Unappreciated compliments

[Bruce K]

On 1/24/2024 at 3:56 PM, JohnCh said:

 

I acknowledge you are a master debater, but isn't a debate time bound and isn't repeating the same argument numerous times considered argumentum ad nauseam, and something to avoid?  I think we are all aware of your position and the positions of others who have responded in both threads.  Perhaps it's time to ring the bell on this and move on.

 

-John

@JohnCh - This thread appears to be pretty robust - now on the third page.  I suggest that you retitle the thread to "Settling Disputes" or something like that.  Pages like these give fellow members the chance to winnow down the issues, and actually understand and own their mistakes.  Anytime any member gets hot under the collar, you could move the conversation to this thread.  I know I've learned quite a bit about effective communications through this experience.  I'll bet others could, too.

[barbox]

8 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

By inference, this grievous insult is also directed toward Trump.

 

Before I address the remainder of what you said, can you first clarify (1) how his metaphor is inferred to also be directed at Trump, and (2) why it matters whether it's directed at just you versus you and Trump?  Cause this is a point you've made many times in this thread, and it has yet to make sense to me.

[anduril3019]

12 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

"2) To me you're totally a mix of Saddam Hussein & Earl Brian Bradley and I mean that in the most complementary way possible. I expect you to appreciate this complementary comparison. A "thank you, I'm honored" will do." 

 

My assumption (stepping into dangerous waters right off the bat!) is that this comment was simple hyperbole, or reductio ad absurdum, or something like that. To which I might have replied, "Touché, I see your point!"

 

Anyway, I thought the tire jokes were funner. 

[Bruce K]

@barbox - certainly!  

 

"How are Vovchandr 's metaphors also directed at Trump?"  Vovchandr applied his disgusting metaphors (quoted below) because I, with obvious intention to compliment, compared Trump's leadership to Croc's.  He wouldn't have applied them if I had compared Croc to the Dalai Lama, or to Mother Theresa, so the difference regarding my treatment is the person of Trump.  Therefore, by extension, the metaphors directed toward me also reference Trump, a conclusion which Vovchandr endorsed when he tried to explain how his metaphors applied to Trump, as well.  It's all just hurtful hyperbole, but that is now the point - we should all avoid attacks ad hominem, because they never make the situation better.

 

"Why does it matter if Vovchandr's metaphors also attack Trump?"  We should not be discussing politics on this platform, except tangentially.  By insulting Trump, via logical extension of his argument, Vovchandr was arguing politics, which we should avoid.  But I also believe that candidates should be held accountable for what they actually do or fail to do.  If I called Biden a killer of millions, or a serial child molester with multitudinous convictions, I would be wrong.  I would be lying.  It is similarly wrong and a lie to call Trump these names.

 

Vovchandr's metaphorical attack, from an earlier post (as of 1/25, not yet a part of this thread):  "2) To me you're totally a mix of Saddam Hussein & Earl Brian Bradley and I mean that in the most complementary way possible. I expect you to appreciate this complementary comparison. A "thank you, I'm honored" will do." 

 

Edited January 25 by Bruce K

[Bruce K]

33 minutes ago, anduril3019 said:

 

My assumption (stepping into dangerous waters right off the bat!) is that this comment was simple hyperbole, or reductio ad absurdum, or something like that. To which I might have replied, "Touché, I see your point!"

 

Anyway, I thought the tire jokes were funner. 

@anduril3019 - the metaphors posed by Vovchandr were too extreme and insulting.  His references were two of the worst characters humanity has ever produced.  No reasonable person should think they can draw references like those, in the heat of an argument, without insulting the recipient.  Besides, if we are to apply your argument fully, my initial compliment of Croc should have been taken in the same vein.  Instead, people like Croc and others did not like my comparison, and spoke up.  Their natural reaction was to object to it, the same as I am doing now.  The difference is this:  Croc and I and the others always remained gentlemen, and engaged in useful dialectic.  Name-calling is the opposite.

