Post your asides here

[mamselle]

Aaaahhhhhhh!!!!!

  <<runs screaming for the nearest 13th c. manuscript calendar page with its Golden numbers, Egyptian numbers, and Roman numerals for solace...>>

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

Proof by contrapositive?

;--}

M.*

   *(who occasionally remembers the tiny bit of logic we learned in 10th grade geometry, but may well have mis-applied it here.)

Sure, that counts!

[mamselle]

      <<Pokes head out from under the manuscript cover....>>

<<looks around warily>>

     Ah! Good!

               <<Smiles and struts away...>>

;--}

M.

[smallcleanrat]

IMO there's nothing you can say that will change their minds here. When they ignore or deflect, it's because you've scored a direct hit.

That doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, though. I think it very much is, both for the overall health of the community and because, as you note, it all spills over into the real world.

Thanks for your response Parasaurolophus. Much appreciated.

Thing is, these kind of thoughts/questions/rebuttals are in my head anyway as these issues are impossible to avoid unless I disconnect from society to go live as a hermit somewhere. It helps to have a place to put them into words.



Generally, I'm not too much bothered if I don't change anybody's mind. But what I find most useful about an exchange is when I better understand the other person's reasons for why they hold certain opinions.

If someone says something that doesn't make sense to me or seems to contradict something else they said, I want to know more about their thought process. There have been times I've changed my mind, or at least moved a thought from the category of Opinion to More Research Needed--Opinion Pending, because someone raises some aspect of the issue I hadn't yet considered.

If I can at least walk away from a discussion with a better understanding of why someone said what they said, I consider that a success. That's why getting ignored or getting a response which seems to have nothing to do with the point I was making or the question I was asking is frustrating.

The other half of this is that I also want to be understood. Even if the other person still disagrees, if they are saying "You're wrong about [thing] because [reasons]." as long as [thing] is something I actually said, at least I know they heard me. But this part seems to be much harder.

I'm not sure how much has to do with bad faith so much as bad experience. If the last 20 times you heard someone say 'This city has a rat problem' it led up to 'Every household should be required by law to own at least one cat', you might assume someone responding to a post saying 'There is no rat problem.' with 'The rat problem is very real.' is in support of the cat mandate.

It's understandable why someone might jump to 'People shouldn't have to have cats if they don't want them' but also frustrating to the person you respond to if they don't agree with the cat mandate any more than you do.

It's why I read posts slowly if I'm going to respond because I'm trying to avoid unwarranted inferences. Don't always succeed, but it's a conscious goal.

But if someone seems to miss my point, it's really hard to tell if the mistake is on their end or if I explained things poorly.

[mamselle]

Depends on the poster.

Some have made a career of deliberately misunderstanding, it feeds their angst so.

('scuse my cynicism...but, been there, done that, walked away, am much the better for it...)*

M.

* I believe, anyway...I have retained my sense of humor, in any case... M.

[mahagonny]

Didn't have the heart to rub it in on the thread: this is how I envision the sad, comical woke movement dying.

[jimbogumbo]

Didn't have the heart to rub it in on the thread: this is how I envision the sad, comical woke movement dying.

?

[mamselle]

Don't ask.

M.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

I've been in virtual meetings all day (and I'm still in one) and I think my brain melted. It is currently pooling on the floor in a nice puddle of goo.

[smallcleanrat]

I still don't understand what the example (analogy?) of German immigrants to America immediately post-wwii is meant to illustrate. It seems extremely specific.

I have no idea what percentage of those were ex-Nazis, and of the subset of ex-Nazis I have now idea  how many were actually proponents of the ideology vs. people who went along with it out of fear. Even so, they would be living in a country in which they were 1) foreigners and 2) the dominant culture was decidedly anti-Nazi. That seems like it would put significant restraints on the ability to cultivate and transmit their ideology. They couldn't be open about it and their children would grow up hearing lots of talk about the evils of the Nazis.

Cultivation and transmission of anti-Japanese sentiments to the next generation immediately post-wwii would not have had the same constraints. They just came off a war in which Japan was the enemy and a threat to everything America held dear. There had been years of Scrap the Japs style propaganda. I'm not sure there would be anywhere near the pressure to keep your anti-Japanese sentiments to yourself as you would have for pro-Nazi sentiments.

As for anti-black sentiments, there would be centuries of history behind it embedded in mainstream American culture. Ditto the point about fewer restrictions on cultivation and transmission, but even more so.

Attitudes of previous generations are capable of influencing subsequent generations. I didn't say that made it right. Just that it's a thing that can happen.

[mamselle]

Most German Nazi's went to South American, not North America, as far as I've heard. Several hid out in Brazil and Argentina for the rest of their lives.

The rest of it, I don't know.

I make full use of the freedom to ignore a thread from the time it begins, or any time thereafter, if it starts running off the rails (i.e., doesn't make sense).

Other peoples' ideas don't have to make sense to me.

M. 

[arcturus]

[...] If the last 20 times you heard someone say 'This city has a rat problem' it led up to 'Every household should be required by law to own at least one cat', you might assume someone responding to a post saying 'There is no rat problem.' with 'The rat problem is very real.' is in support of the cat mandate.

It's understandable why someone might jump to 'People shouldn't have to have cats if they don't want them' but also frustrating to the person you respond to if they don't agree with the cat mandate any more than you do.

[...]

Dear smallcleanrat - I haven't heard much about a rat or mouse problem in my area, but I am totally on board with your idea of a cat mandate. Just think of the associated destigmatization of "the crazy old cat lady" if everyone was required to have a cat. All would be educated (experiential education, which is even better!) about the wonderful qualities of small fuzzy creatures that have minds of their own. I can just imagine the overall increase in world happiness if everyone had a maestro of their own. Please keep these good ideas coming!

[ergative]

Would the cat mandate apply to workplaces as well as personal dwellings? I proposed getting a department cat at our last department meeting, and it was favorably received by colleagues, but our chair is not acting despite the obvious agreement on the issue, and such a mandate may help move things along.

[Puget]

Would the cat mandate apply to workplaces as well as personal dwellings? I proposed getting a department cat at our last department meeting, and it was favorably received by colleagues, but our chair is not acting despite the obvious agreement on the issue, and such a mandate may help move things along.

Our department building definitely has a mouse problem so I'd be very much in favor of this. However, some people claim to have cat allergies.

[smallcleanrat]

So...people whose politics are left-of-center are intolerant bullies, but if wishing death on someone whose politics you dislike (pardon, "fear") became a ban-worthy offense on these fora, people whose politics are right-of-center would be disproportionately affected?