Seems a tad overblown. But in the future just say "I don't understand the point of your response. Please explain it to me in a more (or less?) detailed way." instead of going back and forth like it's a schoolyard conversation or as if we were in a chatroom from 2005. That's frowned upon here. Outside of the Lounge or Shoutbox. Hey, gotta have standards. :confused:

You seem to disagree on the definition and implications of what constitutes (or otherwise the particular presence or prominence of) "manipulative language."

This is what we call "going off on a tangent" or basically perusing a unique argument (that sure was spawned from the main one) to the point it detracts from the main OP (or in some cases the current "zeitgeist" everyone else seems to be discussing, which is not always immediately evident, particularly for those short on time who like to join in at the last moment and reply to a particular objection without digesting the entirety of the discussion first). I've been guilty of this at least a few times.

I would suggest if you want to have a conversation on manipulative language, it's implications, what warrants such, etc. a separate topic be made. Not passive-aggressively, no naming names, just separate, well-thought out, yet to the point.

The one thing I've learned here is if you and especially just one poster aren't making any particular headway, make one final post asking for an explanation, and if it's not to your liking, assume either a misunderstanding in communication (or perhaps a lack of ability on the other person's part) and be done with it. It's really not worth the time of day, in my opinion. I understand we don't want to abandon a topic we're interested in, but, again, if you and a particular person don't really seem to be understanding one another, or are otherwise talking past one another, I dunno, there's just better uses of your time, in my opinion.

Seems a tad overblown. But in the future just say "I don't understand the point of your response. Please explain it to me in a more (or less?) detailed way." instead of going back and forth like it's a schoolyard conversation or as if we were in a chatroom from 2005. That's frowned upon here. Outside of the Lounge or Shoutbox. Hey, gotta have standards. — Outlander

Fair. My problem is that I was warned and Ecurb was defended as if his approach to posts were reasonable and supported here. My issue is the one sided warning. I agree, the conversation was getting out of hand. I take issue with the idea that I was the sole problem in this conversation and Ecurb's example usage was entirely reasonable and polite.

You seem to disagree on the definition and implications of what constitutes (or otherwise the particular presence or prominence of) "manipulative language." — Outlander

Which is fine. People do not have to agree with me. I disagreed with the way the tone was going.

This is what we call "going off on a tangent" or basically perusing a unique argument (that sure was spawned from the main one) to the point it detracts from the main OP (or in some cases the current "zeitgeist" everyone else seems to be discussing, which is not always immediately evident, particularly for those short on time who like to join in at the last moment and reply to a particular objection without digesting the entirety of the discussion first). I've been guilty of this at least a few times. — Outlander

I also agree. I was trying to end it. But I'm also going to defend against belittlement.

I would suggest if you want to have a conversation on manipulative language, it's implications, what warrants such, etc. a separate topic be made. Not passive-aggressively, no naming names, just separate, well-thought out, yet to the point. — Outlander

No disagreement here either. That was not the warning however. It was targeted at me implying that I was the sole issue in this discussion, and that Ecurb was polite.

The one thing I've learned here is if you and especially just one poster aren't making any particular headway, make one final post asking for an explanation, and if it's not to your liking, assume either a misunderstanding in communication (or perhaps a lack of ability on the other person's part) and be done with it. — Outlander

True. I did attempt this here:

Looking at your examples I feel like you're trolling at this point and not taking the conversation seriously. I'm getting ready to leave town, so this isn't really worth my time. I'll check the thread when I get back and see if anything is worth addressing then. — Philosophim

Thank you for your weigh in Outlander.

Without getting into much, that's not surprising.

Why not get into it? Thats what these threads are for, right? Also, why comment to start with unless you wanna get into it? Come on, share, you know you wanna :wink:

Because we're talking about the administrator of the website we're on who, despite any opinions, does more for the site than most us. And, in the face of dispute, there's a process, of a kind. I just think the process is broken, so I'm unsurprised.

No point talking shit about the guy running the place beyond noting that its not surprise others are having a similar experience. I doubt anything more could come from this thread anyway. Go to Feedback...

