Sunday, July 8, 2012

How to Spot a Dogmatist

The easiest way to spot someone for whom reality is unimportant, someone for whom all that matters is the story they want to tell is to pay attention to what she says.

For instance, the lie that I pretend to have power on Abbie's blog is being perpetuated by Sacha, who concedes that upon reading what I've actually written, I state flat out that I have no power other than what is available to the rest of the universe:  persuasion. She also concedes that my announcing that out of the gate is sufficient to counter any inference that I think otherwise; rather, the only way to refute the proposition is to state its negation at a later time. And since I don't state such negation at any time, it naturally follows that she's conceded the matter is resolved.

You of course would be wrong to think that.
here is Justicar saying "I-have-no-power-here-in-any-shape asking people to be a little more thoughtful in what they say, not gratuitous in how they say it ..." which is his out. He then goes ahead from then on to act as though he has power, even in the same fucking comment:
I'm not even sure how one is supposed to look at that as a rational statement on her part. I state upfront that I lack power and then go on to pretend I have it. Is this akin to my stating I don't have a cheeseburger in my empty hand and then pretending as though I do have a cheeseburger in my empty hand? And, as she writes, this is meant to convince people that my empty hand really has a cheeseburger in it?

Clearly Justicar is pushing for tone control. He is not asking for it just to be until Abbie is in the clear, he is making the argument about how we look to outsiders.

Yes, clearly I was arguing for people to restrain themselves when posting comments . . . so too is Abbie. Indeed, her citing Jerry Coyne's non-blog website is the standard for the tone she wanted. And then Abbie has today iterated that her readers are to attempt to follow the NATGeo guidelines on tone and language:
So, #1, if you all want to comment here, try very hard to follow NatGeos suggested guidelines.  I know theyre vague, but do your best.
If you dont want to worry about it, theres always #2, The Slyme Pit, a discussion board graciously set up by an ERV reader where you dont have to watch your language.
In other words: watch your language (i.e., tone) on her blog; if you don't want to do that, then she suggests you take what you have to say off of her blog to a place where it is acceptable.

In short, the 'tone' argument of mine is perfectly entailed by what Abbie herself has and continues to state publicly.

Yeah, I was way off the mark there.

Sacha is a bit like the politician who is stopped mid-sentence by a rival politician. The rival says, "I think what you're saying is a lie."
The first politician says, "Of course it's a lie, but hear me out anyway."

That's Sacha in a nutshell.

1 comment:

dustbubble said...

Just had a thought that it was best that I check back in the records, and reassure myself that I wasn't going all benson. It'd be red-tail-light syndrome for me then.
And find Abbie's prudently deep-sixed the whole shooting match.

In a way I'm mightily relieved, I was cringing at the prospect of having to wallow in it all over again, right from "Bad Form, Drunk Sponger" through to the final unedifying scenes with John Greg imploding into paranoid incomprehensibilty, Sacha weaseling (hey! I can do Usanian!) and fabricating to Olympic standard, and the constant pointless moaning from the likes of Decius.

So it looks like Sacha's in the clear.
And Abbie's still playing it straight down the middle on the new place. Still no indications either way as to who is and isn't in on this informal backchannel (alias banging out the odd email) that various parties muster as collateral to any incident where Abbie is being interpreted like some sort of Delphic Oracle in support of whatever BS they're trying to promote.

Harrumph! So that's that then .  You are A Bad Man From History now, as far as the jellyheads in the new place are concerned (a (substantial) subset of the clientele, I hasten to add).
But like I said over on Nectar's, I have a pretty good, although not 100% eidetic, memory, and I recall an intriguingly variant account (intriguing in a socio/politico/psychological way; I lack the vocab. to express it in a less poncy fashion).

I wonder how long it'll take Franc to get bored, and drop them in the shit again?
All as a result of incomprehensibly astute calculation, according to him.
Not a lucky shot in the dark. Ooo nonono.

Bollocks to 'em. Anybody who puts up with Sacha, Franc, JG and the rest of them and their possibly not even wilfully manufactured account (which is the really worrying bit!) isn't worth the bother. It'd be like shouting at cows.
Anyway it seems to have nearly stopped raining here, so I'd better get on out, and try and catch up. The whole country's been rained off since mid-March. Devil, idle hands and all that.