quote:

If you choose to ignore them or put them on ignore (or just not read them) I have no issue with that act… but it’s the constant reiteration of “I am ignoring you” that invalidates it.

Just because I don’t use the ignore function doesn’t mean others can’t or shouldn’t, but if you are ignoring someone, you don’t need to advertise it. That is trying to censor, and thus bad.

Someone mentioned Edmond.

While he made it a chore to follow posts, I really didn’t have an issue with having to look at the subject and decide if it was worth my time. He was a good source of information on some things.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

If you choose to ignore them or put them on ignore (or just not read them) I have no issue with that act… but it’s the constant reiteration of “I am ignoring you” that invalidates it.

Just because I don’t use the ignore function doesn’t mean others can’t or shouldn’t, but if you are ignoring someone, you don’t need to advertise it. That is trying to censor, and thus bad.

Someone mentioned Edmond.

While he made it a chore to follow posts, I really didn’t have an issue with having to look at the subject and decide if it was worth my time. He was a good source of information on some things.

Again, a good point or two, but I don't understand how you can equate ignoring someone with censorship. How about some support for that theory, Doctor?

As for "advertising" that you're ignoring someone, that isn't censorship either. Nothing I say or don't say will erase his posts. Advertising serves a couple purposes. It lets the forum know why you're not responding to the troll's posts, and it notifies the culprit he's wasting his time. But he obviously has plenty of time to waste.

But I don't want arguments with others over this, so I'll quit "advertising" it.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Of course I'm an elitist--if that means speaks the truth, no matter how politically incorrect. I deserve the term and embrace it.

I have two post-graduate degrees, and I EARNED them. No one gave them to me. They didn't come easily. I had to work hard for them, and my wife and I made economic sacrifices to get them. I don't take kindly to having my education dismissed as useless or worthless. (Don't get riled, Shanks, I'm not talking about you.)

Why don't more people in the US respect education, as they do in most of the world? The acquisition of knowledge is a noble endeavor.

Instead, there is an ignorant class who treat education with suspicion and contempt. It's just boneheaded stupidity.

I'm not going to pretend it's okay, just to be Mr. Popular.

You want to know how elitist I can be? I think votes should be weighted according to achievement and merit. An uneducated moron should not have a vote equal to mine. Or yours. If the great unwashed have taught us anything this year, it's that they can't be trusted to vote rationally. They're willing to put the nuclear codes in the hands of an insurrestionist who violated his oath of office, a criminal who was convicted of fraud. Trump's background and actions should have been disqualifying immediately, regardless of policy. That'how a more moral population would have handled it, back in the 1950s some yearn for.

You should get an extra vote for having a college degree. Overall, those with degrees contribute more than Joe Moron to our taxes and society.

You should get an extra vote for starting or running a business (including a farm or ranch), since you contribute more to society and taxes.

You should get an extra vote for completing military service honorably.

You should get an extra vote for investing X amount of dollars. They also contribute more than Joe.

There are other extra vote situations I would support, but can't think of at the moment. Recall that conservatives like to remind us we're a republic, not a democracy. They're right.

Okay--fire away.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

If you choose to ignore them or put them on ignore (or just not read them) I have no issue with that act… but it’s the constant reiteration of “I am ignoring you” that invalidates it.

Just because I don’t use the ignore function doesn’t mean others can’t or shouldn’t, but if you are ignoring someone, you don’t need to advertise it. That is trying to censor, and thus bad.

Someone mentioned Edmond.

While he made it a chore to follow posts, I really didn’t have an issue with having to look at the subject and decide if it was worth my time. He was a good source of information on some things.

Again, a good point or two, but I don't understand how you can equate ignoring someone with censorship. How about some support for that theory, Doctor?

As for "advertising" that you're ignoring someone, that isn't censorship either. Nothing I say or don't say will erase his posts. Advertising serves a couple purposes. It lets the forum know why you're not responding to the troll's posts, and it notifies the culprit he's wasting his time. But he obviously has plenty of time to waste.

But I don't want arguments with others over this, so I'll quit "advertising" it.

quote:

In other words, actively telling others not to listen is censorship, and thus unipolar control of thought.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

In other words, actively telling others not to listen is censorship, and thus unipolar control of thought.

