Okay, now re-interpret everything I’ve said or will say under standard conventions, in which one does not expect statements to be perfectly exceptionless.
Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was “perfectly exceptionless”? If it is only because I used the phrase “no excuse”, then you are failing to extend to me the consideration that you are requesting.
No, it shows intransitive values, which suggests simplistic, trigger-happy moral evaluations.
This is not relevant, because I am not challenging your contention that she ought to like you. I am challenging the following contentions:
(1) It is appropriate to say “I can’t even reply to this comment . . . as she will consider it an atrocity (much like terrorism is an atrocity)”.
(2) Her decision not to like you shows that she is unqualified to give the advice in the OP.
The point was the hyperbole she uses in describing my affect on her, emphasized by reference to terrorism.
You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, “You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you.”
Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was “perfectly exceptionless”?
Because you base your entire reply to it on the assumption that it is substantively refuted the moment you find one atypical exception?
You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, “You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you.”
Second time: I do have solid proof for this in that she very much enjoys my contributions and even makes non-specific comments attempting to draw me out, so long as she doesn’t know it’s me. I have the smoking gun, however implausible you might think that to be. (Though I assure you I did not seek out such a gun, as no amount of effort would have reliably gotten Alicorn to do this; it’s too improbable.)
I will reveal who Jocaste is[1] once enough people can agree this would be sufficiently informative evidence.
[1] “reveal who Jocaste is” = an term I just made up which should make sense if you’re familiar with the story of Oedipus.
Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was “perfectly exceptionless”?
Because you base your entire reply to it on the assumption that it is substantively refuted the moment you find one atypical exception?
No, that was not the assumption of my reply. The assumption of my reply was that the excuse I gave (carbon monoxide leak) would not justify committing an atrocity. Therefore, if the excuse is an exception, then PMing her would not be an atrocity.
You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, “You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you.”
Second time: I do have solid proof for this in that she very much enjoys my contributions and even makes non-specific comments attempting to draw me out, so long as she doesn’t know it’s me. I have the smoking gun, however implausible you might think that to be. (Though I assure you I did not seek out such a gun, as no amount of effort would have reliably gotten Alicorn to do this; it’s too improbable.)
Suppose she said, “You know, Jocaste*, I really like your comments. I wish that you would post more often, especially in reply to my comments.”
That would not prove that her claims of psychological stress were hyperbole. The stress evidently arises from interacting with an entire picture of a person built from an entire comment history, not from any arbitrary subportion of that comment history.
For all of the reasons anyone would make a separate account here: to make an (unrelated) point, to see if my comments are modded differently if people don’t know it’s me, to pose questions I wouldn’t want to ask under my real name, etc. etc.
Again, Blueberry, I could have gotten CIA covert ops to help me trick Alicorn into making the comments I have in mind; it still wouldn’t have done any good. These are remarks you just can’t reliably lure people into saying.
Enough. If you really want to know, then add your name to and promote this petition,
“We, the undersigned, are prepared to believe Alicorn has been deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive toward Silas, as judged by her treatment of Silas when she doesn’t know it’s him; and that this behavior casts doubt on the merit of her interpersonal advice, once we learn who Silas’s alternate identity is and see Alicorn’s relevant posts regarding that person.”
which is one of the few reasons I’d couple myself to the other screenname. (And I suspect Alicorn is taking a long walk through her comment history right about now...)
That’s ridiculous and insulting. If she reacts differently to your other identity, it’s because your other identity has acted differently. And if you want a person to like you, then circulating a petition saying bad things about them, as you are doing now, is among the very worst things you could do.
Furthermore, creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely threatening behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
Furthermore, creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely threatening behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
I think you could really benefit from a hot cup of “get some perspective”. Despite all the flak I get for characterizing Alicorn et al’s reactions to me as calling them “atrocities” and “terrorism”, it’s comments like yours here that show that people really dive into the hyperbole when talking about what I did.
“Extremely threatening behavior”? Um, hello? I don’t know who Alicorn is, or what she looks like, and only sketchy information about where I’d find her. If you believe that anything about my behavior here, anything whatsoever, is “extremely threatening”, then start acting like it—go get the police involved, since you think such a severe threat is going on.
