Marvel's Retailer Breakfast falls off the rails 0

[RockMyAmadeus]

37 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

43 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Um...huh? What are you referring to, here...?

39 minutes ago, FairBall said:

Was this meant for me?

 

Getting a lot of mileage out of these emoji's today.

So, you don't know what you were referring to, then...?

Here's the chain of comments, here:

39 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

 

51 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No moderator is without bias. Moderators are human, too. Holding them to a standard of perfection is unfair to them, and creates unreasonable expectations in others.

In other words: it's manifestly silly to claim that moderation action has only happened when it was deserved.

Pretty obvious who has the grudge here. Responding to comments not directed at you and promoting other forums.

 

...to which I replied "Um...huh? What are you referring to, here...?"

Because my comment, that you replied to right here, had nothing to do with "grudges" or "promoting other forums"...and asking you to clarify who you were talking to is not worthy of a 

...unless, of course, you think I am "Fairball." I am not. That is Stu.

[ygogolak]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So, you don't know what you were referring to, then...?

Here's the chain of comments, here:

...to which I replied "Um...huh? What are you referring to, here...?"

Because my comment, that you replied to right here, had nothing to do with "grudges" or "promoting other forums"...and asking you to clarify who you were talking to is not worthy of a 

...unless, of course, you think I am "Fairball." I am not. That is Stu.

[RockMyAmadeus]

43 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

45 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Why is this comment necessary...? If you have a counterargument, make it. Otherwise, none of this is necessary.

Let's stick to the discussion, folks, and not the people in it.

Why did you bother with your comment about deflecting? Much like that comment, this was about tactics in arguing.

That's an easy question to answer: because my comment about deflecting wasn't personal; it wasn't a comment about ygogolak.

That's it.

That's the sum of it.

That's the entire point.

It's not personal.

Here's the comment in question, in context:

You like to tread water in semantics, so I will do the same. That was a response to one of your comments. Not all in general.

No, I like to get to the roots of matters, in environments where frank discussion is frequently not allowed. 

"There's nothing intelligent enough to respond to" is nothing but a swipe. It was wholly unnecessary, did nothing to advance the discussion, and was said solely because you're annoyed by what I said, so you decided to get a little jab in. Let's not pretend otherwise; doing that IS treading water in semantics. The fact is, the comment was perfectly intelligent enough to respond to, since it's the same thing I've been saying for multiple posts, but you don't have a response, so...here we are.

Deflecting is not proper debate. It's a TACTIC, for sure...but it's not proper debate. 

See? Nothing about anyone personally.

Do you see the difference?

The second the discussion becomes about the people involved, rather than the topic itself, the discussion is over.

Your comment, in response to ygogolak's comment, was personal, about ME, personally, not the topic:

1 hour ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Thanks for pointing this out. I have a friend who likes to do the same in political arguments we have. While I think that RMA often has very good logical arguments, sometimes being selective about the meanings of words makes it seem like he has a decent argument, rather than being a good arguer.

 ...and such comments have no place in these discussions.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Ignoring something gives it power...?

Really...?

Interesting perspective. We'll have to disagree on that point, too.

To clarify, and let me know if I'm recapping your position incorrectly, when you said this:

But if someone uses racial slurs, why are you offended? Do you know, when we're offended, we give power to the offender, and accomplish for them what they set out to achieve...? 

Let's say there are 2 people in a room, and one of them is actively hurling slurs at the other. To show that it's affecting you gives that person power. That's how I'm summing up what's quoted above. And I'd agree that for the person to show that they're offended is giving the other power. But being offended is not matter of choice. Showing that you're offended is more a matter of choice (but certainly it also involves an ability to control whether something is affecting you).

But my comment was more about community. Let's say there are 20 people in a room, and one of them is actively hurling slurs at the other. If the target of those slurs is obviously offended, then for the other 19 to ignore it gives the abuser power. Policing that abuse mitigates it.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's an easy question to answer: because my comment about deflecting wasn't personal; it wasn't a comment about ygogolak.

That's it.

That's the sum of it.

That's the entire point.

It's not personal.

Here's the comment in question, in context:

See? Nothing about anyone personally.

Do you see the difference?