No, sorry. Telling others not to listen isn't censorship unless you have the power or ability to compel their compliance. Otherwise, it's mere advice.

"Don't listen to him, Dr. Butler."

Are you censored by that?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
jeffe is not a fan of singleshot rifles. Maybe I should have put him on ignore after finding that out.
But, we all have flaws, and I'm OK with that.
He may like red headed women. Yes, I'm sure there is one out there that is great. The ones I have dealt with, were all bat shit crazy. He might consider my attitude a flaw, but we should get past it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Simple. Saying I’m ignoring you publicly is saying that this person should be ignored. You are thus saying others should ignore them.

So if you want to not listen to me, that is not morally wrong. You trying to make others not listen to me is; but you are under no obligation to make others listen to anyone, either.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

No ME, I'll say it again, not that it will help.
I thought political content was unnecessary. its irrelevant what it was about. It had crossed the line from science, into politics. If your goal is a show that brings everyone along and interests them in science, then I dont think there is a place for political content. That's it!

for very similar reasons too what Tyson gives here.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OAAOV6DUb30
Because getting political will alienate 50% of your audience. Its a no win.

As too "our argument from along time ago" is this what's rubbed you the wrong way? some long ago perceived slight?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Simple. Saying I’m ignoring you publicly is saying that this person should be ignored. You are thus saying others should ignore them.

My point being is that if you want to not read someone else’s thoughts, that’s up to you. If you want to make someone else not be listened to, you need to engage their ideas and convince others they are wrong and then they can decide to either disagree or not engage with them.

In other words, actively telling others not to listen is censorship, and thus unipolar control of thought. Compare that to convincing others that the problem person is just wrong.

If you want to not listen, that is your right. You telling me not to listen is not.

Admittedly, not having some rules makes a communication platform too hard to be useful for exchange of ideas.

So if you want to not listen to me, that is not morally wrong. You trying to make others not listen to me is; but you are under no obligation to make others listen to anyone, either.

quote:

I was happy enough to withdraw it when Roland questioned my use of the word censor, as when I thought about it, and checked its definition, it didn't match.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Theres only two options. Deliberate obtuseness, which I tend towards. Or plain stupidity.

Take your pick. You come out of either looking pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I was happy enough to withdraw it when Roland questioned my use of the word censor, as when I thought about it, and checked its definition, it didn't match.

If you had to look up the definition of censor, I'm not surprised. Your use of it in that context was just a continuation of the expose when you said PBS should self-censor.

You didn't know what you were saying, and worse, when I brought it to your attention, you didn't withdraw it, but doubled down.

After looking it up, you should have known.

quote:

Ive made the offer of discussion plenty of times in this thread.

quote:

You have no way of reasonable explanation of your actions re ignore

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

You have no way of reasonable explanation of your actions re ignore

You have chosen to not accept my reasonable explanation. Instead, you just declare it not reasonable, which is just another opinion, not a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
So that's a no then.

Look at yourself. all the excuses in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Your hill.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

Yes it's my opinion. Nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
So that's a no then.

Look at yourself. all the excuses in the world.

What do you mean "no"?

What do you think we're having if not a discussion? It's a discussion by default, certainly not at your invitation. The only "discussion" in your view would be agreement, solely with you.

"excuses" -- that's a rationalization, if not a sort of gaslighting. That's also defeatist insofar as your insincere invite to discussion.

I'm having a discussion. Are you?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Your hill.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

Yes it's my opinion. Nothing more.

Everything is a contest of wills with you, isn't it?

You think this is about who is on the defensive and who is on the offensive.

Every post you make trying to shame me is your mental game to think you are on the offense.

It's classic gaslighting.

I see it as I'm trying to fulfill the definition of discussing, while you are working hard to maintain what you consider the upper hand or high ground.

Now, which mental gymnastics is the character of a narcissist?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Wow.

Now that's really something.

I do the psychological thing often herein. And I ask questions of AI to see info that I can't see elsewhere.

So, it's flattering when someone plays along.

I wouldn't have thought to consult AI on the topic of ignore on a forum platform.

I'm glad you did that.

The analysis there should be read carefully, and several times, IMO.

I can see how "ignore" can be weaponized. The AI explanation is about group Ignore and psyco damage with intent. It's kinda hard for me to imagine weaponized can be achieved by one person.

I can see it as a defensive tool, for one person.

