My experience with game

[Manfred Belheim]

Getting people to commit to the position "I'm not a racist" before engaging in communication about race is reasonable.

Is it? Depends what the goal of your communication is surely.

Also that doesn't really work if they do commit to that position, but you decide to just assert they are racist anyway, because they don't agree with you about something.

 

[Senethro]

In this instance, my position is obviously (I would hope) that I think it's a bad thing to constantly assume negative motivations in people who argue against you, or assume that they secretly agree with you and just don't want to admit it or face up to it, or to act as though you speak for a larger group than you actually do. And that it's a good thing to be open to the possibility that people who disgree with you aren't all pantomime villains or "trolls", to be open to the possibility that you may be wrong, to recognise and acknowledge when you are being rude yourself and not act like other people are just attacking you out of nowhere, to realise that it's unreasonable to expect other people to prioritise not hurting your feelings when you're insulting them and telling them they're wrong or hateful, etc etc.


Like I've said before, it's not up to you to dictate how other people use public forums. Like I've also said before, I'm generally more motivated to react to things I disagree with than to start discussions about what I think about stuff. As I said, I'm not the one telling people what to do, how to behave, or what to think. I'll leave that to you lot since you enjoy it so much. That being said, when I do react to things I don't hide my opinions or positions on things.

Ahahaha you pathetic melt. Moaning about civility and decorum in the top quoted paragraph and saying I'm the one trying to control others speech in the second. If your actual motivation for turning up is ever so slightly hurt feelings from one time then thats just sad.

Not answering your pointed questions about things I'm not actually talking about at the time is not hiding my position.

I'm pretty sure it is!

Moderator Action: Name calling is flaming. Don't do it. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Hygro]

Hidden motives are a reality and you need defense mechanisms so you can determine when you are wasting your time and energy.

I disagree 80%

While not as exciting a repartee to take your debate partner at face value and actually read what they are saying, you will more likely ascertain what they really meant reading the lines than reading between the lines. The defense mechanisms trigger self-affirming hallucinations and other cognitive bias reinforcements. If you give someone a consistent over time face value treatment you can nail them later for some of their actually unstated positions.

Glad you're learning to socialize better terx. If you are interested in that long term stuff, the short term is a prerequisite. Past that, you're right, long term is more about respect and codependence than it is excitement, fun, or the surface game of love. All people change over time, and successful relationships are maintained in such a way as to prioritize the relationship while nurturing the freedom to change.

I would, probably, recommend working on outgrowing the affair stage of socialization. It's generally harmful and unkind to all involved, by my observation.

This is the thread I would like.

 

[red_elk]

When we talk race we get the Domens and CelticGoddesses sneaking out of the woodwork to post various kinds of idiocy. Its not unreasonable to assume a similar effect here. Hidden motives are a reality

But this is true only for those villains posting idiocy. Good and ethical people like you never have hidden motives, just can easily spot these motives in others.

 

[Senethro]

What is my hidden motive, apart from the destruction and replacement of the white race?

 

[red_elk]

What is my hidden motive

Hope you don't have any.

 

[Senethro]

Hope you don't have any.

Alternative post:

Consider these:

What is the hidden motive of the self-described feminist posting feminist positions on issues?

What is the hidden motive of a civility and decorum advocate posting near exclusively in feminism-adjacent threads about anti-feminist positions?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Ahahaha you pathetic melt.

I mean I hope you can see why I don't tend to see you as being sincere when you occasionally decide to ask questions rather than the standard sarcastic response. It doesn't look like there's ever any real desire to engage with ideas or opinions, rather it just looks like you occasionally decide to try and lay a trap or push a derailment tactic.

Isn't it usually people on your side™ who like to say "freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech"? I'd think that the mildest consequence you could get is someone objecting to the stuff you say, so trying to paint this is an example of me trying to control speech is just nonsense. If you say insulting stuff, expect pushback. You don't get to "moan" about hurt feelings and have that taken seriously.

I'm pretty sure it is!

Well obviously you'd be wrong then. I'm not obliged (nor is anyone) to engage with you when you start demanding they tell you their opinions about things that have no bearing on what they're actually saying at the time. Sure, tangential discussions can be worth having anyway, but they are nevertheless tangential. But on top of that you've just never demonstrated yourself to be someone worth engaging with in that manner. This reply of yours being further evidence of that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What is the hidden motive of a civility and decorum advocate posting near exclusively in feminism-adjacent threads about anti-feminist positions?

To object to the objectionable content perhaps.

Again, not so very "hidden" as you seem to keep making out.

You have a very weird definition of "civility and decorum" as well, given that the paragraph you quoted where you claim I was advocating for civility and decorum, I was actually advocating for not inventing lies about your opponent or constantly assuming evil motivations, or not deluding yourself about being able to speak for an entire gender. Quite what any of that has to do with civility and decorum I don't know at all.

 

[rah]

I pity anyone that doesn't have a partner that treats them as an equal. If mine didn't, I doubt we'd still be together.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm pretty sure it is!

Quoted implies hiding its own position.

Multiple posters have outright stated their positions and reasoning for them, and those posts were not addressed. That's intellectually dishonest, dismissive despite claims that the other side is doing it, and questioning motives over post content amounts to a weak ad hominem. If something posted is mistaken, it should be possible to demonstrate why it is mistaken on the merits of the actual argument made.

Losing an argument via constant insistence of hidden motives and claiming others assert that too doesn't help.

What is the hidden motive of a civility and decorum advocate posting near exclusively in feminism-adjacent threads about anti-feminist positions?