And after the police laugh in your face, you could take a deep breath, drop the hyperbole, and stop looking for reasons to smear me. Sound like a plan?
It’s easy to throw off a damaging, irresponsible allegation that someone else is dangerous. The hard part is to actually substantiate that chest-beating. And it’s yet harder to unring the great “evil” bell you’ve just rung over my head. An apology is in order—but I’ve learned long ago not to expect that, from anyone here, once they’ve comitted to a position publicly.
Very true. And since I was the one giving you a hard time for the “atrocity” and “terrorism” remarks, I feel bound to point out that accusing you of “extremely threatening behavior” is not only hyperbolic, but also more damaging to discourse because it amounts to accusing you of a crime. Definitely not cool.
“threatening” doesn’t necessarily imply threats of violence or criminality, it can simply refer to threats of further harassment.
But how about we remove the word “threatening” and replace it with plain ole “creepy”.
creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely creepy behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
It would be creepy for someone to create an alternative identity and use it to interact intentionally with Alicorn in a way that they couldn’t with their original identify.
OK. I have no idea what Silas did, beyond what’s been said in this thread. I was just trying to rephrase the statement in a way that removed the connotation of criminality that was alleged to be embedded in the word “threatening”
That’s ridiculous and insulting. If she reacts differently to your other identity, it’s because your other identity has acted differently.
But when this identity acts like that identity, somehow, that’s not enough to change her reaction! Go fig.
And if you want a person to like you, then circulating a petition saying bad things about them, as you are doing now....
What a crock. Even when the comment was up (which it hasn’t been for 15+ minutes), it wasn’t doing that. But I guess deleted comments are the easiest targets for misrepresentation.
Seriously, are you capable of having all the facts before you criticize someone? Is that just not in your job description?
Furthermore, creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely threatening behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
Except a) I didn’t seek to “interact with Alicorn”. Rather, Miss “I’m terrified of Jocaste” replied to Oedipus’s mother!
and
b) alternate screennames, in and of themselves, are acceptable behavior on LW and do not count as deception for the numerous justifiable reasons for using them.
Wait, I forgot—this is Silas we’re talking about. Screw the rules.
Ok, there’s some unfortunate timing here in that I saw and replied to the post above without knowing that it was deleted. I infer from the fact that you deleted it, that you realized the subtext was saying something you didn’t mean to say. So, I applaud your discretion and will delete my criticisms in the grandparent. I also had wrongly assumed that you had used your alternate identity to post replies to Alicorn rather than the other way around, which would have very different significance.
I do think you ought to take a lesson from Prof Quirrell on backing down gracefully, though.
Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was “perfectly exceptionless”? If it is only because I used the phrase “no excuse”, then you are failing to extend to me the consideration that you are requesting.
This is not relevant, because I am not challenging your contention that she ought to like you. I am challenging the following contentions:
(1) It is appropriate to say “I can’t even reply to this comment . . . as she will consider it an atrocity (much like terrorism is an atrocity)”.
(2) Her decision not to like you shows that she is unqualified to give the advice in the OP.
You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, “You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you.”
Because you base your entire reply to it on the assumption that it is substantively refuted the moment you find one atypical exception?
Second time: I do have solid proof for this in that she very much enjoys my contributions and even makes non-specific comments attempting to draw me out, so long as she doesn’t know it’s me. I have the smoking gun, however implausible you might think that to be. (Though I assure you I did not seek out such a gun, as no amount of effort would have reliably gotten Alicorn to do this; it’s too improbable.)
I will reveal who Jocaste is[1] once enough people can agree this would be sufficiently informative evidence.
[1] “reveal who Jocaste is” = an term I just made up which should make sense if you’re familiar with the story of Oedipus.
No, that was not the assumption of my reply. The assumption of my reply was that the excuse I gave (carbon monoxide leak) would not justify committing an atrocity. Therefore, if the excuse is an exception, then PMing her would not be an atrocity.
Suppose she said, “You know, Jocaste*, I really like your comments. I wish that you would post more often, especially in reply to my comments.”
That would not prove that her claims of psychological stress were hyperbole. The stress evidently arises from interacting with an entire picture of a person built from an entire comment history, not from any arbitrary subportion of that comment history.
* Here I’m using “Jocaste” as a place-holder.
