people who say it isnt their place are stupid

[Shai Gar]

who cares if it is your place or not, post your opinion, if a person didnt want to hear opinions they would not have posted it in this forum.

if you have ever stated "it isnt my place" or "i dont know if i should say this" or "i am sorry if it offends" without wanting to now take it back you are weak.

you obviously should not say anything

ignore their feelings and drive in with what you know or believe to be the facts. at least then you can not be accused of being an apologist or PC wackjob (which to my mind are powerful insults)

[Eileen]

shut up.

Just because you don't value people's feelings and you don't give a shit whether you offend someone doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't express that they are conscious of the fact that they might bother someone with what they say.

[Shai Gar]

weak

[Eileen]

emotionally retarded

(and on that note, i'm going to clean my house before I am any more enraged by you.)

[Lee]

Who cares if it is your place or not, post your opinion, if a person didnt want to hear opinions they would not have posted it in this forum.

If you have ever stated "it isnt my place" or "I dont know if I should say this" or "I am sorry if it offends" without wanting to now take it back you are weak.

You obviously should not say anything

You do realise that those phrases can offer tactical advantage if you really wanted to be a manipulative yet uncaring shit stirrer. eh...notice the irony


Ignore their feelings and drive in with what you know or believe to be the facts. at least then you can not be accused of being an apologist or PC wackjob (which to my mind are powerful insults)

How about having civilised and interesting debate you PC wackjob.

[Shai Gar]

:D yes eileen i am emotionally immature, but i am working on it, though i will not limit my thoughts or behaviour just yet by my or others feelings.

and i have nothing against a civilised debate, my only annoyance is that these statements that i am opposed to make their argument seem weak, and whenever i get one of these in responce to one of my threads i get very annoyed, i consider it their place to try and knock down my house of cards if they can, or if they want too. (unless i specifically ask for no black hat posts). if i were to not consider it their place i would not have posed the question or statement to the company of INTPCentral members

[ApeTheDog]

Well, getting your opponent annoyed is a valuable asset in arguments. You should learn not to get annoyed by people who say these things. The weakness, if there must be one, lies as much with them as it does with you.

[Shai Gar]

yes, i know, i try to steel myself from these mindless responces, but even then i can use that against them, so they really dont think it isnt their place then fine, butt out, if they think it is there place? then great why the hell did they say it?

[songbird36]

Agreed. I don't want to feel that it's not my place to post an opinion 'cos I'm an INTJ., for example

[Architectonic]

:D yes eileen i am emotionally immature, but i am working on it, though i will not limit my thoughts or behaviour just yet by my or others feelings.

The problem is when you are emotionally immature compared to other INTPs. 8O

[ApeTheDog]

Why did they say it? To up their own confidence I think. If you're already said 'maybe this is not my place to say this' other people are far less likely to say: "hey, buddy. this is not your place to say this" in response, because, well... you already covered that base yourself. It's a defense mechanism.

[Shai Gar]

no, but if i dont like their opinion i am far more likely to say indeed it isnt your place to say it go away.

and archetectonic i am not so certain i am less emotionally immature than fellow intps my own age, according to the MBTI accreditation book "you've got personality", my emotions are being developed earlier than normal

[mgb]

It's funny how a thread about a phrase (which actually already exists I believe) turned into a person attack on the person that started the thread.

Shai Gar said that he hated a phrase. He may not have been entirely articulate when he said it but he wasn't attacking any single member in particular.

He said weak and got called emotionally retarded.

What is this place coming to lately?

[Vagabond]

What is this place coming to lately? Heheh mgbradsh. Just to use what you said in the past, maybe you just see things change and you just *think* they were better in the past, when they were just different... :D

[songbird36]

no, but if i dont like their opinion i am far more likely to say indeed it isnt your place to say it go away.

and archetectonic i am not so certain i am less emotionally immature than fellow intps my own age, according to the MBTI accreditation book "you've got personality", my emotions are being developed earlier than normal

I think you're being attacked on this thread and it sucks...

