farla | Trainwreck

So Anoh mentions to me that a friend of his is going to debate with me over "global warming, Bush, and the sports-crazy world setting the stage for fascism", otherwise known as "basically everything I mentioned on the forum".

I find something unsettling about it because it's always a bad sign if someone disagrees with all of what I say - usually it means they hate me personally and are just looking for an excuse. But, I rationalize, my opinions do tend to tie together and they're generally along liberal lines, meaning that he could just be Republican.

Anyway, this was on January 4th. Anoh says his friend will start a thread tomorrow or so.

He doesn't give the account name, and I wonder if that means his friend is starting an account just to argue with me, but I figure I'm just being paranoid. I avoid names a lot too when it's easier, and besides, if you want to stay out of drama, and your friend hasn't actually moved yet, maybe he's not naming the friend in case his friend wants to back out and doesn't want me to have grudge over it.

Interestingly, at least one of Anoh's already-on-FFN friends hates me, meaning if this is that person or a mutual friend, my mostly unfounded suspicion about this being over something personal becomes less unfounded.

By the time I email back, it's January 6th, and the friend hasn't shown up. Eh. I mention this, wondering if the friend has backed out (as being convinced of my rightness after rereading the threads seems mildly implausible).

I'm told he's preparing something.

Whenever I hear this, it's a bad sign. I don't "prepare something" when dealing with a random person I want a discussion with. I lay out my basic side and wait to see what they say. I wouldn't prepare something that takes days and days of work unless I had a massive grudge against them and was trying to cause problems.

Anoh adds he doesn't know the friend's penname, just his real name, meaning a) Yes, the guy is getting an account just to bother me and b) there is a really, really good chance he's a mutual friend of the other one that hates me.

It is really creepy when the world justifies your paranoia.

Anoh says the guy should put up a thread Monday, which will be the 8th.

I email back, asking if the guy has a grudge against me - if I know in advance, it's easier to decide how to respond. (People with grudges will not accept any fact you say because they don't care and it's you speaking. It's best to confront them immediately about this, politely, and work it out. However, doing the same thing to someone acting similar, but without a grudge, makes them understandably touchy because you're acting like the only reason anyone could disagree is personal issues.)

I'm told there's no grudge, which so far is the first time I hear something positive. So okay, this guy wants to argue with me about everything I've said, particularly topics I don't consider debatable AND am tired of arguing, and okay, he's gotten an account just to bother me, but hey, he's not doing it out of a grudge. I can deal with this.

Monday comes and goes. Still no thread. I again hope it'll just be dropped, because the alternative is the friend is still preparing and as I explained, that is ominous.

Finally, on the 10th (Wednesday, two days after the the latest time), a thread shows up.

The poster is Whitetip. Who joined January 4th, as in, the same day Anoh told me about this whole thing.

Whitetip doesn't lay out his argument. Instead he asks for mine. The way he frames it is pretty polite. I feel a bit iffy about "I also took note that the main way that you defeat someone in a duel of intellect is by baffling them by a verbose argument which they cannot understand, so they feel as if it is necessary to believe you." because I really do argue these things as a pastime, and he seems to be bringing this to me personally rather than just for the sake of debating. But it's pretty reasonable, and if he sees me dealing with his friend this way, especially if he doesn't agree with my points and thinks I'm just confusing people, it's completely within reason for him to dislike that.

Now, like I said, I really don't want to argue this. It's like arguing if fire is hot as far as I'm concerned. I'm willing to because I feel obligated, but if you come to me to argue, lay out your own damn argument. Especially if YOU object to MY argument, because I have no clue what you object to. Global warming is the centrist position, okay? There are a good half-dozen other positions. Some people think it's getting colder. Some people think it's staying the same temperature. Some people think it's getting warmer but global warming is still wrong, and even there, they're divided into different camps, with some saying it's part of a natural cycle, some saying it's about to get colder, some admitting global warming but saying it's not human caused.

Also, if you spend as much time reading debates and arguing, you notice that the junk science people always want to poke holes in your argument but can't present anything on their own.

But he hasn't done anything wrong yet, and he claims to have done research, which is a treasured rarity, and, well, if he's Anoh's friend he's probably a lot younger than me and might just be repeating what his parents say and there's no reason to jump someone for that.