Then why did you make this alternate identity?
For all of the reasons anyone would make a separate account here: to make an (unrelated) point, to see if my comments are modded differently if people don’t know it’s me, to pose questions I wouldn’t want to ask under my real name, etc. etc.
Again, Blueberry, I could have gotten CIA covert ops to help me trick Alicorn into making the comments I have in mind; it still wouldn’t have done any good. These are remarks you just can’t reliably lure people into saying.
I’m really curious now who it is. So why don’t you just switch over to your new identity?
Enough. If you really want to know, then add your name to and promote this petition,
“We, the undersigned, are prepared to believe Alicorn has been deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive toward Silas, as judged by her treatment of Silas when she doesn’t know it’s him; and that this behavior casts doubt on the merit of her interpersonal advice, once we learn who Silas’s alternate identity is and see Alicorn’s relevant posts regarding that person.”
which is one of the few reasons I’d couple myself to the other screenname. (And I suspect Alicorn is taking a long walk through her comment history right about now...)
That’s ridiculous and insulting. If she reacts differently to your other identity, it’s because your other identity has acted differently. And if you want a person to like you, then circulating a petition saying bad things about them, as you are doing now, is among the very worst things you could do.
Furthermore, creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely threatening behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
By the way, regarding this:
I think you could really benefit from a hot cup of “get some perspective”. Despite all the flak I get for characterizing Alicorn et al’s reactions to me as calling them “atrocities” and “terrorism”, it’s comments like yours here that show that people really dive into the hyperbole when talking about what I did.
“Extremely threatening behavior”? Um, hello? I don’t know who Alicorn is, or what she looks like, and only sketchy information about where I’d find her. If you believe that anything about my behavior here, anything whatsoever, is “extremely threatening”, then start acting like it—go get the police involved, since you think such a severe threat is going on.
And after the police laugh in your face, you could take a deep breath, drop the hyperbole, and stop looking for reasons to smear me. Sound like a plan?
It’s easy to throw off a damaging, irresponsible allegation that someone else is dangerous. The hard part is to actually substantiate that chest-beating. And it’s yet harder to unring the great “evil” bell you’ve just rung over my head. An apology is in order—but I’ve learned long ago not to expect that, from anyone here, once they’ve comitted to a position publicly.
Very true. And since I was the one giving you a hard time for the “atrocity” and “terrorism” remarks, I feel bound to point out that accusing you of “extremely threatening behavior” is not only hyperbolic, but also more damaging to discourse because it amounts to accusing you of a crime. Definitely not cool.
“threatening” doesn’t necessarily imply threats of violence or criminality, it can simply refer to threats of further harassment.
But how about we remove the word “threatening” and replace it with plain ole “creepy”.
Does anyone disagree with this statement?
It would be creepy for someone to create an alternative identity and use it to interact intentionally with Alicorn in a way that they couldn’t with their original identify.
But that’s not what Silas did.
OK. I have no idea what Silas did, beyond what’s been said in this thread. I was just trying to rephrase the statement in a way that removed the connotation of criminality that was alleged to be embedded in the word “threatening”
But when this identity acts like that identity, somehow, that’s not enough to change her reaction! Go fig.
What a crock. Even when the comment was up (which it hasn’t been for 15+ minutes), it wasn’t doing that. But I guess deleted comments are the easiest targets for misrepresentation.
Seriously, are you capable of having all the facts before you criticize someone? Is that just not in your job description?
Except a) I didn’t seek to “interact with Alicorn”. Rather, Miss “I’m terrified of Jocaste” replied to Oedipus’s mother!
and
b) alternate screennames, in and of themselves, are acceptable behavior on LW and do not count as deception for the numerous justifiable reasons for using them.
Wait, I forgot—this is Silas we’re talking about. Screw the rules.
Ok, there’s some unfortunate timing here in that I saw and replied to the post above without knowing that it was deleted. I infer from the fact that you deleted it, that you realized the subtext was saying something you didn’t mean to say. So, I applaud your discretion and will delete my criticisms in the grandparent. I also had wrongly assumed that you had used your alternate identity to post replies to Alicorn rather than the other way around, which would have very different significance.
I do think you ought to take a lesson from Prof Quirrell on backing down gracefully, though.