So, lets consider the psychological aspect. Shaming, personal insults, name calling, gaslighting dismissing the thread theme with deflection etc., calling someone old woman, or maggie, or saying you need help, and so much more, you know what I mean, is psychological weaponizing the forum.

What's the defense to that? Engaging in tit for tat, or reciprocating is useless. It's about the king of the hill, a childish game, sometimes with wood swords or sticks. And to engage on the trool's level is his game and he likes it.

Still editing

quote:

Everything is a contest of wills with you, isn't it?

You think this is about who is on the defensive and who is on the offensive.

Every post you make trying to shame me is your mental game to think you are on the offense.

It's classic gaslighting.

I see it as I'm trying to fulfill the definition of discussing, while you are working hard to maintain what you consider the upper hand or high ground.

Now, which mental gymnastics is the character of a narcissist?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Wow.

Now that's really something.

I do the psychological thing often herein. And I ask questions of AI to see info that I can't see elsewhere.

So, it's flattering when someone plays along.

I wouldn't have thought to consult AI on the topic of ignore on a forum platform.

I'm glad you did that.

The analysis there should be read carefully, and several times, IMO.

I can see how "ignore" can be weaponized. The AI explanation is about group Ignore and psyco damage with intent. It's kinda hard for me to imagine weaponized can be achieved by one person.

I can see it as a defensive tool, for one person.

So, lets consider the psychological aspect. Shaming, personal insults, name calling, gaslighting dismissing the thread theme with deflection etc., calling someone old woman, or maggie, or saying you need help, and so much more, you know what I mean, is psychologically weaponizing the forum.

What's the defense to that? Engaging in tit for tat, or reciprocating is useless. It's about the king of the hill, a childish game, sometimes with wood swords or sticks. And to engage on the trool's level is his game and he likes it.

So, that's what jeffee and JTEX and to a lesser degree TB40 does. When they do that it is for sure, by intent, to inflict psychological harm. It's weaponized.

That's why, IMO, simply putting them on ignore isn't good enough. That's why I post the Ignored Post thing sometimes. It's really the only defense I have to that sort of thing. The message is I dismiss you and your post and game. Maybe that's psychological, but the persons it's directed to should be considered. They have no shame.

I loath having to explain this in part because it takes away some of the effect. But again, they are immune anyway. Jeffee and JTEX are pretty hard-core trools.

quote:

You say so much you dont intend to let out. Too you it's a game. You are flattered when people play along. Ok cool, thats obviously on your mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
You didn't quote my whole post:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Wow.

Now that's really something.

I do the psychological thing often herein. And I ask questions of AI to see info that I can't see elsewhere.

So, it's flattering when someone plays along.

I wouldn't have thought to consult AI on the topic of ignore on a forum platform.

I'm glad you did that.

The analysis there should be read carefully, and several times, IMO.

I can see how "ignore" can be weaponized. The AI explanation is about group Ignore and psyco damage with intent. It's kinda hard for me to imagine weaponized can be achieved by one person.

I can see it as a defensive tool, for one person.

So, lets consider the psychological aspect. Shaming, personal insults, name calling, gaslighting dismissing the thread theme with deflection etc., calling someone old woman, or maggie, or saying you need help, and so much more, you know what I mean, is psychologically weaponizing the forum.

What's the defense to that? Engaging in tit for tat, or reciprocating is useless. It's about the king of the hill, a childish game, sometimes with wood swords or sticks. And to engage on the trool's level is his game and he likes it.

So, that's what jeffee and JTEX and to a lesser degree TB40 does. When they do that it is for sure, by intent, to inflict psychological harm. It's weaponized.

That's why, IMO, simply putting them on ignore isn't good enough. That's why I post the Ignored Post thing sometimes. It's really the only defense I have to that sort of thing. The message is I dismiss you and your post and game. Maybe that's psychological, but the persons it's directed to should be considered. They have no shame.

I loath having to explain this in part because it takes away some of the effect. But again, they are immune anyway. Jeffee and JTEX are pretty hard-core trools.

Still editing

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

You say so much you dont intend to let out. Too you it's a game. You are flattered when people play along. Ok cool, thats obviously on your mind.

Yea, the flattered comment was a dig at you. I couldn't help myself. Psychological.

quote:

but why the rush to post an unfinished comment?