Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:55 pm
L.N. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:34 pm
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:59 pm
What confusion have you created? Who is confused? (I think you can see which way this is going, can't you....
Of course I can. You will now make further comments regarding "your confusion" as you repeatedly have done in the past. You will thereby go off-Topic
No, not at all. I was referring to the fact that if you created confusion, then the confusion is mine. But according to your "rules", this enables me to claim that you are referring to my "state of mind" and launch into incantatory denunciations. Or does it?
No, it does not. I took personal responsibility for writing a confusing post. The fault is mine. How can that possibly be construed as a comment about your purported confusion? Even if you were confused (which you probably weren't, I don't know), my comment in no way was directed at you or your state of mind. How could you construe it that way?
There's surely another rule that I have overlooked that you will use to exempt yourself from your own standards.
No, I don't think so. I have not been talking about rules, nor have I been exempting myself from experiencing the benefits of Right Speech. If I have engaged in speech which is not Right Speech, that afflicts me as much as anyone else. I know you will continue to argue, but really, I have tried very hard to be friendly and respectful. Why are we even discussion me? This is all off-topic.
You needn't bother to present that rule, though, as I waive my right to proceed to the incantatory denunciation part of the game.
Well, that's good. The incantatory denunciations which you have offered usually seem to be off-topic personalized comments.
And hopefully that explains why this is not off-topic: you claim virtues that you don't practice, which is to do with virtue signaling.
No, I have not done so. Your comments are off topic, because you are playing the person (me) rather than paying any attention to the topic (Right Speech).
Eventually, inconsistency is the price we pay for lack of authenticity.
Your accusation of lack of authenticity similarly is off-topic. If I tried to get away with these kinds of posts, I know it would not be tolerated.
At one point some time ago, I called out a DW administrator for calling someone "pig-headed." I just don't think public name-calling should be acceptable, no matter how annoying someone is. This apparently has resulted in the onslaught of personalized comments and name-calling. As such, I acknowledge that my public statement some time ago regarding the words of the DW administrator have contributed to this result. Even so, I have never tried to "play the person, not the ball." Commenting on words or actions (playing the ball, addressing the topic) is substantively different from commenting on a person's personal characteristics or state of mind (playing the person). So, having addressed the choice of words used by a DW administrator, I have some responsibility for the over-reaction which has resulted. Similarly, having at one point addressed your choice of words, and having politely asked you not to direct negative personalized comments toward me, I have some responsibility for this outcome in which you feel highly motivated to continue doing the opposite of what I requested.
But none of this is justification for you and others to now follow me from Topic to Topic and talk trash about me. I understand you and many others here have a very different view of what it means to speak with one another with mutual respect and friendliness. Apparently it means nobody can say anything about your actions/words, and if they do, then they are subject to being psychoanalyzed and called names.
No "rules." Rather, Right Speech, which is beneficial for oneself and others. A few things to bear in mind, in my opinion:
1) Personalized comments, while not inherently "bad" or "good," are best used with caution, as they can lead to unintended misunderstanding.
2) Personalized comments are comments which address a person's characteristics or state of mind, not comments which address a person's actions or words. E.g., "troll," "your confusion," "bullshitter," "virtue signaling." Some comments are more likely to be taken personally than others.
3) While we are not responsible for another person's reactions to our words, we are responsible for the words we speak. If the words we speak cause unintended misunderstanding or some other disharmony, we can at a minimum acknowledge the truth that "these words I spoke have contributed to this result."
4) As retrofuturist has stated, a guiding principal is to play the ball, not the person (or "play the ball, not the man" as more commonly stated). This means addressing the topic of conversation rather than hiding the ball by disparaging the person. I have always thought that addressing the words spoken by another person is not the same as playing the person. Clearly, you and others disagree, and I have no problem with disagreement. You don't have to agree (of course).
5) I erroneously thought we all shared the common outlook of speaking with one another in the spirit of friendship and mutual respect, as stated in TOS, and that is genuinely and authentically what I have tried to do. We can disagree with one another's actions and words in a polite, respectful way.
That's it. If commenting about your choice of words or anyone else's choice of words makes me a "troll" and a "hypocrite," then that is your mental construction of me. One's mental constructions are part of one's kamma. If you decide to create a negative mental construction regarding me and/or others with whom you disagree, that is entirely your choice and your responsibility.
When you or I or anyone else uses the term "virtue signaling" as part of public debate, we are playing the person, not the ball, and I think we should be cautious when using such terms. I realize this is an exceedingly controversial position to take in this particular forum.