| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2006 11:31:50 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding the overall tenor/substance of this thread, although I'm one who very much appreciated ergo's work and his contributions, I don't completely understand what he was fussing at. This seems to me a case of splitting hairs and then acting rashly, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. He started a thread expressing an opinion he KNEW would be wildly unpopular, he actually CHALLENGED people to confront his opinion, and when they did so he got angry and left the site.
Robt. |
I think I do understand to some degree what he was fussing about.
"Your inappropiate rant so soon after Steve's death shows your total lack of respect for human life";
I don't think a comment like this is challenging his opinion. It is a personal attack.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:41:51 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by bucket:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding the overall tenor/substance of this thread, although I'm one who very much appreciated ergo's work and his contributions, I don't completely understand what he was fussing at. This seems to me a case of splitting hairs and then acting rashly, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. He started a thread expressing an opinion he KNEW would be wildly unpopular, he actually CHALLENGED people to confront his opinion, and when they did so he got angry and left the site.
Robt. |
I think I do understand to some degree what he was fussing about.
"Your inappropiate rant so soon after Steve's death shows your total lack of respect for human life";
I don't think a comment like this is challenging his opinion. It is a personal attack. |
I grant you that, but it sort of comes with the territory he staked out by starting the thread. If someone said that about me, I'd just blow it off; they don't know me, they have no basis to make such a statement, their opinion in that regard is meaningless. I can't take it that personally, you know? If I'd posted such a thread in the first place, I'd have assumed crap like that was gonna happen, and I'd have ignored it.
See what I'm saying? Ergo got himself into this position, he was BOUND to get some personal & negative responses, I don't understand his breaking away from us on the basis of such responses.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:44:04 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I share ergo's confusion at the world that people become grief stricken when a media celeb dies. It is normal to be saddened, or dissappointed, but struck with grief? |
It wasn't grief for me but an issue of taste. I didn't personally attack ergo but I also didn't sit idly by and let his rant go either. Celebrity or not, the man wasn't even in the ground and ergo tore his character up making it look like he harmed animals to make millions of dollars. What does it hurt to have a little respect for the dead anyway - especially for a man who was so full of life? What good can come of such words just after the passing of an individual?
Look at it this way. Let's say that your brother is a skydiving instructor. You come in here tomorrow and tell us that his parachute didn't open and he is no longer with us. Do you not think it would be a bit callous of me to say, "he made a lot of money doing what he was doing and he should've known the risks"? Sure, the words would be true but does that mean they need to be said?
Taste
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:56:16 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
See what I'm saying? Ergo got himself into this position, he was BOUND to get some personal & negative responses, I don't understand his breaking away from us on the basis of such responses.
R. |
I completely understand what you are saying. I don't totally understand his actions, but know I will stay in touch with him. I respect him. And do not think all the reactions should be ignored. I live in a country that is at peace, and do not witness what ergo sees. I cannot imagine how such words would hit me, if I were walking in his shoes. Freedom of speech is not a given around the world. Being attacked personally might be profoundly affecting when you feel this freedom is being removed or threatened. I believe ergo must have felt a need to stand up for himself...I only wish some of those that didn't like what he said had expressed their opinions regarding the subject, rather than making it personal. And of course many people did just that...and perhaps the internet being immediate expressed individual's emotional states rather than their rational opinions. I hope so... |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 12:25:52 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Celebrity or not, the man wasn't even in the ground and ergo tore his character up making it look like he harmed animals to make millions of dollars. |
If Steve Irwin did harm the cause of animal protection in part (which is something that a lot of people accuse him of - I am ambivalent), is it wrong to question others' unwavering praise of him?
To take this argument to an extreme, should one criticise, say, Slobodan Milosovic? He is dead. Should I be entitled to interrupt an unwavering torrent of praise from his supporters to point out that, on a critical analysis, he was not all that nice a man?
I don't think that ergo's argument was "wrong". However, I think that he underappreciated the strength of sentiment for Steve Irwin (which is, IMO, unexpectedly strong).
Originally posted by bearmusic:
He started a thread expressing an opinion he KNEW would be wildly unpopular, he actually CHALLENGED people to confront his opinion, and when they did so he got angry and left the site. |
In respect of ergo's urging people on, I think that it was at least in part ironic and part mocking: it appears to me that he was highlighting the disjunct between the rational and emotional responses that his statement had provoked. In this restricted medium, it is hard to be sure.