The second the discussion becomes about the people involved, rather than the topic itself, the discussion is over.

Your comment, in response to ygogolak's comment, was personal, about ME, personally, not the topic:

 ...and such comments have no place in these discussions.

My comment was about a tactic. Pointing out who employs those tactics may help to identify when that is happening, in order to better respond to it.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

I would like to say that I would love to discuss this all afternoon, but that would be a lie.

Regardless, I do have other things to do, so I'll have to bow out for now.

Edited October 14, 2017 by GeeksAreMyPeeps

[RockMyAmadeus]

11 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

If you like, you can swap in any of those other emotions you mentioned for "hatred" in my earlier comment. It's not "hatred" that's important in this case; it's that the emotional reaction is not a choice (even if how one reacts to them is)

Maybe you're wired in such a way that things don't easily affect you on an emotional level. Most people aren't wired that way. If I could choose to be happy all of the time, I'd easily make that choice. But your emotional state is affected by the circumstances of your life, not by choice.

"Hatred" is not an emotion. "Anger" is an emotion, "fear" is an emotion, "revulsion" is an emotion, "sadness" is an emotion. 

"Hatred" is a state of being, a conscious decision one makes over time. 

Know how I know...?

Because one doesn't "feel" hatred. One doesn't say "man, I really feel hateful today!" or "Wow, you really made me hate when you jumped out at me!" or "I was hateful all day today!" or "I'm filled with hatred at you right now." 

You say "man, I really feel sad today" or "Wow, you really made me scared when you jumped out at me" or "I was annoyed all day today" or "I'm filled with rage at you right now", followed by "I hate when I'm sad all day" and "I hate when you scare me like that" and "I hate when I can't get over my frustration" and "I hate that I sometimes feel this way towards you." And when someone says "I really feel hatred towards you", they're really saying "I feel anger, rage, and frustration, and I hate you because you make me feel those things."

And I hate when the mailman leaves my mailbox open in the rain. My mail gets all wet! 

As for me being "wired" that way, no. Not in the slightest. In fact, it is a result of my emotional (over)reactions to things in life which has caused myself and others the most pain and suffering. These are things I had to learn through the hard and bitter experiences of life; and I'm not special. Learning to control one's emotions is just part of growing up. Emotions are a wonderful thing, and not to be shunned...in their proper place.

By the way...you CAN choose to be happy all the time. That doesn't mean you won't ever be sad, or annoyed, or angry, or afraid...but you need not wallow in sadness, annoyance, anger, or fear, and let your emotions dictate your reactions. That's the difference. You can CHOOSE to be in control of your emotions.

[ygogolak]

1 minute ago, ShillShillverstein said:

You,re definitely high if you think he's lying. RMA would be the last person to sign up another ID here, the Mods have such a hard on for him.

HUH? Who ever said that?

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

To clarify, and let me know if I'm recapping your position incorrectly, when you said this:

Let's say there are 2 people in a room, and one of them is actively hurling slurs at the other. To show that it's affecting you gives that person power. That's how I'm summing up what's quoted above. And I'd agree that for the person to show that they're offended is giving the other power. But being offended is not matter of choice. Showing that you're offended is more a matter of choice (but certainly it also involves an ability to control whether something is affecting you).

But my comment was more about community. Let's say there are 20 people in a room, and one of them is actively hurling slurs at the other. If the target of those slurs is obviously offended, then for the other 19 to ignore it gives the abuser power. Policing that abuse mitigates it.

That's simply not true.

Can you imagine the power those 20 would reclaim if they ALL decided to ignore the "abuser"? If they all just decided, en masse, to walk away from the "abuser"...?

After all, what are those 19 people going to do...? Hurl slurs back? Beat the guy (assuming it's a guy) up? Plead with him to stop saying those things?

In any event, no, it's not just to not SHOW that it's affecting you...it's to CHOOSE not to actually LET it affect you. Being offended is a matter of choice. Being offended is a state of being. It is not an emotion. I know you want to believe it is, but it is not. 

By the way, what does "obviously offended" mean...? Is the person angry? Crying? Why not encourage them to ignore that person, and take away their power? Because acknowledging what that person is doing gives them power. It gives them the satisfaction they're looking for. That's what they want, whether it's ONE person, or 19.