[mgb]

Heheh mgbradsh. Just to use what you said in the past, maybe you just see things change and you just *think* they were better in the past, when they were just different... :D

Maybe, even the new people are noticing it though, but maybe it's not my place.

Seems like personal attacks are getting out of hand, more than I think they were before.


You are so snarky Vagabond. It's seriously too bad you don't post more, I like it.

[Vagabond]

Seems like personal attacks are getting out of hand, more than I think they were before. Just for the record, I agree with you. I just couldn't pass on the opportunity. :P

[Shai Gar]

now that one was just to bait me. i shall not rise to the occasion.

[mgb]

Just for the record, I agree with you. I just couldn't pass on the opportunity. :P

I mostly just wanted to say it wasn't my place in a thread about people saying it's not their place.

I guess we are even now.

[Shai Gar]

personal attacks are getting too far out of hand, i think a nice little open ended warning should be given out to all users and with their accounts deletion as punishment for flaming people without cause outside of flamethrower.

flaming ideas is fine, flaming people is not

[MasterMerk]

If they mean "It's not my place, I'm biased", then it doesn't really matter to me personally. However, one must take into account that (if they didn't point it out themselves) whatever opinion they express would be easier to argue against if this bias was clearly visible. I think when people say "it's not my place," it's sometimes a tactic to avoid this common sort of rebuttal.

[mgb]

I find the phrase itself to be a very passive aggressive tactic.

[Shai Gar]

indeed, and tact is just another word for lying

[Miss Anthropic]

:D yes eileen i am emotionally immature, but i am working on it, though i will not limit my thoughts or behaviour just yet by my or others feelings.

and i have nothing against a civilised debate, my only annoyance is that these statements that i am opposed to make their argument seem weak, and whenever i get one of these in responce to one of my threads i get very annoyed, i consider it their place to try and knock down my house of cards if they can, or if they want too. (unless i specifically ask for no black hat posts). if i were to not consider it their place i would not have posed the question or statement to the company of INTPCentral members
Stop projecting.....

[Shai Gar]

do elaborate

[Eileen]

There needs to be an animated eye-rolling smiley.

Not that two wrongs make a right, but SG would NOT have been called "emotionally retarded" (NOT immature, damn it; I almost NEVER use the word retarded, so when I use it, it is the word that I mean at the time) if he didn't call me "weak." He asks to be flamed ninety percent of the time; I was just obliging him last night. Immature? Sure. Uncalled for? Not quite.

[mgb]

From my reading he was calling your argument weak.

Given the ambiguity, maybe name calling wasn't the best route to take.

[Shai Gar]

no she is quite correct i was calling her weak. i was however attempting to bait her into an argument.

[Eileen]

From my reading he was calling your argument weak.

Given the ambiguity, maybe name calling wasn't the best route to take.

Well, I do apologize for the name calling (to Shai Gar and to the INTPCentral community at large, but MOSTLY to the community) and recognized at the time that it wasn't the best route to take. But I think that I generally avoid being overly reactionary and should be forgiven an isolated incident in which the "victim" was clearly trying to instigate.

Also, he started out the thread name-calling. It was a name-calling thread, calling everybody who uses qualifiers that acknowledge people's potential reactions "weak." He does not say, "your argument is weak." He says, "you are weak." He doesn't name names, but he does name-call.


Of course, this doesn't excuse my behavior because if I see immature behavior and react to it, I should be the more mature person in the exchange and I wasn't.

[Geoff]

OK, to go back on topic a bit...

I see people expressing opinions that at times are not backed by evidence or experience, they just want to take a contrary view... fine. And then they descend into pointless semantics when someone disagrees or quotes facts etc.

In those circumstances it doesnt hurt to add a rider when you post as to why your post may be uninformed or illjudged because it aids all in understand what you are saying. Why not tell people when you are expressing an opinion and you recognise it may not as well-judged or based on experience as perhaps it should be. It aids all in recognising the extent to which it is worth taking seriously.

