|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 54 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 54:
| 
Dec 8 22:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #11: Hm, I used to be a geek then. Still have some of the
characteristics.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 16 of 54:
|
Dec 9 01:28 UTC 2003 |
I recognized a lot of stuff on that page from the science fiction and gaming
communities. I've got other problems with the way he described it, but I see
where he's coming from.
|
twenex
|
|
response 17 of 54:
|
Dec 9 08:48 UTC 2003 |
Re: #9: I agree that you have to take responsibility for your own
actions, but the fact remains that, if someone beats up on yuou
constantly for something, sooner or later, whether it's true or not,
you are goiung to get sick of the way they are treating you. This, to
take a more extreme example, is the origin of the doctrine of
"diminished responsibility" in uk law, wherebya person cannot be
convicted of a murderous crime if it can be shown that the victim, by
mistreatment, drove the accused to a state of mind in which the murder
(or murder attempt) was seen as the only way out of the situation.
ASdded to that the idea of "every reaction causes an equal and
opposite reaction", and the fact that if the person is strong-willed,
he will often cleave to a behaviour that is deemed "unacceptable" by
way of indicating his independence, and you have aid the groundwork
for a taunted geek to become even more "geeky" according to the terms
of this article.
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 54:
|
Dec 9 18:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 19 of 54:
|
Dec 9 18:55 UTC 2003 |
No. I never heard of anyhone claiming that Columbine was caused by the
direct efect of abuse by anyone shot in the school on the kids who
did. Also, the fact that someone is found not guilty of murder on the
grounds of diminished responsibility does not mean that the murder is
legal; it just means that they fall into that category of persons who
cannot be held responsible for their actions, and therefore cannot be
judged by hte legal system, which acts on responsible persons and
therefore, woulde have different rules of procedure, etc. if the
person were e.g. a child as well.
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 54:
|
Dec 9 19:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 21 of 54:
|
Dec 9 19:08 UTC 2003 |
Ah. Well, anyway, i believe dimished responsibility has to be proven
by ref to near-immediate, extreme physical or mental stress.
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 54:
|
Dec 9 19:43 UTC 2003 |
Sort of like an insanity defense in the U.S.?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 23 of 54:
|
Dec 10 01:20 UTC 2003 |
Except that it might occasionally work.
It actually sounds closer to involuntary manslaughter.
|
twenex
|
|
response 24 of 54:
|
Dec 10 15:03 UTC 2003 |
Re: 22, 23: No, insanity means there is no external stimulus; you just
have to prove someone was insane at the time of the incident. It's
more a temporary madness caused by the ill treatment.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 25 of 54:
|
Dec 11 01:08 UTC 2003 |
That's involuntary manslaughter, I'm pretty sure.
|
aruba
|
|
response 26 of 54:
|
Dec 12 15:30 UTC 2003 |
On Grex we take fallacy #1 to the xtent that people argue, on a regular
basis, that you shouldn't avoid interacting with people just because they're
assholes.
|
scg
|
|
response 27 of 54:
|
Dec 12 22:21 UTC 2003 |
What twenex is describing sounds like what's often referred to in the US as
the "battered wife defense." I'm not sure what the legal term for that is.
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 54:
|
Dec 12 23:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 29 of 54:
|
Dec 13 03:46 UTC 2003 |
Re #26: Define "interacting". Do you mean letting them post, or actually
trying to carry on a conversation about them?
|
aruba
|
|
response 30 of 54:
|
Dec 14 01:06 UTC 2003 |
I mean listening to them and/or talking to them.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 31 of 54:
|
Dec 14 15:08 UTC 2003 |
I've never seen anyone argue that. I've only seen people argue that even
assholes should be allowed to post. Can you point me to an example?
(In fact, I've seen some very controlling behavior here, where an item author
gets quite angry when people post material that doesn't toe the author's line.
That isn't typical at all, but I've never seen the other extreme.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 32 of 54:
|
Dec 14 17:23 UTC 2003 |
No, it's pretty atypical here. As regards the other extreme, our
good friend pvn (nee' bdh) recently stated that people who use twit
filters shouldn't reproduce.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 33 of 54:
|
Dec 14 19:24 UTC 2003 |
He says a lot of things. Enough of them are entertaining that I would never
use a twit filter on him.
I *would* like to see a fix option that lets me fix only items where the
last response was by a specified user, so we can deal with the species of
twit that responds to everything in the conference with crap.
|
aruba
|
|
response 34 of 54:
|
Dec 14 19:38 UTC 2003 |
Joe: see item 99, resp. 8 and 23, and item 164, resp. 16 (though that one
was apparently in jest. I've also seen many posts over the years along the
lines of, "You're not taking my idea seriously because it came from me!"
The lgical implication of that admonishion is that everyone should be paid
attention to, no matter how they've behaved in the past. The more I think
about it, the more fallacious that seems.
|
twenex
|
|
response 35 of 54:
|
Dec 14 19:45 UTC 2003 |
Fallacio.
Hey,m I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist :-/
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 36 of 54:
|
Dec 15 01:01 UTC 2003 |
Re #34: You're citing posts by BDH and Tod denouncing the use of twit
filters, not telling people they should interact with twits.
Number one, these posts are by two people whose normal behavior
is to post simply to be provocative. Number two, criticizing
twit filters isn't the same thing as telling people to interact
with twits. Number three, neither of those guys are representative
of Grex culture. (I'm representing it better by being this
pedantic, and I'm not culturally a Grexer either.)
As for failing to take ideas seriously because you don't like the
originator -- we all do it, and it's dumb, because previously
useless people can come up with good ideas occasionally. If
you can't evaluate ideas independently of the person who proposes
them, you'll miss out on some good ideas. It's hard, though.
|
aruba
|
|
response 37 of 54:
|
Dec 15 02:03 UTC 2003 |
How is "not using a twit filter" not "interacting with twits"?
No, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it's dumb to try
to take people seriously when they don't meet a certain level of civility.
If that means you miss out on an occasional good idea, the tradeoff in
sanity is well worth it. And this is the way most human institutions
function all over the world - you have to be a reasonable person if you want
to be treated as one. So if you want to be treated with respect, you learn
to treat others that way.
|
other
|
|
response 38 of 54:
|
Dec 15 02:44 UTC 2003 |
What Mark said. Plus, it's not worth my time or aggravation to read
the comments of people who have been persistently and pointedly
annoying to see if they actually have anything useful to say. If
someone else wants to filter and report, fine.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 39 of 54:
|
Dec 15 04:37 UTC 2003 |
<shrug> It's a matter of personal choice. I'd filter someone like wellcome,
because I don't want to deal with 80 posts that are basically noise. I
wouldn't filter someone who I find annoying but who posts on topic. (I'm
deliberately not giving specific examples here.)
Let me point out a few things, though:
1. The issue in question here was whether Grex has a culture that enforces
the geek norm about interacting with everyone
2. My position was that Grex does not
3. The people Mark has quoted in an attempt to illustrate that norm are
not exemplars of Grex culture; in fact, they're generally in opposition
to Grex norms
4. Mark and Eric, who are prominent exemplars of Grex culture, are taking
a position opposite to the geek norm
5. This isn't an effective way to argue with my statement
6. Even I'm not telling you it's morally wrong to twit-filter, just that
you may miss out occasionally if you do
|