 

Regarding my original comparison, I accept that it was unwelcome, and will avoid political references in the future.

[Vovchandr]

1 hour ago, Bruce K said:

@barbox

Rather than simply withdrawing the unseemly metaphor, Vovchandr continues to call me names including "pretentious" (thread or two above) and thin-skinned.  People cannot reconcile while insulting one another like this.

 

Don't try to rewrite history. 

 

First comment in regards to "thin skin" is written by you on Monday

 

"Respondents like Vovchandr better stay away from paper and other sharp objects, given the thinness of their skin." 

 

In regards to "pretentiousness" I have never said those were your comments, but the fact that you assigned that to yourself is telling on your end. 

 

So be careful throwing stones from your glass house. 

[panamericano]

Thanks, Croc for going off topic.  And a big thanks to our moderator for moving this thread.  Until your handle popped up, I had not read the thread since it moved.  Saves me a lot of time and consternation.

[Bruce K]

@Croc - as usual, your post regarding tires was illuminating, and I will include it in the next edition of the upgrade and repair manual.

 

Regarding this thread, I believe you are overlooking some singular benefits.  Far from a "little boys pissing contest", it is a room for combatants to meet, reach across the table and come to terms.  For that reason, I suggest this thread be renamed to "Settling Disputes", and any such disagreements get ported here.  It is an opportunity to cool down, identify the important issues, understand mistakes, and learn how to argue civilly, which is my only remaining dispute with Vovchandr.  Those are important objectives, and will enable improved future communications between members.

[barbox]

On 1/25/2024 at 5:58 PM, Bruce K said:

We should not be discussing politics on this platform, except tangentially.  By insulting Trump, via logical extension of his argument, Vovchandr was arguing politics, which we should avoid.

Let me get this straight.  When you bring Trump into a conversation, referencing what you view as his positive qualities, that's not discussing politics.  But after you've brought Trump into a conversation, and 3 separate people have already tried and failed to convey to you that your attempted compliment could come across as insulting regardless of your intent, for someone to then make allusions to Trump's negative qualities to make a point, that's discussing politics and therefore over the line?  That is hypocrisy.

 

When you reference a controversial figure in an attempted compliment and receive criticism, you fall back on your intent as a defense, and we're supposed to take your intent at your word, even though the criticisms were about how the comparison could be perceived, not your intent.  But when Vovchandr references despicable figures, and claims to intend it in a complimentary way, then you won't take his intent at his word, and you want to argue about what you view as obviously his real intent.  That is hypocrisy.

And then when you (very reasonably) are offended by what he said, you practically demand an apology.  But when Croc says he views your attempted compliment as an insult, you offer no apology (at least not a public one, or a public acknowledgement of a private one, from what I've seen), and you claim to have been "always a gentleman."  That is hypocrisy.

[Croc]

 

 

Guys, its time to move on.  Life is short.  This is not important in the bigger scheme of life. 

 

There is an ignore button on this forum software so you can avoid each others posts if you so choose. 

[Vovchandr]

1 minute ago, Croc said:

 

 

Guys, its time to move on.  Life is short.  This is not important in the bigger scheme of life. 

 

There is an ignore button on this forum software so you can avoid each others posts if you so choose. 

 

A large portion of life is entertainment.

 

Watching mental gymnastics is my form of entertainment.

 

So far @Bruce K is getting 10/10/9 out of judges for the moves he's executing.

[barbox]

14 minutes ago, Croc said:

This is not important in the bigger scheme of life.

 

This particular topic? No doubt.  But, practicing respectful communication and debate, especially with fellow Americans who hold very different political beliefs - that I think is worthy of time and effort, especially in today's political climate.  And it's damn hard to find on most corners of the Internet these days.

[wdb]

Times like this make me appreciate TacomaWorld. Talk politics there, BOOM -- 30 day suspension. No discussion, no negotiation, no strike one/two, no nuthin'. Just a 30 day punt. The result is a very liveable forum despite being extraordinarily chatty and busy. 