At the end of the day, it's a simple cost-benefit analysis. Does your willful presence and participation on this site bring more pleasure, entertainment, or value to your life versus any possible displeasure, suffering or strife it may bring alongside? Does any willful act or hobby? Assuming you're a functional adult, you have not only the choice but the obligation and necessary duty to decide what's best for you, especially in a world where nobody else will. If not, one's problems are unfortunately much larger than this or any website, not to mention @Jamal.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It costs less than an average first world country's hourly wage to purchase a web domain on the Internet. And not much more thereafter to set up your own forum. This can be done even with little to no technical knowledge often in under an hour. There is no one on this site who is withholding your potential to live your desire, if it's something you believe is not or cannot be found here.

Just my 2 cents.

After reading your conversation with Ecurb in context, I don't think he truly wanted to bully or troll you.

The thread where you are debating is called "my truth", and I believe that Ecurb is giving you examples of his arguments related to the point of the thread.

Perhaps you felt uncomfortable because he used your nickname (not your real name or identity. It is just a forum profile) on awkward situations. If he had said, 'A masked man who looked suspiciously like javi2541997 had seized a young child and was holding a knife to her throat [...] or Kindly Ecurb (who is also brilliant and handsome) was being questioned by an ugly, jack-booted Gestapo who looked suspiciously like javi2541997', would you have felt better?

I truly believe that Ecurb just wanted to give examples about why "manipulative language" does this and affects that.

I would also not have liked it if he used your name either in such examples. Ecurb and I have spoken many times, and it's clear to me he does not like me. Which is fine if the conversation stays somewhat on track.

I read his examples, rolled my eyes, and saw that this was starting to get personal, so withdrew.
His point to the example being a joke was disingenuous. So I called him out on it. My greater question to you is if that deserved a warning from a moderator explicitly about me. I used no harsh language, was trying to withdraw from the conversation, but did not let a common bullying tactic of it being, "Just a joke" slide. Even if someone else thought it was just a joke, no one would think it in good taste for fostering communication. My issue is with the one sidedness of the warning when I think it was clear Ecurb was not being polite at that point.

Do you think the warning to only me was justified? Me being called thin skinned by Ecurb wasn't philosophically on point either, and while I do agree that conversation had gone off rails at that point, I do not believe that was due only to me.

See, but act
Grow, but stand firm
Love, if only to grieve
And lose nothing

I understand. :up:

Ecurb and I have spoken many times, and it's clear to me he does not like me. — Philosophim

My guy. I can't believe I have to take the time to write these words out but NO ONE HERE KNOWS WHO YOU ARE. :rofl:

There's no "you" in online discussion among strangers. It's a nonexistent concept. Sure, there's people's ideas of you, and how said ideas make them feel that the ignorant transpose into some ridiculous and unfounded sort of "identity" that lives solely within the confines of their mind. Which is to be pitied. But other than that, it's nothing to get one's feathers ruffled over. In my opinion. Cheers.

We're here to discuss a topic. And if people get excited and distracted from that, you simply be the bigger person and return to the topic like an adult. There's no need for this fuss,. this hullabaloo, this brouhaha. Not as functional adults. Not at all.

There's no "you" in online discussion among strangers. It's a nonexistent concept. Sure, there's people's ideas of you, and how said ideas make them feel that the ignorant transpose into some ridiculous and unfounded sort of "identity" that lives solely within the confines of their mind. — Outlander

There’s some philosophy in there about the nature of identity. Something akin to Hans-Georg Moeller’s philosophies of profile identities.

How much ”you” do you project into our online identities? And more crucial, how is the identity of ”you” being collectively curated into a final persona of the internet version of you. A holographic projection of you that is scrambled by the nature of written language and how you think in that language as text rather than the full identity of yourself, formed by the interpretation of that text by others.

The canyon between your true identity and the perceived identity of your internet persona is very large, even for those who are honest and true to their real self when writing.

The canyon between your true identity and the perceived identity of your internet persona is very large, even for those who are honest and true to their real self when writing. — Christoffer

The T Clark you see here on the forum is exactly the T Clark you would see if you were sitting here in my living room with me right now. No canyon.

The T Clark you see here on the forum is exactly the T Clark you would see if you were sitting here in my living room with me right now. No canyon. — T Clark

That would be scary; a big floating text post hovering abstractly in the sofa.