I have in the past been on the receiving end of similar attacks, and one response is to highlight the inability of your detractors to do anything more than "flame away" - the theory being that by their inability to express themselves except by personal attack, your detractors demonstrate the absence of opposing argument (and quite considerably damage their credibility in the process). It works for a bit, but gets quite stressful if everyone seems to join in the flaming rather than recognising that the detractors have no argument and are willing to resort to low brow verbal abuse.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 01:05:26 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I think that the distinction is that ergo was arguing that it is a reasonable thing to critically assess the dead, rather than (in his words) lionize them.
I share ergo's confusion at the world that people become grief stricken when a media celeb dies. It is normal to be saddened, or dissappointed, but struck with grief? This is not to suggest that death is not a personal tragedy for the family. However, some people seem to consider themselves akin to family members, which is very odd when they are in reality nothing more than audience members.
A consequence of the oddity is that the normal conventions respecting the dead that would be observed when dealing with a close relative or friend of the deceased must be extended to people who have adopted this affinity. Objective criticism is therefore very difficult (even in a community that is in no other way connected to the deceased).
I think that perhaps ergo's mistake was to confront that oddity, rather than acknowledge that (even though it is very odd) it happens and people get upset about these things. The same happened for Diana and JFK Jr.
As for the angry statements made earlier in this thread, they too are unproductive. It would be great if people were a little less prone to responding vigorously to perceived slights and insults, especially as text (and especially in the casual tone often used here) is so open to interpretation. |
I believe that is what ergo wanted to discuss and that there is validity in doing so. His approach initiating that discussion was extremely poor and eliminated the possibility of any fruitful discussion.
As for the topic itself, people associate themselves with celebrities by watching them on TV, hearing them speak, seeing them in magazines, etc. Over time certain celebrities become familiar parts of their lives and even though the interaction is usually all one way, a strong bond can form. Naturally, when something tragic happens to a celebrity many people grieve. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 01:08:43 PM · #57 |
Slobodan Milosevic vs Steve Irwin? Heck, let's make it Mother Teresa vs Jack the Ripper. Adolph Hitler vs Will Rogers?
While you may be correct about the unexpected strength of sentiment for Steve Irwin, it was obvious to see what the sentiment of the majority of the forum members was after reading the replies to his first post - let alone after his 5th, 6th, and 7th posts on Irwin. No way did it need to go as far as it did.
From reading this thread it seems that the personal attacks are the main discussion and the defense of ergo. I'm not condoning any attacks made on ergo - but why does the personal attack made by ergo on those who disagreed with him go unnoticed or undiscussed?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 02:12:52 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
From reading this thread it seems that the personal attacks are the main discussion and the defense of ergo. I'm not condoning any attacks made on ergo - but why does the personal attack made by ergo on those who disagreed with him go unnoticed or undiscussed? |
Not to mention all the personal attacks on Steve. This is the same sort of reaction you see regarding free speech. It seems the only thing that is truly accepted is when you agree with what is saying anything less than that and it's not welcomed. That goes for those that disagreed wtih ergo and ergo himself.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 02:22:54 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
...but why does the personal attack made by ergo on those who disagreed with him go unnoticed or undiscussed? |
Few have respect for an opinion different than their own. Many would rather have this prim and proper society of all like-minded thinkers, and for those that speak out loud against the masses, is virtually stoned, and when they speak up again, are stoned again, and on, and on, until they leave, which is what was wanted in the first place in my opinion.
I'm not taking sides on if someone's opinion is right or wrong on all this, as it is just that - their opinion. We need be a bit more relaxed and let people voice their opinion without fear of being outcast, note their opinion was made and move on.
I really don't think many of us are qualified to judge a person's thoughts and deem them right or wrong.
And yes, this is only my opinion.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 02:40:08 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dudephil:
From reading this thread it seems that the personal attacks are the main discussion and the defense of ergo. I'm not condoning any attacks made on ergo - but why does the personal attack made by ergo on those who disagreed with him go unnoticed or undiscussed? |
Not to mention all the personal attacks on Steve. This is the same sort of reaction you see regarding free speech. It seems the only thing that is truly accepted is when you agree with what is saying anything less than that and it's not welcomed. That goes for those that disagreed wtih ergo and ergo himself. |
I think that there is still some confusion about what a personal attack is: calling someone "lame", or an "idiot", or saying "you have a total lack of humanity" is a personal attack. Saying "I think that person A was wrong for good reason [x]" is not.
Free speech and censorship are red herrings: the issue here is nothing to do with whether such things "can" be said (they all "can"), but whether they breach a social convention (and, therefore, whether they are objectionable).
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 02:44:35 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by BradP:
We need be a bit more relaxed and let people voice their opinion without fear of being outcast, note their opinion was made and move on. |
I would qualify this slightly: there is nothing wrong with disagreement between people. Indeed, I think that it is really healthy.