[Vovchandr]

14 minutes ago, wdb said:

Times like this make me appreciate TacomaWorld. Talk politics there, BOOM -- 30 day suspension. No discussion, no negotiation, no strike one/two, no nuthin'. Just a 30 day punt. The result is a very liveable forum despite being extraordinarily chatty and busy. 

 

To be fair this is the first post in about 6 years to get Political (in the politics subjection) and I think the first mention of Trump in about 4 years.

 

Ironically it came from a guy who "didn't want to get political"

[Bruce K]

2 hours ago, barbox said:

 

This particular topic? No doubt.  But, practicing respectful communication and debate, especially with fellow Americans who hold very different political beliefs - that I think is worthy of time and effort, especially in today's political climate.  And it's damn hard to find on most corners of the Internet these days.

@barbox - With respect, and granting that your response is courteous and well-written, you are IMO misanalysing the situation.  Yes, I was slow to believe what I was reading, and I have admitted that several times.  I did not expect the level of emotion that my attempted compliment aroused.  That was my error, and I have admitted it several times.  But intent is important - if someone gets killed, it can be the difference between a manslaughter charge and life in prison.  My unwelcome compliment was obviously associated only with beneficent intent - I challenge anyone to disprove that - and nothing I did warranted Vovchandr's asymmetric reply.  My only remaining issue in this argument is that Vovchandr intended harm - as much as he could fit into words - when he compared me to Saddam Hussein and the serial child molester.  As I suggested before, I bumped him, and he put a bullet into me.  If we argue like that - argumentum ad hominem - attacking the man, not the issue - we will never settle disputes.  If someone speaks to us, and we yell back at the top of our lungs, it is the end of civil discourse.  That is the only problem I have with Vovchandr, with whom, as I have noted before, I have enjoyed several previous and pleasant discussions. 

 

No part of my argument is hypocrisy.  It is treating words with their intended weight, and attempting to divine their most correct contextual meaning.

 

I have stated multiple times that my compliment was a mistake that I will not make again.  

 

I did not utilize Trump in a political sense, but only as a proven leader and someone who accomplishes his agenda.  I did not propose any opinion regarding the nature of his agenda, or suggest that his viewpoints were superior.  I was referencing only certain undeniable capabilities of the man - an apolitical reference.  You may not like Trump, and I respect your opinion, but, like Biden, he indisputably has talents and capabilities.  I was referencing those - nothing political. 

 

@Croc - The purpose of this thread should be to settle differences and to learn how to communicate. Those are admirable goals and should not be thwarted.  I know I have added to my knowledge of effectual interpersonal communications by participating in this thread.  Mistakes are easy to make, as I found out.  Look at your post from last Friday, when you wrote "I feel guilty for starting this little boy's pissing contest".  You likely didn't realize, but that was an attack ad hominem.  You called this 73 year old man a little boy, and denigrated our argument by calling it a pissing contest.  Instead of addressing the issues, you called names.  The reason this thread has so many posts already is that the issue of effective communication is critical, and when mistakes occur, people get fired up.  This post lets the heat out and the truth in.

 

I recognize that you calling me a "little boy" is not in the same league as calling me a serial child abuser, and I responded proportionally.  I knew your intent did not include injury.

Edited January 28 by Bruce K

[Vovchandr]

You keep stating it as a fact that I "attacked you" and how deeply offended you are.

 

I've said it over and over again, that it was a compliment only. They might not have been the best chosen candidates I admit for my compliment but they had their strong points if you don't get too political. One was a proven strong leader and the other was very passionate towards his hobbies. There it no I'll intent as you keep insinuating wrongly and this compliment also caused you to attack me (attacking the man not the issue) by saying I have thin skin.

 

As far as other "bad faith argument practices" it's amazing how many you've broken so far in this "constructive discussion" as a "champion debater".

 

• strawman
• slippery slope
• special pleading
• black or white
• false cause
• begging the question
• tu quoque
• the texas sharpshooter
• ambiguity

 

For starters.