But, it’s exactly that, the interpretation of text will always skew an authentic image others have of you, regardless of honesty put into words. It becomes the same as two people reading the same book having wildly different views on how to interpret it.

So we can be honest in thought, but we will always be out of reach of existing as we truly are in real life when we act online.

Just like a hammer, in our brain, becoming an extension of our arm for the cognition of using it; here, we essentially are the text, rather than truly and fully being ourselves.

So we can be honest in thought, but we will always be out of reach of existing as we truly are in real life when we act online. — Christoffer

But isn't "real life" just another venue for interpretation, of a presentation which is far from a transparent projection of a "true self"? Do we really ever know the other? Or are we interpreting words and gestures of someone operating under a dozen aims, proclivities, and consraints other than an urge to reveal their innermost being?

By this light, are our online personas really distortions of our authentic selves found in the flesh? Or are they just another presentation, in another medium? Whose own tempo, textual form and shared interest leads to a manifestation of the self which is not more or less true, but just different.

FWIW I thought the warning was uncalled for. I would have been annoyed as well.

Perhaps you felt uncomfortable because he used your nickname (not your real name or identity. It is just a forum profile) — javi2541997

Plot twist! His real name is Philosophim!

It costs less than an average first world country's hourly wage to purchase a web domain on the Internet. And not much more thereafter to set up your own forum. This can be done even with little to no technical knowledge often in under an hour. There is no one on this site who is withholding your potential to live your desire, if it's something you believe is not or cannot be found here. — Outlander

Speaking of which, have you set up your site yet?

But, it’s exactly that, the interpretation of text will always skew an authentic image others have of you, regardless of honesty put into words. It becomes the same as two people reading the same book having wildly different views on how to interpret it. — Christoffer

I don’t experience it that way.

In the post to which Philosophim took umbrage, when I described Ecurb as, "Noble, kindly Ecurb (who is also brilliant and handsome)" was I presenting my "true self"? Or was I sarcastically lampooning my narcissism? Maybe I should have whined that I was "bullying" myself.

I agree, though, that no warning was necessary, although I appreciate Jamal (and Javi) for recognizing that my clearly fictional hypotheticals were on point. Besides, look at the discussion they've engendered! It's more interesting (philosophically?) than "manipulative language", or whatever it was we were discussing.

As a literary critic, I'd suggest that using "Ecurb" and "Philosophim" as characters in my hypotheticals added a little (a very little) zing to the stories, and made them more (very slightly more) entertaining. The reactions show that -- yes! -- my literary instincts are intact!

Speaking of which, have you set up your site yet? — L'éléphant

I take this as a rhetorical question for reasons that should be self-evident.

(I'm assuming "Feedback" threads are a quasi-grey area where non-philosophical banter and whatnot is permitted)

But, I mean. I certainly intend to. Provided I live long enough. I'm sure you recall my concerns. Which honestly in this day and age are likely quite silly and trivial. I'm worried about people copying the thoughts and ideas of those 1,000 times greater than them so as to oppress those who are at least 4 or 5 times their moral superiors who just might not happen to be mentally-equipped yet. But that happens already so. Similar to the religious, rational attitude toward U.S. gun control. "Well, I mean, if the absolute worst pieces of trash are going to arm themselves no matter what, no reason to deprive the good people who are actually worthy of life from being able to defend themselves." Shrug.

I agree, though, that no warning was necessary, although I appreciate Jamal (and Javi) for recognizing that my clearly fictional hypotheticals were on point. Besides, look at the discussion they've engendered! It's more interesting (philosophically?) than "manipulative language", or whatever it was we were discussing. — Ecurb

Ah, good to see you Ecurb. I wanted you to have a chance to give your view point. I had nothing against your arguments, just your approach. I had been working overtime for the last few weeks in anticipation of my current vacation, and did not want to deal with what appeared to get personal from my point of view. Most of the time, I don't mind, but my time and tolerance were in short supply at that point.

As I mentioned, I'll check the thread when Im back. If you would like, we can continue. If momentum and interest have wained on your end, I won't continue it and I'll see you in another thread.

"Well, I mean, if the absolute worst pieces of trash are going to arm themselves no matter what, no reason to deprive the good people who are actually worthy of life from being able to defend themselves." — Outlander

Hah! My kind of thinking.

So..well..then, is that a no?