Refuting provably (and proven) false statements and pointing out overtly sexist statements from self-described feminists was the motive. It was also done, and not refuted.

Equality was the goal right? Even that question was never actually answered...

 

[metatron]

Oh yes, men love women being sweet and agreeable, that's what we're supposed to be and all's good when I'm living my assigned gender role. Men like me too and call me "nice" when I'm being cute and pretty and not causing trouble.

*lookingleft*
*lookingright*
Erm... i'm very much in favor of...

• you causing all kinds of mayhem
• you transcending the gender role assigned to you
• you being less cute and "pretty"

The thing is: there are just many things i cannot usefully do.
Like, what i wrote in that brilliant episode in the photo thread (here) is not some utilitarian crisis management, but the peak of an honest iceberg.
My vile evul ideology recommends that you get most of the dresses, skirts, all of the bloody make-up, this horrible foot-binding equipment, anything with a heel on it, make a big pile of it in the garden, set it ablaze. De-cute yourself.
But i don't think it's useful for me tell you what to do on that point in response to some photograph or another.

Regarding the mayhem: This thread was long enough, i followed all of it. I literally grabbed the side of the table, as if in a cramp (you know, last step before biting into it), and i said...
...nothing.
Not to Terx. And not to you.
What drew me in was defending Ms. Carter to a degree that - i felt - nobody except you was. Which irked me because i expected that your defense would be blunted by people on some level thinking "oh, of course she is saying that".
And in passing, since the tab was open anyway, i felt like informing a certain someone that their stance is not properly "feminist", which evil old me and "feminists" agree on (never mind our divergent opinions on how the inconsistency be remedied).
And, arguably because i can't help but make such comments just pointy enough, i got a horrible night out of it with really astonishing levels of abuse and lack of civility (with your endorsement no less).

There are two points to this:
1. Be a troublemaker. Challenge people's comfortable views. But if you do people will not be nice to you, never mind if you're right or wrong, or if you hold "privilege" or not. They won't.
2. As per the tale of the supposed "evul misogynists", i should be the one mistreating you for speaking up.
First and most.
I can't help but think that i'm making a relatively bad job of it.

But when I speak my mind about something important to me, about issues facing women and challenge men's power structure, I'm a "horrible person" and even men I like (and who generally like me) will turn on me, because men defend men's interests, which include continual suppression of women and our voices.

It is possible for women to speak and be right. I understand this may be considered a controversial statement, but i'd be willing to defend it.
It is however also possible for women to speak and be wrong. Never mind whether you are, the possibility exists.

even men I like (and who generally like me) will turn on me

See above. I twitch at "even".

 

[red_elk]

Alternative post:

Consider these:

What is the hidden motive of the self-described feminist posting feminist positions on issues?

What is the hidden motive of a civility and decorum advocate posting near exclusively in feminism-adjacent threads about anti-feminist positions?

I think it doesn't matter. Person can have "good" motives and still be mistaken. Person can have "bad" motives, but have reasonable position on some issues.
The only thing which matters is person's stated opinion. You can suspect some person is racist, for example, but only in case he consistently posts racist stuff. So why would you care about his hidden motives, when you already disagree with his openly stated position? You can just disagree with what he says, he knows about his motives better anyway.

There is no reason to guess why a person in the internet, you know little about, posts particular stuff. May be voices in his head are making him do that, who cares?
And there is too easy to make mistake in such assumptions.

I mean, people in this thread are already assuming hidden motives even in my female friends, who are "unexpectedly" nice to me. This is crazy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When you say stuff people don't like, they "turn on you" to some degree. They will also say things you don't like in many cases. That's part of the reality of acting according to one's own wishes. Adults, men and women alike, can take responsibility for that. It doesn't have to be a big deal.

I mean, people in this thread are already assuming hidden motives even in my female friends, who are unexpectedly nice to me. This is crazy.

It's a diversion/argument dodging tactic. It's a lot less effortful than quoting stated reasoning and attempting to refute either the facts or the logic using facts as derivation, and a common default when someone is unwilling/unable to do the latter.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So why would you care about his hidden motives, when you already disagree with his openly stated position? You can just disagree with what he says, he knows about his motives better anyway.

This is definitely a thing I've wondered too. Surely by accusing someone of having hidden motives, you're implying that their proclaimed "smoke screen" motives are much more benign and innocent. There's not much point hiding evil motives behind equally evil false motives.

Yet the only people who ever seem to suspect me of having hidden motives are the ones who already think that my stated motives are undeniable evidence of sexist/racist/smurfist intent anyway. Are they saying that they think I actually have lovely warm fuzzy hidden motives, that I'm hiding behind a smoke screen of frothing hatred? That would be an interesting take.

 

[Senethro]

Why not ask the guys ascribing the hidden motive of female supremacy to feminists to enlighten you.

 

[Hygro]

How about the people who ascribed hidden motives to learning how to socialize?

 

[Senethro]

How about the people who ascribed hidden motives to learning how to socialize?

I mean, yeah, if it helps, that could be done. My point was kinda that THEY were the ones who claimed feminists had hidden motives so maybe they could ask themselves, which is a very time efficient act. Much more so than wondering out loud about it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I mean, yeah, if it helps, that could be done. My point was kinda that THEY were the ones who claimed feminists had hidden motives so maybe they could ask themselves, which is a very time efficient act. Much more so than wondering out loud about it.

You are outright lying about what happened in this thread.

 

[red_elk]

You are outright lying about what happened in this thread.

He didn't specify who THEY are, to be fair