And what does "policing that abuse" mean...? Do you mean silencing it by force? Do you want to silence people with whom you disagree?

[RockMyAmadeus]

33 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

I have given you the courtesy and respect of responding to your posts, treating you with dignity and giving you my time to provide thoughtful responses to your comments. Is it too much to ask the same in return...?

[ygogolak]

4 minutes ago, ShillShillverstein said:

Did you blackout?

Feel free to quote where I said anything near that.

[RockMyAmadeus]

16 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

My comment was about a tactic. Pointing out who employs those tactics may help to identify when that is happening, in order to better respond to it.

My comments are not, and have never been, "tactics." Make a counterargument, or don't, but making comments about people, rather than topics, is a surefire way to create problems. If you want to comment about what you perceive to be someone else's "tactics", the best way to do that is in private.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, ygogolak said:

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I have given you the courtesy and respect of responding to your posts, treating you with dignity and giving you my time to provide thoughtful responses to your comments. Is it too much to ask the same in return...?

So, yes?

[fastballspecial]

1 hour ago, ygogolak said:

1 hour ago, fastballspecial said:

This thread has gone off the rails lol.

 

Yes, who started this thread anyway?!

Guilty as charged. 

A little information can be dangerous around here. Just like who you pick a discussion or argument with depending on your point of view. 

Edited October 14, 2017 by fastballspecial

[Mercury Man]

Just gonna leave this here.... 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The thread hasn't been derailed.

The discussion is about "being offended", what that means, and how that relates to the Marvel retailer meeting at NYCC and whether or not what some people said there were "slurs" or not.

It's stayed on course the entire time.

[ygogolak]

4 hours ago, fastballspecial said:

Guilty as charged. 

A little information can be dangerous around here. Just like who you pick a discussion or argument with depending on your point of view. 

I blame Rick & Morty.

[JTLarsen]

19 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Not quite. Causality is not necessarily limited to only one factor at a time. If the goal of the PR is to point out how they're being diverse for the sake of diversity, then your argument does not stand, and darkstar is correct. PR is not the end, the "reason" for doing it...PR is just the means. 

If you claim someone is doing something JUST for the sake of doing something, you are explicitly ruling out other factors. That's what just means. You are making my argument, that Marvel obviously had ends it wanted to achieve and PR was a means.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, JTLarsen said:

If you claim someone is doing something JUST for the sake of doing something, you are explicitly ruling out other factors. That's what just means. You are making my argument, that Marvel obviously had ends it wanted to achieve and PR was a means.

No, you are ruling out other ends, not other means. You argued with darkstar's use of the phrase "just for the sake of", saying that if he said "good PR" was also a goal, then they aren't "just" doing it for the sake of diversity...except "good PR" was the means to that end of proving how "diverse" they are, not the goal. One can  "just" have a single goal, while employing multiple means to achieving that goal.

In this case, you are just arguing semantics, arguing just to argue. You're picking nits that need not be picked. You ignore darkstar's point to argue a triviality of the language. Not that I'm against such trivialities, God forbid, provided the larger point doesn't get lost, but that's what happened here. I mean, it's a textbook definition of missing the forest for the trees. You're arguing what the definition of "is" is.

This terrible quote system makes it mucccccch harder to follow the context of discussions.

[JTLarsen]

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No, you are ruling out other ends, not other means. You argued with darkstar's use of the phrase "just for the sake of", saying that if he said "good PR" was also a goal, then they aren't "just" doing it for the sake of diversity...except "good PR" was the means to that end of proving how "diverse" they are, not the goal. One can  "just" have a single goal, while employing multiple means to achieving that goal.

In this case, you are just arguing semantics, arguing just to argue. You're picking nits that need not be picked. You ignore darkstar's point to argue a triviality of the language. Not that I'm against such trivialities, God forbid, provided the larger point doesn't get lost, but that's what happened here. I mean, it's a textbook definition of missing the forest for the trees. You're arguing what the definition of "is" is.

This terrible quote system makes it mucccccch harder to follow the context of discussions.

Again, wanting to prove you are diverse means you are not doing it just for the sake of being diverse. Not semantic; they had reasons for it.