The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
But, for my money, far more often people want to pretend that their dislike of something is somehow objectively true and then, when you point out that no, it's not actually objectively true, people then lose their poop.

It is extremely useful to remember that human behavior often has... understandable but not exactly rational underpinnings.

Speaking broadly, we have egos, and a sense of social status. Once we put a stake in the ground, failing to defend it can entail a perceived loss of social status in the community, or just a hit to the ego for being shown to be wrong. Some folks will go to great lengths to avoid those perceived negative results.

And, the worst part is that this is not generally a conscious reaction. We are often convinced we are arguing because we are "right", not because it feels bad to have to admit that we aren't right.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

307069109_8038915426150963_5096848028486477751_n.jpg
 

To be honest though, that's rarely the way it goes. It's almost never "Oh, I don't like this thing" and leave it at that. It's almost always, " I don't like this thing because A, B and C." and then get all bent out of shape when A is demonstrably untrue, B is only true from a certain point of view and C is true but largely irrelevant to the conversation.

There are just so many buzzword arguments like this. It's "-amey", videogamey, samey, boardgamey, take your pick.

I have zero problems with anyone not liking something. That's perfectly fine. And, if you don't want to explain your preference, that's groovy too.

But what actually happens is someone starts dumping on EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION with the same gripe, over and over and over again, endlessly. It gets really tiring after a while.

So, I'd gently point out that maybe you aren't making a general point ... but ... a very specific point, about a specific argument, involving a specific edition of a game etc.

So here's the thing- when you are questioning people to understand their preferences - is that really what you're doing? Are you truly and sincerely trying to understand their actual preferences with an open-minded desire to just acknowledge their likes or dislikes? Or are you trying to engage in a Socratic process to get them to understand something about their preferences that you want them to acknowledge (kind of like what I'm doing with these questions)?

The thing about Socratic questioning is if you're not in a classroom, it's really annoying. :)

And if you are in a classroom, it's even more annoying when you didn't do the assigned reading. Or, um, so I've heard.
 



Almost everyone on some thread, somewhere, at some point, something like this:

"The dark-haired Orphan may be unforgiving, but not me,” says my ego. “I’m the reasonable one who tells orphans how they should feel.” Later I think, “The blonde-haired child may be cruel, but not me, by God! I’m the defender and protectress of the instincts. When I get angry, it’s justified by the cruelty and insensitivity of others.” - Jean Raffa

------

Me now. "I will not go see if that contradicts what you said vociferously last thread. I will not go see if that contradicts what you vociferously said last thread. I will not...."

------

Edit: Me now. "My posting will not stop them from being a pedantic donkey. My posting will not stop them from being a pedantic donkey. My posting will not..."

-----

Another Edit: Me now. "I will not passively aggressively use the smiley emoji. I will not passively aggressively use the smiley emoji. I will not..."
 
Last edited:





Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top