So I'm polite. I just ask for his argument. I can figure out what camp he's in and if (okay, how much) he's working with bad information, and respond accordingly. It's a lot cleaner that way.

Three days go by. It's now the 14th. Whitetip posts just to say he's really busy and can't reply right now, but he will soon.

This is plausible but not really likely. I let it slide.

Nowehre appears and asks me if I think global warming has any solutions. (Silly Nowehre, believing a topic titled "Global Warming and Whatnot" was about global warming in general)

Damn, I think. If I reply Whitetip will be able to argue with that and put off actually thinking up his own argument.

No, I think. I'm just being paranoid. Whitetip's been perfectly reasonable and it's not fair to hold it against him that he wanted to go after my argument first. That's normal online and it is a lot easier, and he hasn't done anything wrong. Besides, I'll just reply directly to Nowehre, it won't be about how global warming is happening, and I already asked for his actual argument.

I throw some stuff out - I'm feeling cautiously optimistic about our ability even if I'm not sure about our decision-making, and I mention actual projects, some internet suggestions and my own random ideas.

Kazundo's Advocate shows up to call the discussion political. This depresses me a bit.

Then Whitetip reappears to show how foolish it is to be bothered just by someone calling global warming science political.

Also, to once again prove that you can't go wrong by assuming the worst of people.

I discover I was incorrect to be paranoid. Whitetip didn't just attack my non-argument comments to Nowehre.

For that matter, Whitetip didn't just appear within a few hours, despite the previous delays, the moment there was something to attack, as if he was waiting for a chance like that.

Nor did he just open with "And, to think..I was actually beginning to think that you were a sane person, Farla.." proving that yes, this was some sort of grudge, yes, he was never intending to be civil, yes, I shouldn't have tried to think he was a perfectly nice person who was just mistaken because god forbid he give anyone that courtesy, yes, I shouldn't have tried to assume the best of him...

But his actual responses...

This is the point I'd like to say something about wanting to cry, but I really don't. There's this sort of dead feeling that there's no point in anything. I tried to be mad about how his teachers could have let him be this ignorant, and I just thought calmly, huh, the world would be better off with them dead. There are probably other people like that too. The world would be better off with them dead. I tried to find it funny, even just in a hysterical kind of way, that he never even realized that asphalt gets hot in the summer, and I just thought, he's human. He's human and you're supposed to recognize humans by being intelligent, that's why we like dolphins and monkeys and raccoons because we see them as being like us, and we're supposed to be clever and observant and smart.

We're supposed to be able to figure these things out. God, I was this observant as a little kid. I was able to understand hot and cold when I was barely old enough to speak. I did this whole thing with blocks and explained to my parents back when my vocabulary was too limited to even make a complete sentence.

Asphalt gets hot. The white lines of paint are cooler.

Hot. Cold.

How can people be like this? How can they be people?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Anoh, yes, a synonym is nothing like a definition. One might speak of shadows or darkness in the same sentence, but that does not mean the words are identical. Nor are orbs the same as optics the same as eyes. Again, never, ever confuse the two again.

If you mind, could you tell me why that's so far from reasonable?

I do mind, as this greatly disturbs me, but even so.

Black things are black because they do not reflect light. Since energy can be neither created nor destroyed, this means that the light has been shifted into heat. Therefore, the darker something is, the more light it turns into heat. Shiny things stay cool in the sun. Black things get hot.

The wonder of biofeedback means that as forest grows into northern areas that were formerly tundra, it further heats up the land, making it warmer, allowing the forest to grow further north, which makes it warmer, which allows the forest to grow further north. However, forests existing in their natural range do not have this issue. Their growth serves to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

The Siberian permafrost melting, which Whitetip skated so blithely over, holds methane that has been under there for at least forty thousand years. Right now is the warmest it has been in forty thousand years. We are not going on temperature data just for the last hundred years. Permafrost is an area that is supposed to remain permanently frozen. When it melts, that means something is very fucking wrong.

Cows produce roughly six million tons of methane - and no, not through flatulence. Overall, all livestock put together produce around eighty million tons. The western Siberian permafrost alone holds around seventy billion tons.

CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. There is supposed to be a certain amount in the air. If there was less than that, then the earth would cool and freeze over, just as if there's too much, the earth heats up. Therefore, saying it's okay we're adding CO2 because there are natural sources of CO2 is like saying that because there is salt in your body, you'll be fine if I forcefeed you an extra three pounds. If you don't understand the analogy, go eat three pounds of salt and get back to me.

All of this could have been uncovered with a few minutes of your time. (http://fuckinggoogleit.com/)

From: (Anonymous)

I was referring to the part of Whitetip's arguement that I told you about, involving that a century isn't enough time. It was clear as day, seeing as I fucking re-explained part of it right above.

All of this could have been uncovered with a few minutes of your time.

You obviously have a lot of time and a very bad sense of humor.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Any of it is enough to completely discredit all of it.

And no, you really could have plugged a few words into google and found this out for yourself.

From: (Anonymous)

Any of it is enough to completely discredit all of it.

That's just like you always call everyone who disagrees with you incompetent, it's completely general.

And no, you really could have plugged a few words into google and found this out for yourself.

That doesn't argue what I said.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

No, it's just that so many times the people who disagree with me happen to also be complete idiots. Is this a return to the "you aren't admitting you're wrong right now, therefore you never admit you're wrong, and even though you're not actually wrong I'm going to whine about this" kind of argument?

I'm calling him incompetent because he is. If you'd like to argue he's not, then you can, but I'm going to laugh at you. A lot.

From: (Anonymous)

Is this a return to the "you aren't admitting you're wrong right now, therefore you never admit you're wrong, and even though you're not actually wrong I'm going to whine about this" kind of argument?

(A) You were wrong to bitch about him here, rather than being honest and saying the argument was about global warming, not random insults.

(B) It's not just here. In all the times I've argued with you, and read other arguments other people had with you on forums and such, you've never admitted to being wrong. You have been, but you drag it out to be annoying.

I'm calling him incompetent because he is.

You say that about EVERYBODY, except for your two or so friends.

If you'd like to argue he's not, then you can, but I'm going to laugh at you. A lot.

Laugh. Sure. I've laughed enough at you throughout this.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

No, I wasn't wrong to bitch about him here, and no, the random insult was a good part of why I was annoyed.

And telling me I've been wrong, at some unspecified point, and therefore you're right (especially when the original bitching still stems from your whine about why I'm not admitting I'm wrong here and really just seems to be you upset with that) is, I'm afraid to say, not the strongest of arguments.

Actually, until you did idiotic things like thinking it was a good idea to use a thesaurus in place of a dictionary, I wasn't saying you were incompetent, although I'm happy to do so by this point, and happy to use stronger words than just "incompetent" for that matter. But if you'd like to soothe your ego by saying that it's not that you or he acted like a moron, but I'm just mean and say that to everyone, then I can't stop you, little hypocrite.

From: (Anonymous)

You misintepreted what I wrote. I meant that you should've told him that the argument was about global warming, not insults, instead of coming here and bitching. It's a much better solution, so yes, you are wrong.

Stronger words? You just dredge up words from dictionary.com. Anyone can do that. (And yes, I know you do that. I read through your live journal, and you've cited it.)

We're all hypocrites. Everyone.

From: (Anonymous)

And so are you.

Yes, you are mean to everyone who stands in disagreement with you. For instance, Nowehre on the "u suc" thread and godblessmaryoloughlin on the "Fiction Don'ts" thread. And you've been doing this since 2001.

And nobody needs to be told you're mean. It's easy to tell.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

No, it really isn't.

If you want Whitetip to learn to argue better, or to publicly humiliate him, or whatever the fuck you thought you were doing, that's your issue. More, even if I'd decided to try to deal with him rather than trying to just get it over with, I'd still have made this post. Even more, the main point of this post, again, is not the insult. The insult is half of the proof of the main point. Please stop reading here and go reread the last few sentences five or six times, in the hopes it will finally sink in.

And at the risk of beating a dead horse, that's not what "stronger words" means. I mean that "moron" is stronger than "incompetent" and "utter fuckwit" is stronger than "moron". It was my indirect way of saying you're well past incompetent by now.