I think it is better to say "It may not be my place to say, as I am only guessing and want to argue, but the moon is made of cheese" than to just say "the moon is made of cheese - DONT ARGUE WITH ME".

-Geoff

[Eileen]

I think it makes sense to anticipate reactions, both in the sense that you're talking about Geoff, when one qualifies that he may not know what he's talking about, and in the way that Shai Gar rails against in the first post, in which you state your recognition that what you say may offend someone. There are times when it is over used and/or weakens an argument, but for most interpersonal interactions and particularly ones like this where you can't measure facial expressions (which I depend heavily on) or tone of voice (other than what carries across type), I think it's just a courtesy to qualify a statement. I qualify this statement as an NF who values people's feelings, but I don't think that saying "sorry if this offends" without regret and not "ignor[ing] their feelings" should necessarily be evidence that someone is weak, which was the original statement.

[s0978]

I think when people say "it's not my place," it's sometimes a tactic to avoid this common sort of rebuttal.
Is there something inherently wrong with wanting to avoid a debate? What if you want to throw something out there, but you don't give enough of a shit to get into an argument. Or you do care about the topic, but it starts to become a bravado thing, which is really fucking annoying. Some seem to think it's fun to bait others into arguments. I just find it annoying, and would rather walk away. I'm not so sure that prefacing a commentary with "it's not my place" or the like iis always passive agressive. I can see how in some cases it may be, but not everyone is out trying to "win" arguments.

[Geoff]

Thats precisely how I feel a lot of the time. You get into an interesting discussion about some very difficult subject when it is impossible for anybody to certain. But bang the doors go down, the open mind is closed and you see nothing other than I AM RIGHT BECAUSE. What about actually trying to learn from the other person. I am quite happy to learn from someone elses viewpoint, otherwise what on EARTH am I discussing something for? I might as well talk to myself.
I wonder how many overly vigorous argumentors actually ask themselves why they are always defending themselves so vigorously, if their mind is closed, why are they even bothering?
-Geoff

[s0978]

Thats precisely how I feel a lot of the time. You get into an interesting discussion about some very difficult subject when it is impossible for anybody to certain. But bang the doors go down, the open mind is closed and you see nothing other than I AM RIGHT BECAUSE. What about actually trying to learn from the other person. I am quite happy to learn from someone elses viewpoint, otherwise what on EARTH am I discussing something for? I might as well talk to myself.
I wonder how many overly vigorous argumentors actually ask themselves why they are always defending themselves so vigorously, if their mind is closed, why are they even bothering?
-Geoff

EXACTLY. And that's one good reason why tact is important. You want to be heard? Play fucking nice. But even when you do so, some people will still just be itching for the fight, and that's when semantics issues and such ensue...

It's not my place to say so (because I don't know if I could provide a rigorous and logical argument to qualify this): but I think of this difference in approach to be based in gender and/or age gaps.

[Eileen]

tact is just another word for lying

tact: Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

You can tell the truth without being tactless, usually. Some truths are hard to express without hurting someone; it's going to happen sometimes. But tact is often the thing that arguments are missing, in my opinion, and they would in fact be stregthened by it.



In my intro comp class this week, I taught problem-solution writing, which is kind of a hybrid informing-argument type of writing. The third section of the essay is generally the "Undoubtably people will disagree" section, in which they anticipate their opposition and refute it. I was surprised that the book I teach out of went out of its way to express the need for students to be tactful and not attack in this section. But then I thought about it, and it made perfect sense. In argumentative writing, the purpose is to convince somebody of something, and if you want most people to listen to you, you need to say things politely and not insult them. I wouldn't tell students to use the phrases in the original post; there ARE other (and even better) ways to be non-offensive than to say "I don't mean to offend." I think that part of that is just knowing your argument, stating it clearly, knowing your opponent's argument, being able to recognize where that argument is coming from and visibly acknowledge that, and then concisely dismantling the problematic part of the opposing argument. But tact has to be used throughout, if not for concern of people's feelings (which I don't think is actually the goal here) but for effectiveness of the argument.

