nothing about apart from what I actually said about it, which was
not that, and it's pretty rude of you to presume that you do know what's really going on there when you barely even know me.
...that post does not mention you, and has nothing to do with you. I'm not sure I commented on your situation at all, actually, and certainly not in that post. This is not the first time you've been unable to distinguish personal attack from discussion of general issues. The topic at hand was whether it was in general true that children had unlimited rights to do what they want at the expense of the parent, which I summarised as the issue of children 'sponging off' their parents.
If you feel that that description applies to you, then that's you insulting you, not me. I know virtually nothing about your situation, and would not choose to characterise it from a position of ignorance.
I really try not to be rude, although I'm sure I can come across that way sometimes when defending myself against accusations other people make about me. I assure you I am not a narcissist and am indeed "reachable through reasoned dialogue"; I do try to have self-respect, although honestly, even that (let alone narcissism!) has been pretty hard to develop given that I have an anxiety disorder and unfortunately have also been the target of an awful lot of criticism my whole life, and I have nothing against reasoned dialog though I do have something against racism (gee, that should be surprising coming from a brown guy, right?), even subtle or unintentional racism, and against people just attacking other people rather than offering some sort of even vaguely constructive criticism. The people who defended me in that discussion were also not rude, narcissistic, or unreachable through reasoned dialog AFAICT.
I never said that you were narcissistic. Although, for the record, "I'm not narcissistic, btw you're totally a racist for saying that there's a limit to what parents have a duty to put up with because that was totally an insult toward me" is not the most convincing way to demonstrate a lack of narcissism.
b) In the very same post: "surely the adult, married response is for you to go on holiday, and him to cope perfectly well in your absence?" in response to Viktor's dilemma over traveling in Europe when his husband said he didn't want to. To me, at least, that pretty much comes across as a euphemistic version of "oh, quit being such a baby," which is a rude thing to say even euphemistically.
I said that because he was being a baby, and reassuring him that, yes, everyone else is a baby too and there's no alternative to that, so he'll just have to be miserable for no discernable reason, would not be healthy or helpful (for him or for others reading). Instead, we had a discussion about how best to deal with conflicting needs in a mature relationship, which hopefully was helpful for people (perhaps even including Viktor, given that his own marriage is still very young and it would be truly condescending to him to believe that he was unable to improve its functioning through experience and through hearing advice from others).
You'll hopefully note that I did not accuse him of irrationality, just of foolishness. He was free to disabuse me of that perception if he wanted, and could.
Although I do in general find it narcissistic, in a broad sense, when people complain loudly about problems entirely of their own making. Although I guess technically the word there would be 'histrionic'.
c) In
this post, you effectively called Koko a psychopath. Yeah, that's rude, too. Koko is not rude; I may not know him that well, but I know him a hell of a lot better than you do, and he really isn't. And once again, being unaware of how things affect other people is not "narcissistic," nor is he unreachable through reasoned dialog.
What Koko said was evil and inhuman. It is not only our right but our
duty as human beings to confront and abominate such views. If genuine, passionate disagreement on moral issues were not permitted, human society would be a lost cause.
d) In
this one, you dismissively told someone who said they were making an announcement that they were "masturbating," and that's rude. They were not rude; they just said whatever they felt like saying. No, I don't get why, either, but that doesn't mean I have to put them down for it. I don't see how it's narcissistic on their part or showing that they aren't reachable through reasoned dialog, either.
They were rude and narcissistic, and they were masturbating. I'm OK with people being free to masturbate in public, but they should anticipate a degree of resistence to this among passers-by, and to some degree a frank exchange of views.
e)
Here, again, you basically accused me of saying all kinds of things, some of which I did say
That's not condescension, that's reading comprehension. If you feel that reality is being condescending to you, take it up with the earth and the heavens, not with me.
some of which I never said at all.
If that's true, then that's not condescension, that's 'being wrong'. The response to someone being wrong is to explain why they are wrong and how they can be right, not to say that you are offended...
There is so much wrong with this one. It's not just rude, more like the most bizarre exercise in whitesplaining I have seen to date, but in particular, I'd like to point out the first sentence: "Somebody should probably point out at some point that the idea of Europeans going out and 'fucking up' everybody else's 'countries' is both anachronistic and frankly a little racist in its noble savage romanticism." I mean, really?!? Are you not a white British person, Sal? Do you really fail to see what is wrong with a white British person dismissing a brown person whose grandfather was imprisoned and probably nearly killed at the hands of the British government as "a little racist" and engaging in "noble savage romanticism"?