I would quote an example in this thread where it was questioned why people had to continue an argument, where this subsequently happened:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by fstopopen:
I am glad we can have a good discussion about this. You have actually changed my mind a bit. Thanks for reasoning it out with me and not getting offended. I suppose there IS a place for cheap images.
drake |
Yes, I don't mind reasonable discussions at all... :-) |
The point is that healthy discussion is fantastic, and ought to be encouraged (who really wants a world with no disagreements?). But in forums like this, the argument should be carried out in a civil manner.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 02:48:20 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ... |
I understand that you didn't mean it the way it sounds, but nevertheless this was IMO a VERY ill-advised comment. A reasonable person can see an implied threat in that statement, And it rubbed me the wrong way when I read it also. Not only that, it makes no SENSE any other way, since each one of us has the power (and arguably the obligation) to report any TOS violations we encounter via the "contact us" or "report post" features, so it's perfectly reasonable for a neutral observer to see your statement as implying that you have substantially greater power to influence Langdon as an SC than you do as a site member.
I'm not surprised coronamv is offended by this, and I wish you hadn't said it at all, general.
Robt. |
A "reasonable" person would see that it was ...
ΓΆ€ΒΆ in the past tense -- a "threat" implies future action
ΓΆ€ΒΆ clear that I was expressing my opinion and specifically [/i]not[/i] acting in my role as SC member
ΓΆ€ΒΆ read that I understood and was accepting mitigation for inappropriate and hence was not recommending and action
ΓΆ€ΒΆ seen the smiley at the end to know that I wasn't being all that serious about suspensions, deserved though they might be.
My question then is ... why didn't all the people  legalbeagle quoted used the Report Post button instead of posting their own statements, several of which were as or more inflammatory as mine and possibly/probably in violation of the Forum Rules and/or TOS?
My job here is to make sure people follow the rules, and I think you'll find I've made several attempts in this very thread to get people to do so in the absence of any "threats."
If you prefer, I'll go back and officially report any posts I find in violation, and abandon any in-thread attempts at suggestion or persuasion or cajolery to get people to behave -- I don't need to be threatened either. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 02:57:38 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
See what I'm saying? Ergo got himself into this position, he was BOUND to get some personal & negative responses, I don't understand his breaking away from us on the basis of such responses.
R. |
Yes ... this is called "blaming the victim." Women have faced the same prejudice for millenia when they are raped, and we've only within the last few decades (in the US at least) begun to place the blame on the perpetrator of the crime, where it belongs.
BAWAR |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 02:57:45 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ... |
I understand that you didn't mean it the way it sounds, but nevertheless this was IMO a VERY ill-advised comment. A reasonable person can see an implied threat in that statement, And it rubbed me the wrong way when I read it also. Not only that, it makes no SENSE any other way, since each one of us has the power (and arguably the obligation) to report any TOS violations we encounter via the "contact us" or "report post" features, so it's perfectly reasonable for a neutral observer to see your statement as implying that you have substantially greater power to influence Langdon as an SC than you do as a site member.
I'm not surprised coronamv is offended by this, and I wish you hadn't said it at all, general.
Robt. |
A "reasonable" person would see that it was ...
ΓΆ€ΒΆ in the past tense -- a "threat" implies future action
ΓΆ€ΒΆ clear that I was expressing my opinion and specifically [/i]not[/i] acting in my role as SC member
ΓΆ€ΒΆ read that I understood and was accepting mitigation for inappropriate and hence was not recommending and action
ΓΆ€ΒΆ seen the smiley at the end to know that I wasn't being all that serious about suspensions, deserved though they might be.
My question then is ... why didn't all the people legalbeagle quoted used the Report Post button instead of posting their own statements, several of which were as or more inflammatory as mine and possibly/probably in violation of the Forum Rules and/or TOS?
My job here is to make sure people follow the rules, and I think you'll find I've made several attempts in this very thread to get people to do so in the absence of any "threats."
If you prefer, I'll go back and officially report any posts I find in violation, and abandon any in-thread attempts at suggestion or persuasion or cajolery to get people to behave -- I don't need to be threatened either. |
Look, *I* personally have no problem with your comment, really; I just think it was inevitable someone would interpret it in such a manner. The "questionable" part has to do with "encouraging Langdon to suspend..."; it's easy to fixate on that to the exclusion of context, smileys, or whatever other mitigating factors there are, OK? It was just an observation.
Soldier on :-)
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 03:17:56 PM · #65 |
| Oh boy, what a mess. Reminds me of dimebag durrell. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 03:23:26 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... it's easy to fixate on that to the exclusion of context, smileys, or whatever other mitigating factors there are, OK? It was just an observation.