[barbox]

I don't think comparing words to harmful or fatal actions ("...if someone gets killed..." and "I bumped him, and he put a bullet into me") helps to carry the conversation forward.  And I agree there's much that's been repeated several times in this thread and doesn't need to be rehashed further; I'm not looking to beat a dead horse here.

 

I also don't entirely disagree that "intent is important" - but I think that (1) you're misreading Vovchandr's true intent, and (2) by focusing on his intent, you're not leveraging what would be a stronger argument.

 

On his true intent:
You say "Vovchandr intended harm - as much as he could fit into words" - is it actually your belief that Vovchandr was just done with trying to convince you that your "compliment" could be offensive, so he decided to just write the meanest words he could think of to cause as much harm to you as possible? Do you really think his metaphor are the words he would've chosen if that was his intent?  I certainly don't.  I think it's clear from the way he parodied your own words that he was indeed making a "reductio ad absurdum".   He was effectively saying, if intent is all that matters, then can I just compare you to heinous people and tell you I mean it as a compliment and you'll take it that way?  And the intent in saying something like that, the real intent, is neither to offend nor to compliment, but to illustrate the point that your defense of your compliment, about how you only intended for it to be complimentary, when taken to the logical extreme, would mean that someone shouldn't be offended by something if it was well intentioned, which is obviously preposterous.  Of course it was asymmetric, that's how reductio ad absurdum works.

 

On what could be your stronger argument:

Regardless of Vovchandr's intent, you found them offensive.  That's all that matters.  That's all you'd need to say to get an apology from a reasonable person.  But once you start to debate their stated intent, you've lost the plot.

Though, I suppose to make that argument you'd also need to actually be offended.  It's entirely possible you became more and more offended by what he'd said the more you thought about it.  But your initial reaction to what he said wasn't "how dare you!" or "that's an unconscionable comparison to make!" - it was "This is silly."  And I, for one, think that was your reaction at the time because you understood he was merely trying to make an argument, not maximize harm per word.

Edited January 28 by barbox

[Bruce K]

4 hours ago, barbox said:

I don't think comparing words to harmful or fatal actions ("...if someone gets killed..." and "I bumped him, and he put a bullet into me") helps to carry the conversation forward.  And I agree there's much that's been repeated several times in this thread and doesn't need to be rehashed further; I'm not looking to beat a dead horse here.

 

I also don't entirely disagree that "intent is important" - but I think that (1) you're misreading Vovchandr's true intent, and (2) by focusing on his intent, you're not leveraging what would be a stronger argument.

 

On his true intent:
You say "Vovchandr intended harm - as much as he could fit into words" - is it actually your belief that Vovchandr was just done with trying to convince you that your "compliment" could be offensive, so he decided to just write the meanest words he could think of to cause as much harm to you as possible? Do you really think his metaphor are the words he would've chosen if that was his intent?  I certainly don't.  I think it's clear from the way he parodied your own words that he was indeed making a "reductio ad absurdum".   He was effectively saying, if intent is all that matters, then can I just compare you to heinous people and tell you I mean it as a compliment and you'll take it that way?  And the intent in saying something like that, the real intent, is neither to offend nor to compliment, but to illustrate the point that your defense of your compliment, about how you only intended for it to be complimentary, when taken to the logical extreme, would mean that someone shouldn't be offended by something if it was well intentioned, which is obviously preposterous.  Of course it was asymmetric, that's how reductio ad absurdum works.

 

On what could be your stronger argument:

Regardless of Vovchandr's intent, you found them offensive.  That's all that matters.  That's all you'd need to say to get an apology from a reasonable person.  But once you start to debate their stated intent, you've lost the plot.

Though, I suppose to make that argument you'd also need to actually be offended.  It's entirely possible you became more and more offended by what he'd said the more you thought about it.  But your initial reaction to what he said wasn't "how dare you!" or "that's an unconscionable comparison to make!" - it was "This is silly."  And I, for one, think that was your reaction at the time because you understood he was merely trying to make an argument, not maximize harm per word.

