DMB said to Matt:
In my experience, accusations boil the blood only to the extent that they're
true - so much so that wild, implausible accusations will only amuse the
accused.
Ian said:
DMB sees offence and accusation as a source of mild amusement. As I said -
water off a duck's back is the problem - ignorance of the issues, possibly, as
you go on to suggest a kind of "macho" stance of the "real" American. Being
offended is for wimps. ...And it's so left-brain, so rationally autistic, that
I cannot understand why someone as intelligent as dmb - with his history
addressing the mythos - doesn't see the immense irony in the MoQ context - this
is not just "any" discussion list. This is the real "offence".
dmb says:
That would be a good example of what I mean. To be accused of taking a "macho"
stance only amuses me. It's ridiculous. I've got soft hands, weigh in at a
whopping 135 pounds and mom always worried about me because I was sooooo
sensitive. As I see it, dealing with criticism properly doesn't demand
masculinity so much as maturity. I think of the issue in terms of what
grown-ups should be doing, as opposed to childish, irresponsible reactions -
which are usually driven by concern for the ego rather than the substance of
the issue. I remember when Krimel accused me of being too "romantic". He
thought he really zinged me with that one but it only amused me. I wish that
label fit better and so I was actually a little bit flattered by the
accusation. Anyway, these things don't hurt because they're so inaccurate. What
I'm saying is that the valid criticism is the one the really stings. When a
criticism rings true to us, it is not at all like water off a duck's back. It's
like a brand
ing iron on your ass and when you hear that sizzle, it's time to take a good
look at the criticism in question. That burning sensation is real information.
Be honest, Ian. You are interested in negatively characterizing my "macho"
stance for personal reasons. You do not like the way I criticize your
contributions and you imagine that I could only do so if I were oblivious to
the effect it has on you, only if the other guy's feelings mean nothing to me.
Like an autistic person, you imagine that I must be blind to the social
dimension. That's not the case at all. It's just that I think it's wrong to let
those concerns run the show or dictate the terms and I refuse be coerced by
emotional manipulation. You don't have to be a MOQer to see that as a form of
corruption. We cannot give equal respect to everything that is posted just
because it was posted by a person with feelings. This isn't group therapy or a
popularity contest. If you are willing to join a group like this and you want
to post your views, you gotta live with the consequences. Like I said, this is
about maturity, not machismo.
And come on, how bad could it really be? Let's keep things in perspective. This
is only a discussion, not a war or a plague or famine. Words are the only
weapons we have. What's the worst, most offensive thing I've ever said to you
here? Accusations of taking wishy-washy or weasel wordy stances, of posting
drivel? As I see it, the question is not whether you are offended by that or
not. Of course you are. Who wouldn't be? But what if it's true? I mean, what if
my criticism is valid? What if I'm not just picking on you and you really do
have a habit of equivocating? Ever considered that as a real possibility? And
don't you see how it is a corruption of the process to try to neutralize
criticism by attacking the character of the critic? Even if I were an autistic
macho romantic, how would saying so qualify as anything more than an ad hominem
attack?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
