chargirlgenius (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chargirlgenius) wrote2008-11-25 02:34 pm
chargirlgenius) wrote2008-11-25 02:34 pm
Entry tags:
How to argue in a weasel-ey manner, or...
...How I learned to stop worrying and be disingenuous when I was losing on substance
“Honey, if you think that was insulting I’d hate to see how you handled a real insult!”
Closely related to: “I’m not insulting you. Believe me, when I’m insulting you, you’ll know it.” (In other words, I can say whatever the hell I want, and you’re not allowed to take offense at it.)
“I’m only talking about you if my completely insulting post describes you.” (In other words, if you’re offended, it’s still your own fault.)
“My post wasn’t about you, even though enough of the pertinent details are eerily close to you.” (In other words, I can say whatever the hell I want, and you’re not allowed to take offense at it.)
“I just tell the truth as I see it.” (In other words, when it’s me against the world, *obviously* the whole world is wrong.)
And especially, remove the offending post/comment so you can say “I didn’t say that!” when people try to actually argue the points with you down the road.
The nice part about these phrases, is that it's a pretty nice cue for knowing when the person has totally lost all the substance of their original point.
PS: And why, OH WHY, does every time somebody suggests some quick and dirty things that people *could* do to improve their look, do people feel like it’s an attack upon them? Folks, there’s no reason to defend why you do things the way you do. It’s *fine*. It’s really fine. You make your own choices for whatever your reasons are. However, if you WANT to look a little more medieval, then read the list. If you don’t, then just go read something else.
“Honey, if you think that was insulting I’d hate to see how you handled a real insult!”
Closely related to: “I’m not insulting you. Believe me, when I’m insulting you, you’ll know it.” (In other words, I can say whatever the hell I want, and you’re not allowed to take offense at it.)
“I’m only talking about you if my completely insulting post describes you.” (In other words, if you’re offended, it’s still your own fault.)
“My post wasn’t about you, even though enough of the pertinent details are eerily close to you.” (In other words, I can say whatever the hell I want, and you’re not allowed to take offense at it.)
“I just tell the truth as I see it.” (In other words, when it’s me against the world, *obviously* the whole world is wrong.)
And especially, remove the offending post/comment so you can say “I didn’t say that!” when people try to actually argue the points with you down the road.
The nice part about these phrases, is that it's a pretty nice cue for knowing when the person has totally lost all the substance of their original point.
PS: And why, OH WHY, does every time somebody suggests some quick and dirty things that people *could* do to improve their look, do people feel like it’s an attack upon them? Folks, there’s no reason to defend why you do things the way you do. It’s *fine*. It’s really fine. You make your own choices for whatever your reasons are. However, if you WANT to look a little more medieval, then read the list. If you don’t, then just go read something else.
Re: Fun with semiotics.
(See? Was not necessarily talking about you-![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chargirlgenius, but an abstract you.)
Post things honestly. No skin off my nose. But negative reactions happen, and scratching one's head and wondering why negative reactions happen from an apparently-benign stimulus is pot-stirring, even if the reaction does seem to boil down to trolling. Negative reaction happened because of "you," not because of you. ;)
At no point in the original posting was there anything about "improving" one's look. Just what's easy & good to remove from your kit. I understand the intended connotation, as did you-![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chargirlgenius. Others -- who may have so many beloved belt-favors that it looks like they're wearing raggedy tutus over their T-tunics -- might not.
Organizationally, the SCA supports the gamut; interpersonally, longer-term participants generally observe that how they are perceived comes from a set of choices, or paths. It's the individual participant who chooses his or her own path. I personally think it's best to keep the cheerleading towards one's path on a subliminal level (that is, leading by example), rather than explicitly popping up and telling people what they should or should not do, regardless of whether or not they want the advice.
Re: Fun with semiotics.
I personally think it's best to keep the cheerleading towards one's path on a subliminal level (that is, leading by example), rather than explicitly popping up and telling people what they should or should not do, regardless of whether or not they want the advice.
Generally speaking, I agree. And it is the path that I personally take.
I do, however, think it's important to differentiate between generic "here's what you can do"s, and people going up to individuals at events, or even on their journals, and telling them what specifically they need to do differently. The latter is absolutely unacceptable. The former might generate a negative reaction, but although some act like it's the same thing, it's definitely not.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the original comment to which we're all objecting to is screened. Honestly, if she'd come out and said "I have a problem with you telling people what to do", it wouldn't have generated the traffic that it did. Instead, she said that anybody who wished to be "period" should use a tampon as their badge. Whether or not Corby was right to post, HER comment rightly generated a VERY negative reaction.
Re: Fun with semiotics.