It seems that I am. You've got a problem with me bringing this around to a point directly relevant to the "General RPG Discussion" Forum in which this sits?
Not at all, so long as it logically follows from what you quote. If it doesn't logically follow from what you quote, is it directly relevant.
However, your point is not directly relevant to the hobby gaming industry alone, in as much as "In the realm of hobby games, being "right" or best informed, does not excuse treating people poorly, Celebrim.", could be shortened down to, "Being 'right' or best informed, does not excuse treating people poorly, Umbran."
They won't publicly disagree, no. But, a good number of folks feel there are justifications for infringing on the happiness of others - they certainly try to offer us justifications for their actions when we moderate them for being rude.
One of the top two such justifications is some variation of, "But it's The Troof!"* Being correct is often used to justify acting like a jerk. The moderation staff doesn't accept that rationale, of course.
Naturally, I wouldn't expect them too, although, as long as we are on the subject, being incorrect is even less of a justification for acting like a jerk. And, while we both agree that, "He did it first." is terrible excuse for acting like a jerk, I would like to think that acting like a jerk first has even less of an excuse. So, perhaps we should just simply boil this point down to, "Don't act like a jerk." I think we can both agree on that as well.
You see, the same justifications you suggested for passion are ones we are given for acting badly. I severely doubt that's coincidental, so it seemed best to call it out.
Allow me to continue being on topic by pointing out that the theme of the post that was linked to was, "5 Logical Fallacies that Make you More Wrong that you Think." It's a good title, but may I suggest that there was a subtext to the essay, which was, "5 Logical Fallacies that Make you Act More Like a Jerk than you Think." They are as the discussion makes clear, and the humor gently mocks, somewhat related. And also, while the title was perfectly appropriate, I think it holds true that the five were chosen in a semi-random way, and that any given logical fallacy could be expanded on in much the same way to show how reliance on this logical fallacy tended to make one more certain about their beliefs and rightness in the argument than they should be. And that, having convinced themselves of their rightness, that they would then go on to act more like a jerk.
So in short, because it is often hard to know who is acting like a jerk, we should be very careful about basing our arguments on collections of logical fallacies in particular and when we see ourselves doing it, then we should probably pause and reflect a bit. Passion and emotion are good markers for stopping and reflecting on what you are saying. Lots of people say things in a moment of heat that they later regret. But in my opinion, logical fallacies are an even better marker for stopping and reflecting, because the people that use them - as the article points out - seldom go on to regret them and tend to be even less aware of when they are employing them than they are of their own emotional state.
It would be a shame I think if we started to equate disagreeing with someone with being a jerk. I think we can disagree and even hold diametricly opposing positions and yet still have something to talk about without being jerks. And at EnWorld quite a bit of us are self-identified 'geeks'. Among other qualities, we are indentified by our passion for things that other people aren't passionate about - like for example we were passionate about games as adults back before being a game playing adult was 'cool'. So, while passion can lead us astray, its hardly a universal marker of wrongness or jerkiness.
Ultimately we have to admit that jerkiness or offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Two reasonable people can disagree over whether or not someone is being a jerk. Something that rubs someone the wrong way might not rub someone else the same way. The real secret whenever you are debating over something is simply to assume good faith on the part of the people in the discussion, and not be too quick to judge on the basis of your speculation about their motives, or how you classify people in your heads, or whose side you are on, or whether accepting their side might make you feel uncomfortable, or how you are emotionally responding to their words yourself. Instead, I think you should try to confine yourself to what they actually said, and confine yourself to that without the assumption that there was some hidden agenda going on.
Or do you really think I was trying to hurt someone?