No, I'm mean to people who are stupid. This is not very complex, and your failure to understand this is, to say the least, ironic as hell. Note how I've gotten progressively meaner as your comments have gotten progressively more idiotic. Nowehre appeared on my forum to snipe at me first, so I don't even understand what you mean by that.

I. Do. Not. Have. Any. Obligations. If I wanted to respond to Whitetip with "You are a pathetic excuse for a human being and are less intelligent than my goldfish, and I only hope that your stupidity will lead you to drinking bleach and removing yourself from my species as soon as possible" I would be able to do that. And then I could go make a post "OMFG guys, it's the dumbest retard ever! Go send him emails about how stupid he is!" and then crosspost the entry to any or all of the various LJ communities devoted to insulting stupid people.

And you know what? That would not something you could point to as a "mistake" that requires me to admit I was wrong. I daresay that pointing to such a thing in that context would lead to me understanding exactly how it is that you couldn't argue against Whitetip successfully. Also, to wonder if there's something questionable in your local water supply. You can't say I "should have" because if I don't want to do something, I don't have to.

From: (Anonymous)

Yes, it is. It's assertive yet not aggressive. Don't just say it's not to argue, because it really is.

More, even if I'd decided to try to deal with him rather than trying to just get it over with, I'd still have made this post.

Well at least he would know that you don't like to be insulted. And if what you said is true, then you probably just like to complain.

I realize you were also bothered by the science, but that's not what I'm addressing.

And at the risk of beating a dead horse, that's not what "stronger words" means.

There are many things "stronger words" can mean. Just because what I intepreted does not match what you implied does not make me wrong.

And it's funny when someone who seems so intelligent resorts to using something like "utter fuckwit" in an argument.

No, I'm mean to people who are stupid.

Which is almost everyone to you, despite barely knowing them.

And if I seem stupid to you, well, I really don't care. After this argument, you don't seem intelligent to me like you once did.

And more idiotic does not equal in less agreement with you. You don't seem to realize this. Is it you, or everybody else?

Nowehre appeared on my forum to snipe at me first, so I don't even understand what you mean by that.

She simply said your reviews were malicious. You denied that your reviews were malicious (which they are, since there are plenty of people who will take your advice if you're not agressive nor passive), and then you and Silawen proceeded to gang up on her and accuse her of 'random bitchiness' and of course, call her incompetent.

And your exaggerations that you consider 'uncivil' are just getting really boring now.

You can't say I "should have" because if I don't want to do something, I don't have to.

There are times when what you should do and what you want to do aren't the same. You never have to do what you should do, but there are still ways and better ways. Oh, and did you not mention to me how I SHOULD HAVE handled the situation with Whitetip a few posts back?

From:

farla.livejournal.com

It's not a better solution if I like my solution better. You want it to work out one way. I, amazingly, do not live to make things work out the way you want, so I don't care.

And if what you said is true, then you probably just like to complain.
YES! Finally, it begins to sink in.

Which is almost everyone to you, despite barely knowing them.
Sorry, but no. Just because I'm calling you idiotic does not mean I'll let you brush it off by whimpering I just say that to everyone. Soothe your ego some other way.

And more idiotic does not equal in less agreement with you. You don't seem to realize this.
Oh, I understand. It's merely that people who disagree with me are generally also idiots. There's some remarkable correlation. For example, Whitetip clearly had no grasp of basic physics. You consider my not doing what you wanted to be a mistake on my part, as opposed to yours.

you and Silawen proceeded to gang up on her and accuse her of 'random bitchiness'
She was. She appeared out of nowhere to insult me and attack me for poorly explained reasons, then admitted she had, in fact, been wrong.

And no, not malicious. I believe I explained that already. Or do you want another drawn-out debate over the meaning of a word where you can show further excesses of stupidity?

There are times when what you should do and what you want to do aren't the same. You never have to do what you should do, but there are still ways and better ways.
You're actually serious. That's a good one.

See, Whitetip? Not my friend. Not my obligation. I can deal with him however I feel, just as I can deal with you however I feel. You wanted a safe nice playmate to teach him basic social norms? I'm the wrong person to ask. Obviously, I might add. The "should have done" factor is pretty laughable, because, see, no. Not obligated.