@barbox - Actually, I disagree with you, for several reasons.  First, the definition of argument ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") is an attempt to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.  It is never an excuse for bad manners, like Vovchandr's comparison.  An example might be this:   Two people are arguing that votes should be counted within one day of the election.  One person says "Let them have two weeks to count".  The other says "Why not let them have two years?"  That is an absurd reaction, because his scenario could eliminate or substantially reduce the official's time in office.  Vovchandr offered no such analysis, only his gruesome and untoward comparisons.  Secondly, your entire second paragraph IMO is an attempt to reconstrue Vovchandr's words.  His words are what they are, and sufficiently severe for me to take offense.  Yes, my offense increased as Vovchandr continued his truly silly defense of outrageous slurs by calling them compliments.  His words have generally standardized meanings, and based on those definitions he engaged in an outrageous overreaction that, frankly, has no place in a forum dedicated to friendly discussion.  My initial reaction to his words was to provide an opportunity for Vovchandr to throttle back, an opportunity he rejected.   Third and last in regards to this point, if it is appropriate for me to consider Vovchandr's insults as "joking" or something similar, then it is also appropriate to apply that same logic to my Trump compliment, and ask all who were offended by it to retract their words because it was just a joke.

 

But secondly, I strongly disagree with your statement that my personal offense is all that is required to establish an insult.  If you believe in the importance of intent, you must see your error.  I have no right to become offended by truly innocent remarks.  Vovchandr would have no obligation to apologize if he had asked me for my age, or inquired when I had lost my hair, even if I was sensitive to these topics - they are normal, conversational interrogatories.  To state that only my feelings are required to determine if behavior is insulting is another way of saying that truth doesn't matter.  If I can decide whether something is insulting or not, simply based on my mood at that time, truth becomes less than relative - it has no actual meaning.  I believe words have meaning, even if we allow some latitude for slightly different definitions.  Discursive conversation is a search for truth via language - thus, we should choose our words carefully and courteously, in order to be truthful and to avoid real offense.  This, to me, is the most important issue:  What is the difference between courteous, productive dialectic, and raw invective? 

 

[barbox]

9 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

your entire second paragraph IMO is an attempt to reconstrue Vovchandr's words.  His words are what they are, and sufficiently severe for me to take offense.

 

I'm trying to consider the context surrounding them.  If he'd said it in a vacuum, I'd feel very differently about them.  But, regardless of context, regardless of intent, you have every right to be offended.  And he, in turn, has every right to decide for himself whether to acknowledge your offense as earnest, and/or take any responsibility for it.

 

12 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

I strongly disagree with your statement that my personal offense is all that is required to establish an insult.  If you believe in the importance of intent, you must see your error.  I have no right to become offended by truly innocent remarks.

 

To use your earlier example, since I can't think of a better one at the moment, is an insult more like manslaughter or murder?  I'd argue it could be either.  An intended insult is certainly a worse offense than an unintended one, but an unintended one can definitely still be offensive.  Proving intent is an enormous challenge, though, so in many cases I think it's simpler and more straightforward to keep a discussion focused on the effects that someone's words had.  And to your last point in this quote, I couldn't disagree more - I would say you absolutely have every right to be offended by anything that offends you.  I have said many, many things in my life that I meant no offense by, but which someone later took the time to educate me that it did cause or could have caused offense just the same - and thus my communication has evolved over time to become more respectful and less ignorant, a process that hopefully never ends.

 

22 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

If I can decide whether something is insulting or not, simply based on my mood at that time, truth becomes less than relative - it has no actual meaning.

 

If you're "deciding" to call something insulting, without actually feeling insulted by it, then sure I'd agree with you.  But, as long as your feeling is genuine, then I don't see the issue.  Feeling insulted would be your truth in that scenario.  And perhaps in this hypothetical scenario where I've accidentally insulted you, it's also my truth that I didn't mean to insult you... but I still did.  And then with some conversation, we could find a middle ground where maybe you were a little overly sensitive, or maybe I was ignorant of something in my words that could be interpreted as offensive, or maybe it's a little of both.