You're a racist bigot. The colour of my skin has nothing to do with the content of my argument; if you think it is wrong, as a matter of historical fact, then educate me. Don't just dismiss my knowledge of facts by talking about my skin colour.
And for the record, yes, I'm British (and that doesn't disqualify me from being able to read a history book), but I am also Irish. So don't fucking lecture me about your genetic superiority in matters of historical persecution.
[Hint: population of Ireland in 1845: around 9 million; population of Ireland in 1850: under 7 million; population in 1870: around 5 million; population in 1920s: 4 million. Population today still under 6 million. In some parts, more than a third of the population died in five years.]
[My grandfather wasn't, to my knowledge, ever imprisoned. But if we're judging our understanding of the 19th century purely by family ties, I know that my family has had to emigrate at least four times. My great-great-grandfather went to the continent in the wake of the bad times, and my great-grandfather to England, in both cases to develop a trade, before choosing each chosing to return later in life; my great-grandfather then had to move a second time sometime during either the War of Independence or the Civil War, when he and his family found themselves Catholics on the wrong side of the partition (they were catholics with a protestant name, so were probably afraid of both sides). My mother then migrated to England in search of a job (as did my aunt and uncle, and most of my mother's aunts and uncles), the result of the continual economic depression that gripped the island for a century.]
f) Somewhat similarly, you chose to end
this post with an ageist remark; just because I am younger than you and defended the idea that calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch" in a Twitter comment was misogynistic, you assigned a label to my entire generation and chose to generalize over all of it.
There was no ageist remark. There was a hostile generalisation, it's true. I would point out, however, that I'm probably only a couple of years older than you, so it would be a rather strange attack of "ageism".
g) Both
here and
here, you made quite a few accusations about zompist that also don't seem to be justified in context. Of course I know you know zompist better than me, but I find it hard to believe that he was trying to hurt you or whatever by expressing his opinion there, so to me, that reaction seems uncalled for. I'm sure zompist is reachable through reasoned dialog; otherwise, this forum would be in a far worse state than it is now. I'm also sure that he is not "rude" or "narcissistic" for trying to defend women - and pointing out what the only actual woman in the discussion had to say about it.
Do you also think that the last chapter of every book should not include anything that doesn't make sense to people who haven't read the other pages? Zompist and I have known each other online for 13 years now. It's fair to say that, for better or worse, my impression of him, and doubtless his impression of me, is no longer formed on a post-by-post basis.
h) And
here, someone even had to ask you not to reply condescendingly to a question they had after
you did before and even said they were "trying to have a civil conversation," then
you went ahead and did it anyway, despite the fact that you hadn't really clarified what you meant in that context by "Sanders supporters."[/more]
Oh dear lord, grow up. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as being condescending. Nor is not understanding what they're talking about.
Now yes, telling you to grow up is condescending. That's because when you intentionally crawl around like a baby it's impossible to talk to you without it seeming like I'm talking down to you. Act like an adult, get treated like an adult.
When it comes to things like the AmeriNyland Hypothesis, I do do my best to use my indoor voice as long as possible - but sometimes rational argument just lulls people into thinking that they're within the domain where people have rational arguments
What is that part I just bolded even supposed to mean?
Exactly what it says.
Someone says "I think this wall was built by the Saxons, not the Romans," you can have a rational argument about that. You can bring forward evidence, attempt to persuade. People do that. Those are positions that are within the ambit of rational argument, even if the position may be profoundly wrong. But when someone says "I think this wall was built by invisible space aliens," that's not within the sphere of rational argument. And while it may be worthwhile putting forward the most obvious evidence at first, just in case they're just profoundly maleducated, there comes a point where continuing to try to convince them through reason and evidence just reassures them that they're holding a respectable position that people feel a need to engage with. At that point, it can sometimes be more effective to make clear to them that no, they're not holding a respectable but minority position,
they're delusional, and for real discussion to take place either they, or the rest of the world, must alter their position.
and it needs to be pointed out that they're actually being crackpots like the people in the crackpot thread, and if they weren't members of the board people would be laughing about them in the crackpot thread.
"The crackpot thread"?
There is a thread on the board where people post crackpot linguistic theories and laugh at them. I don't partake myself, since I don't like to mock others, particularly behind their back, but it is educational.
