I feel a little bit sad today, let me explain why.
Yesterday i asked someone if they stood by comments made in the middle of last year (Politely), It was a straight yes or no question, see i can understand some people say stupid things and then they regret them and say sorry or explain it was a idiotic thing to say( Lets be honest e have all said something in heat of moment and then wished we hadn't). I also thought after 6-9 months he would have come to see how silly his comments were.
So i waited and waited, put the question to him again (all politely) and still no answer came. I thought OK will try again tomorrow (Wednesday).
So roll on this morning and i re-sent the question, only this time i got an answer. Instead of it being the yes or no response i expecting or *Yes i should not have said it" reply i got called *obsessed*, then when i challenged this i got blocked on twitter and called a "simpleton".
Now i am not really that bothered about be blocked by a leftie on twitter (not the first nor will it be the last) but i do wonder why they do it and resort to *insults*, surely in the position the left are in they need more engagement with real people?
If this is the state and response that comes from people that are meant to represent the working class then they have a funny way of showing it.
Just for the record those that follow me on twitter know who this was that i had the exchange with and the comments i was asking if he stood by (still had no answer).
Billy, I employ a practice called the Principle of Charity, in which I assume that something someone says must have made some sense to them, or why else would they have said it? Now, as I'm sure you know from receiving the stick from many on Guido's blog, not all thoughts translate from brain to mouth/keyboard (don't I know from personal experience throughout my life!) On occasion, you may have said something that made someone scratch their head: "What did he just say?" (And if they're a less forgiving sort, any reply comes out as "Just be quiet till you make sense!") I believe that it is possible that, instead of thinking you might be asking a genuine and not-rhetorical question, LJ figured you were just trying to take the piss. Hard to know via Twitter, where you can't hear tone of voice, but one ought not assume, even if you know the person tweeting you by reputation(as he well may know you, if he reads Guido's blog to see if he's mentioned). Twitter feeds are funny-- they can be made public so fast and be so embarrassing (ask Penny Red!)and he should have watched himself.
ReplyDeleteBut am I not begging the question? Maybe LJ can't be embarrassed; this seems to be a disease involving politicians, especially Labour but not exclusively. Instead of "Yeah, OK, I see what you're doing!" with a wry tone and telling his followers to look up some link where his point could be made, he gets all up in arms and lashes out at you, for having had the temerity to question him! It's what politicians do, Billy! Don't get all filled up with pain at the sad state of affairs of a politician brushing off a member of the public; 'twas ever thus. Just let him know that every puppy has his day, and that he'll be a nobody getting such treatment soon enough.
There's also another Principle that some people employ, which is called the Principle of Candour, in which we assume that, in the absence of any known incentive for the other person not to be giving you the whole truth, they're telling you exactly what's on their mind. You asked him candidly if he still thought X, he replied "candidly" (in tone, at any rate) that he thought you had no right to ask him that question. So assume he really meant what he said the first time, if he's got no reason not to have said what was on his mind. And don't let the "illegitimati carborundum" you. (Google it.)
Well, I've been candid, and I hope you'll be charitable.
ad hominem
ReplyDeleteGoogle it. I have used it here before.
As I said recently When someone starts using insults as a first approach, you know they have no argument. If they use insults in the course of an dispute, you know that their argument has run out of road.
Now, having said that, you will know that I occasionally use ad hominem myself.
You will rarely find it as a first step. And I always try to use humour (maybe unsuccessfully in some people's opinion!)
I was blocked by the man in question today also. I point out that one of his quotes was racist/prejudiced against white men. He had tweeted that white men were obsessed by a certain part of a black mans anatomy.
ReplyDeleteHis reply was that I was obviously obsessed by black mens' bodies and I was therefore blocked! A strange logic but, hey, there you go. I think it says far more about LJ's mindset than anything else.
This is to you, onthecouchagain, but it's also good advice to Billy, to the Cat and anyone else ("Omigawd, S.G.'s gonna preach--taxi!"). My parents told me as a child to ignore anyone who made a remark to me as I passed them by, because no good could come of it if I stopped and engaged in a slanging match or came to blows. They said, "If someone yells out [insert foul language insult], what does that tell you about them? And if you turn around to engage with them-- what does that say about YOU? That you answer to that name, silly!" I'll update that to the present-- if Lee Jasper uses that kind of filth to express himself, what does that say about him? And when you take offence, and tell him so, and he blocks you-- if you CARE, what does that say about YOU? I'm glad you have it in perspective, "Couchie."
DeleteHere endeth the rant.
Not bad advice but following it would have robbed me of one of my proudest moments.
DeleteI normally turn Mormons away from the door but on one occasion, I engaged in conversation (out of devilment in me - so as to speak) and converted one of them to logical positivism! (N.B. Not even something I actually believed in)
His partner was doing his best to pull him away from this personification of the very devil...