 

29 minutes ago, Bruce K said:

This, to me, is the most important issue:  What is the difference between courteous, productive dialectic, and raw invective? 

 

This feels like a false dichotomy.  I'd argue these are extreme opposite ends of a spectrum with lots of middle ground.

[SENC]

13 hours ago, barbox said:

On what could be your stronger argument:

Regardless of Vovchandr's intent, you found them offensive.  That's all that matters.  That's all you'd need to say to get an apology from a reasonable person.  But once you start to debate their stated intent, you've lost the plot.

 

I suspect this is the crux of many disagreements these days - the growing chasm between those who focus on intent and those who focus on perception.  It's a conversation I have frequently with my (now adult) kids, as the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" mentality I grew up with is definitely dinosaur material to the younger set who discount intent altogether.  I'm trying to understand it but admittedly struggle.

 

The discussions that prompted this breakout, I think, are at least somewhat reflective of this chasm (and I do see value in this discussion in improving understanding of the various perspectives).

 

I, personally, find Trump repugnant - and have since I started following him in the mid/late 80s (when, parenthetically, he was considered a bit of a liberal favorite).  Given my opinion of Trump, had Bruce directed his comment toward me I might have initially wondered whether he insulted me. Having said that, and notwithstanding my opinion of the man, I recognize that there are many people in this country who think extremely highly of him.  And because my tendency is to look for intent when something strikes me funny, my considered response to Bruce would probably be along the lines of - "Bruce, your Trump reference doesn't hit me as the compliment you may have intended, but assuming you intended a compliment, thanks for the thought."  It seems Croc got to a similar place.

 

Had I been the target of Vlad's Hussein reference, given my focus on intent, I would have been left with a making a conclusion between 2 alternatives: 1 - he truly admires Hussein or 2 - he is making an absurd comparison.  Because (unlike Trump) I know of absolutely no-one who actually admires Hussein, I'd have concluded the second intent - and, as a result, ignored the comment entirely as trolling and not worthy of a response.  Perhaps, given Vlad's continued insistence he intended it as a compliment I might start leaning more towards believing he does actually admire Hussein (or some of his characteristics) as he claims - but that still seems so preposterous to me.

 

Assuming Bruce has a similar tendency to prioritize intent as I do, it seems quite easy to understand how differently he sees his comments from Vlad's comments.  I don't think I'd take offense though, because of the absurdity of them.

 

Alternatively, as I consider how someone who focuses on how comments are perceived upon receipt (rather than intent), I can see how Vlad (and others) see no difference between the "compliments" and find Bruce's reactions to them inconsistent.

 

Of course, by reaching my own conclusions about Bruce's and Vlad's comments based on my own knowledge and experience, I'm doing at least a little of the same.  I guess the best response to each would simply be "What did you mean by that comment - compliment or insult?"  And then to accept the response at face value.

 

What I personally find even more interesting and confounding than any of the above (and so genuinely would love some insight), is that several to whom Bruce's initial comment were not directed felt called to respond.  What drove that?  Defense of Croc?  Why?  Did you know/think he would be offended and think him incapable of defending himself?  Or did a comment towards someone else somehow strike you as offensive towards you or your sensibilities?  Something else?  I'm truly interested in gaining some understanding here, as I can't fathom injecting my thoughts/biases/reactions into a comment Bruce directed towards Croc, at least not before Croc responded.  Maybe I need to go back and reread the initial comments again to see if they were more broadly targeted.

 

While I may disagree with or take a different tack than Bruce about many things, I do agree there is value in sussing out different reactions to gain understanding.  I very much appreciate that this forum and several others I enjoy, leave the door open for such discussion in a way that folks can choose to participate or not.  I think the "zero tolerance" rules that have been enacted in so many places (online and in person) have had the opposite of their intended purpose and have created more triggers and polarization than they have eliminated.  I appreciate diversity of opinion and civil debate, and think they add much greater potential for value than shutting down discussion.