[Shai Gar]

aww hell here, this is the reason i started this thread in the rants and raves section. to start this argument.

now i have finished watching the exorcist i want to go to sleep and dream, so whatever, the thread has finished its purpose

[indie]

Well, I do apologize for the name calling (to Shai Gar and to the INTPCentral community at large, but MOSTLY to the community) and recognized at the time that it wasn't the best route to take. But I think that I generally avoid being overly reactionary and should be forgiven an isolated incident in which the "victim" was clearly trying to instigate.

Oh, Eileen! What are we going to do with you?

Dear, sweet FJ . . . the title of this thread is basically "NO APOLOGIES" and here you are apologizing. I can't believe other people actually leapt to his defense; they should not CARE if poor Shai Gari got called some mean names. If you have something to say that you feel "is not your place" to say it, say it here, with no need to apologize.

I'll show you:

(1) For example, people who start threads with the word "FUCK GIRLS" or "FUCK WOMEN" (in all caps, nonetheless) in the title usually possess the intellectual equivalent of zucchini. But worse than that, they are demonstrating a deep hatred of women, which is one of the indications of a serial killer. By bending to him and "apologizing" you are reasserting to him that he is more "powerful" than you, and even perhaps encouraging that he is more powerful than women in general.

(2) Disillusionment. People who have such carefully selected criteria for their "dream woman" (down to the length of pubic hair) would lead many psychological profilers to believe that the person is severly deluded and perhaps even violently psychopathic.

(3) Illusions of Grandeur. People who want to be put naked into a crystal sarcophogus and ensconced in a room that can never be sold when they die? Potentially violent psycopath who hates women and who has illusions of grandeur . . . what does that sound like to you?

Now, I'm sure said person isn't going to take it well being put in his place with all of this, but whatever he says, ignore him. Don't apologize, and don't give him any more fodder for his underdeveloped brain cells. Perhaps some day he will grow into a man who can treat women with respect and decency. Perhaps some day he'll fly off the handle and murder his "dream woman" when he finds her, but she rejects him. Perhaps it's too early, and my brain is regressing all those FBI profiling books for absolutely no reason.

Regardless, this is my place to say what I want to say with no apologies.

Right, Shai Gari?

[Shai Gar]

no actually indiejade that "putting me in my place" was quite amusing. if i gave a fuck about you i could contradict one of those, well to contradict them all would be to lie.

and babe, if you want to be a profiler, i think you have the wrong profession, this is clearly either a case of you have no skills, or it is a case of i am far too complex to be profiled like this.

but thank you for cheering up my night.

[Philo]

All I know is that I came to INTPCentral to learn more about my type and to discuss issues and ideas that are interesting to INTPs. That, in the short period of time I've been here, this has become increasingly difficult due to the content of an increasing number of posts is disturbing, and robs me of both some of the enjoyment my online time affords me and an avenue for my own personal growth.

You may claim the right of free speech if you wish, or any other right you care to. That doesn't hold on the forums. Forums are here to target a specific community of people, and content is controlled based on what the admins and the community think is appropriate. It's the admin's effort and resources that makes this forum possible, and they can do with it whatever they please. If you don't like that, you don't have to hang out here.

As I said, we are all here by the grace of the admins and the other members of the community. If enough people decide to complain to the admins about the content of your posts, you will be removed from the forums. It is as simple as that. I've watched it happen on numerous other forums, and, given the way things are going, it will probably happen here soon if things don't change.

[Shai Gar]

i try to say the only things i find offensive in these flamethrower forums. in other places i contribute politely. if you dont want to be offended stay out of the rants and raves section.

[Thermo]

Shai Gar:
I agree with most of your opinions, despite being a dirty boomarang throwing criminal from down under. I also think you get a bad rap here. However, I don't think we should be completely insensitive to people's feelings. I also don't think the goal is to annoy people, but to work together through competition to come with better ideas than we can alone.

