gogogo31

Thank you, but I got the snottiness (as flatulent here as it is when, in a real life conversation, someone runs up to your conversation and bursts out, "Who the fuck is THAT?") and was obviously not impressed.

Lt Ripley

So, something you find rude makes you mad, so it is OK for you to act just like those that made you mad. You use different words than those that make you angry, but your response has the exact same intent. I am just pointing out a flaw in your judgement, not your moral center. If you want to see that as condensation, more power to you, but I think you are missing the intent of the message.

I am one of those in which intent is what angers me, not the word. To be angry at the word and not the intent of the word seems completely backwards to me.

bluetoast

I dunno man I brought up Bob Vila to my friend in High School when we were building something and he was like "Who the hell is that" and I laughed, since he obviously didn't give a shit. Then again, in that case I'm sure he really was asking.

Lt Ripley

What are your intentions with this statement?

gogogo31

When it comes to interpersonal communication, the intent has little or no consequence to others and can only be guessed at; it is the word that is tangible, that they are actually confronted with, and that represents you, not your amorphous "intent." I am much more worried about whether what someone says has a negative effect than whether they meant it to or not, because I and others have to deal with that negative effect, not their intentions.

gogogo31

So, in your opinion, it's rude to point out someone else's rudeness, and my intention was to be rude through different words?

Lt Ripley

But you choose to allow it to have the negative effect on you without attempting to get clarification. You jump the gun, you act just like the person that made you angry. At that point your intent is to be aggressive back to the person that angered you even though there is a chance the person intended no harm.

Lt Ripley

No, I ask people what they mean all the time. I'm not afraid to get clarification. I am blunt by nature though. They are free to seek it from me as well.

gogogo31

How would you attempt to get clarification about someone showing up in a thread where conversation was running smoothly for the express purpose of announcing they have no interest in it, nothing else to contribute whatsoever?

Did I need to clarify the intent of posters implying that other posters were gay (and that that's a negative thing, an insult) for not having the same "hot chick" taste as them?

I don't feel I was leaping to conclusions in these cases, and I do think the effect was negative on movement of the threads and everyone genuinely participating, not just me.

Lt Ripley

You "feel", but do you "know"? And you are assuming that it had a negative effect on everyone participating in the thread. Most folks in that thread are familiar with each others posting style, they will bicker back and forth and such, but that is part of the fun. Any regular on here will tell you that Foo and Tarantino are loons. Hell, so am I. You met Snake yet?

Josh-da-man

As a metalhead, having musicians like Michelle Shocked and Moe Tucker go off like this makes me feel less embarrassed about Dave Mustaine and Blackie Lawless.

If a sexually ambiguous folk singer can go homophobic born again and a member of the Velvet Underground can support the Tea Party, it can happen to anyone.

nothingfails

I was stunned about this because I always thought she was a lesbian

gogogo31

I will take that under advisement, and you're right, I can't speak for anyone else but myself. But was I wrong to speak for myself and express my thought when I found that the threads became unwelcoming, rude, and divisive at the point these comments came up? If everyone already understands each other and is content with the tone, then -- and I sincerely wonder, this is not sarcasm -- why have it open to the public at all?

bluetoast

S.I. Hayakawa would weep if he read this thread.

nothingfails

and as a gay man, I was not trying to be insulting... but in the day I used to mix her and k.d. lang in the late 80s/early 90s before k.d. really took off and left Michelle in the dust in terms of fame

bluetoast

Because this is an open community, and with that comes regulars, newcomers and outsiders. Getting used to them is part of joining that community.

Private boards exist on certain forums and they too have advantages and disadvantages.

gogogo31

As an "alternative"/underground-music fan who's met some really cool metalheads in my time (and some really unpleasant "alternative" types, for sure), I'd be well-advised to remember that, too. Judas Priest's frontman was gay all along, Michelle Shocked is now apparently a raging homophobe, and a few more prejudices and preconceived notions get shattered.... A good thing, no doubt.

Lt Ripley

Wasn't saying that. You can speak your mind. Was just pointing out that the message you are trying to convey "Hate is a bad thing" isn't going to work when you respond with just as much vitriol and hate as those that offended you. The words you used were different, but their underlying intent was to be just as snarly as you perceived the others posts to be.


Free speech and all that. I didn't see anything in this thread that was anti-homosexual... Miss Shocked notwithstanding.

Lt Ripley

I got so much Keppra and Dilantin flowing through my brain, I am happy just to be relatively understood!

bluetoast

rider555

So..what did she say?God hates corn?God hates Cher?God hates rice?God hates Ween?

gogogo31

This thread wasn't hateful in that sense, I just didn't think it was out of line to say I didn't care for someone dropping in just to ridicule the whole discussion. I can't slice that as anything but rude and spiteful. Notice I never called for comments to be taken down or anything remotely like that -- I believe in "free speech," too, and I exercised it by commenting against what I thought was very poor form, not trying to censor.

I guess my problem is the insularity here, which to my mind is better suited for the private boards bluetoast mentioned, and then saying whatever among people you already know and assuming no-one will take it "wrong" would be kept to a minimum in the open forums, where anyone has access and you can never assume it's just you and your pals who understand each other already.

I really didn't think I was informing people that hate is a bad thing (I wouldn't go so far as to assume that anyone's a homophobe necessarily; I would more assume everyone already knows hate is a bad thing), but more pointing out (and yes, I was very pointed, but I don't think I was thoughtless) that you should pay attention to what you're saying and not be so complacent and thoughtless when there are other people there, too. It's not just you being "inappropriate" and having a laugh with people you know well enough that you can say things you'd never say to someone who didn't already know you, and it doesn't seem feasible to just ignore everyone else as if it WERE a private board. I don't think it's too much to ask that people think before they speak when they're basically speaking in a public forum open to all (as private as it may feel, or however well a number of the people might already get each other), but maybe it is, I don't know.

Lt Ripley

You got angry at Tarantino asking who Shocked is.

You did the sarcastic "google" response.

He responded, calling Shocked an idiot bigot while doing so, that he knows what google is.

If you would have left it there, no problem in the thread.

Then you got smarmy with Tarantino

Foo, the loon he is, thanked you for being the moral pillar of the forum.


Anger unfurled.

The rest is our discussion.


As for you wanting only comments on here to be the way you want them to be... I wouldn't really know where to start.

EDIT: My homosexual reference was do to the original content of the Shocked story. The bitterness you showed would have been relevant if a forum member would have ridiculed homosexuals. But showing that much anger and distaste over "who" and "I know what google is"... I mean come on.

Mr. Salty

God hates foo?

gogogo31

Where on earth did I ever say that? But nor will comments only be how you or others apparently want them to be, with nobody ever pointing out a perceived inconsideration or rudeness regardless of "intent," despite some members already having established their own wavelength amongst themselves. So, if there's someone around who calls you out when you're being glib and thoughtless, you really shouldn't be so surprised by that; you can act all you want as if it were a closed forum at the regulars' disposal, but that's not at all the case.

I'm just defending my right to speak out when people are inconsiderate, and I'm confused as to how much consternation it causes when someone points out someone else's bad behavior, and that the person who pointed it out gets more flak than the person who was indulging in intrusive and belligerent behavior in the first place. This all seems very backwards to me. Which makes it par for the course for the Internet, but yeah, I guess I was misled from my end into thinking it might somehow be better at this particular outpost. You're right, though, the level of discussion does seem pretty stuck, insular, and self-regulated and reinforced to be just exactly the way it is, and any "smarmy" newcomer who wants anything better is deluding himself. C'est la vie, please continue business as usual.