Soldier on :-)
Robt. |
You bet! ; ) |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 03:31:21 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dudephil:
From reading this thread it seems that the personal attacks are the main discussion and the defense of ergo. I'm not condoning any attacks made on ergo - but why does the personal attack made by ergo on those who disagreed with him go unnoticed or undiscussed? |
Not to mention all the personal attacks on Steve. This is the same sort of reaction you see regarding free speech. It seems the only thing that is truly accepted is when you agree with what is saying anything less than that and it's not welcomed. That goes for those that disagreed wtih ergo and ergo himself. |
I think that there is still some confusion about what a personal attack is: calling someone "lame", or an "idiot", or saying "you have a total lack of humanity" is a personal attack. Saying "I think that person A was wrong for good reason [x]" is not.
Free speech and censorship are red herrings: the issue here is nothing to do with whether such things "can" be said (they all "can"), but whether they breach a social convention (and, therefore, whether they are objectionable). |
I don't think that's really the issue here. Of course personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated even if free speech is. However, ergo DID NOT want a honest discussion. If he did he wouldn't have started out his first post with "Gonna rain on this parade" and end it with "flame away". What he said inbetween I don't have a problem with but the way he framed it with those two quotes tells me he knew people wouldn't want to debate the issues he had with Steve yet he pushed the matter anyway. Put another way, if that thread occurred as a live discussion with all people present in a physical room, ergo would be seen as someone bursting through the doors with a torch in one hand and clenched fist with the other. I don't care what he says standing there it's going to fall on deaf ears and ergo knew that. Again, not saying he deserved to get flamed but he did ask for it.
Message edited by author 2006-09-06 15:43:21.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 03:52:27 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The point is that healthy discussion is fantastic, and ought to be encouraged (who really wants a world with no disagreements?). But in forums like this, the argument should be carried out in a civil manner. |
Won't get any arguments from me there legalbeagle. However, what part of "Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your stay" is civil?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 04:19:46 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ... |
I understand that you didn't mean it the way it sounds, but nevertheless this was IMO a VERY ill-advised comment. A reasonable person can see an implied threat in that statement, And it rubbed me the wrong way when I read it also. Not only that, it makes no SENSE any other way, since each one of us has the power (and arguably the obligation) to report any TOS violations we encounter via the "contact us" or "report post" features, so it's perfectly reasonable for a neutral observer to see your statement as implying that you have substantially greater power to influence Langdon as an SC than you do as a site member.
I'm not surprised coronamv is offended by this, and I wish you hadn't said it at all, general.
Robt. |
I agree with Bear. Comment unbecoming of a SC member..
*shakes head* |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 04:22:19 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
.... It would be great if people were a little less prone to responding vigorously to perceived slights and insults, especially as text (and especially in the casual tone often used here) is so open to interpretation. |
ergo responded by taking his ball and leave the game... |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 04:25:18 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
I agree with Bear. Comment unbecoming of a SC member..
*shakes head* |
Better report it then -- that's the official channel. Otherwise, I'll assume that I still have the right to express my opinion (especially when explicitly labelled as such) like any other member, as long as I do so within the rules/TOS -- as I believe I have. |
|
|
|
09/07/2006 12:50:32 AM · #72 |
| what a great idea to start yet another thread :( |
|
|
|
09/07/2006 01:34:02 AM · #73 |
I'm noting these past few months as "The Dark Ages of DPC" and am trying hard to be selective about which topics I click on for fear of finding fewer and fewer reasons to spend time here.
Onward to the Reformation! ;-) Peace. |
|
|
|
09/07/2006 01:37:48 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm noting these past few months as "The Dark Ages of DPC" and am trying hard to be selective about which topics I click on for fear of finding fewer and fewer reasons to spend time here. |
Please hell no, Ken, not you too.
I find the forum getting hostile and dull lately, probably partly due to some people having the same thought as you - being selective.
but then again, maybe it's me because I haven't been very inspired recently.
Now, back to the OT - do we really need to have yet another debate on top of the original? Lets hope this one at least bear a fruit and not just another hot-gassed thread that gets locked, or spur more debates and gets quoted upon.
Message edited by author 2006-09-07 01:38:21. |
|
|
|
09/07/2006 05:33:36 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by goodman:
what a great idea to start yet another thread :( |
Really, my complaint is the same one as yours - that a lot of people are taking offence very easily, either because they are getting very emotionally involved or because they are the subject of apparent aggression and/or self-righteous behaviour. I did not really want to start a new thread, but the relevant original one was locked.
Having been on the receiving end of similar aggressive writing, I know that someone sticking up for you (even if too late) might be some consolation.
|
|