I don't think there should be official restrictions on flaming people either. Vigalanty justice usually wins out eventually. You should be able to stick up for yourself and call them out on the personal attack. The pattern I have seen on the internet and here to is, someone loses an argument and rather than concede with class or change there thinking, they resort to personal attacks. If you think about it that way, someone flaming you is usually an acknowledgement that you are smarter than them.

[mgb]

Oh, Eileen! What are we going to do with you?

Dear, sweet FJ . . . the title of this thread is basically "NO APOLOGIES" and here you are apologizing. I can't believe other people actually leapt to his defense; they should not CARE if poor Shai Gari got called some mean names. If you have something to say that you feel "is not your place" to say it, say it here, with no need to apologize.

I'll show you:

(1) For example, people who start threads with the word "FUCK GIRLS" or "FUCK WOMEN" (in all caps, nonetheless) in the title usually possess the intellectual equivalent of zucchini. But worse than that, they are demonstrating a deep hatred of women, which is one of the indications of a serial killer. By bending to him and "apologizing" you are reasserting to him that he is more "powerful" than you, and even perhaps encouraging that he is more powerful than women in general.

(2) Disillusionment. People who have such carefully selected criteria for their "dream woman" (down to the length of pubic hair) would lead many psychological profilers to believe that the person is severly deluded and perhaps even violently psychopathic.

(3) Illusions of Grandeur. People who want to be put naked into a crystal sarcophogus and ensconced in a room that can never be sold when they die? Potentially violent psycopath who hates women and who has illusions of grandeur . . . what does that sound like to you?

Now, I'm sure said person isn't going to take it well being put in his place with all of this, but whatever he says, ignore him. Don't apologize, and don't give him any more fodder for his underdeveloped brain cells. Perhaps some day he will grow into a man who can treat women with respect and decency. Perhaps some day he'll fly off the handle and murder his "dream woman" when he finds her, but she rejects him. Perhaps it's too early, and my brain is regressing all those FBI profiling books for absolutely no reason.

Regardless, this is my place to say what I want to say with no apologies.

Right, Shai Gari?


I'm not saying that Shai Gar is right by attacking half of the earth. But I don't see a need to stoop to that sort of level when approaching a discussion with him. When that happens (as it has been again and again involving many different people) the whole forum loses.

[songbird36]

OK, to go back on topic a bit...

I see people expressing opinions that at times are not backed by evidence or experience, they just want to take a contrary view... fine. And then they descend into pointless semantics when someone disagrees or quotes facts etc.

In those circumstances it doesnt hurt to add a rider when you post as to why your post may be uninformed or illjudged because it aids all in understand what you are saying. Why not tell people when you are expressing an opinion and you recognise it may not as well-judged or based on experience as perhaps it should be. It aids all in recognising the extent to which it is worth taking seriously.

I think it is better to say "It may not be my place to say, as I am only guessing and want to argue, but the moon is made of cheese" than to just say "the moon is made of cheese - DONT ARGUE WITH ME".

-Geoff

Ah the sweet music of reason and sanity. I know why I like you Geoff :lol:

[Eileen]

I'm not saying that Shai Gar is right by attacking half of the earth. But I don't see a need to stoop to that sort of level when approaching a discussion with him. When that happens (as it has been again and again involving many different people) the whole forum loses.



Yes, and this is why I extended an apology to the INTP Central community.

[MasterMerk]

Is there something inherently wrong with wanting to avoid a debate? What if you want to throw something out there, but you don't give enough of a shit to get into an argument. Or you do care about the topic, but it starts to become a bravado thing, which is really fucking annoying. Some seem to think it's fun to bait others into arguments. I just find it annoying, and would rather walk away. I'm not so sure that prefacing a commentary with "it's not my place" or the like iis always passive agressive. I can see how in some cases it may be, but not everyone is out trying to "win" arguments.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. In all, I agree with Geoff.

[Eileen]

In all, I agree with Geoff.

Heh, heh. This would make a great motto. Geoff should start his own religion, and his followers will have the simple creed, "In all, I agree with Geoff."

:D