And yes, dumb little thing, you should have handled the situation otherwise. See, while I have no problem with how it worked out, you do. Fine with situation = not a mistake. Wailing about how something turned out = mistake.

Also, trying to publicly humiliate a friend, then publicly admitting it? Possibly, just possibly mind you, a dumb move.

From: (Anonymous)

Okay, now I understand. You're just a bitch who complains about everything.

Yes, you do call everyone stupid unless they're in agreement with you. You use absolute nonsense like "oh, they just happened to be idiots like you", to soothe your own ego.

More than likely, she admitted to wrongfulness because she was afraid of you, or simply didn't want to argue anymore. Having done so and seen so in the past, I know that's probably how you win quite a few arguments.

Well, going by your favorite site, malicious means full of, characterized by, or showing malice; malevolent; spiteful. If you're saying that your tone isn't at all trying to hurt people who write stories you don't like but solely to help them make the stories better, then it's not malicious. I however, do think you also want to get the upset as well, so to me it's malicious. If not, then no.

Wailing about how something turned out = mistake.

If anything is pretty laughable, it's this. You claim to fine with the situation, but you make this post. You then deny it later by means of some stupid explanation, and again you claim to be fine with the situation.

Also, trying to publicly humiliate a friend, then publicly admitting it? Possibly, just possibly mind you, a dumb move.

I wasn't trying to publicly humiliate him.

From:

farla.livejournal.com

No, I can be entirely civil to those who disagree with me. For example, I was civil at the start of this discussion. You proved idiocy over the course of it, and my responses grew correspondingly more unpleasant.

Right. Nowehre argued with me for a bit, then before I reply, maked a second post saying she's seen context and changed her mind, then asked me to review her story. Clearly, I won only through fear. And every other time? Also fear! After all, your cowardice clearly reflects everyone else, and I'm sure many other people believe that it's not stupid to argue against a dictionary definition by saying that one of the many synonyms your thesaurus gives doesn't include the definition. And if these people are a majority, then I may well be calling them all idiots, proving that I just call (almost) everyone idiots. With only a great many assumptions, your statement is almost correct! Congratulations, you're doing better than usual.

Malicious is not only ill will, it's without just cause. See sadism and such related words. I generally don't want to hurt people's feelings, I just don't try to spare them. If I just wanted to hurt their feelings, believe me, my reviews would be shorter and involve directions regarding the correct way to commit suicide.

See also: being perfectly polite at the start of a discussion, venting and insulting once the other arguer demonstrated his intelligence was on par with certain simple fungi.

The situation I'm fine with is the one where I made the post. (The argument itself was not a situation I chose, it was one you shoved on me. I can be unhappy with that, but I had no power over that occurring, thusly, saying that is a mistake of mine that I should be admitting is rather ridiculous. By which I mean you're a fucking moron for proposing it.)

So to recap: I like my solution of this post and think it worked out great. You don't like it because you wanted me to babysit your friend instead. You must also be very stupid to consider this a problem for me.

Why? This solution turned out great for me: I avoided a direct confrontation and what would likely have been a long and tiresome argument. I recorded my impressions for future reference. You came along and helped me verify which of my impressions were correct and which weren't, as well as volunteering all sorts of information I was unaware of. I hadn't considered that hesitation might be an indication of being pushed into something by the third party, or that said third party might be vastly understating their involvement. Also, this exchange has likely moved me from friend to enemy category, which, given how you treat your friends, is probably a lot safer for me.

From: (Anonymous)

No, I apologized at the beginning at this discussion. You were not very happy at this, and your response was somewhat argumentative, which initially, I didn't want to get into.

High quality stories does not give you the authority to go about reviewing how you do. Obviously, there is a chance she didn't give in out of fear. But her reasons for giving in, that your story gave you "every right to be as viciously harsh in a review as you want to be and sometimes it is necessary as it the closest thing you do to as thumping the writer." That doesn't seem like much reason to give in, so fear is definitely a possibility.

Okay, your reviews are not malicious. I do find it hard to believe that you don't intend on hurting people, but I'll go by your claim.

And if you're so fine with this situation, why do you keep arguing with me?

From:

farla.livejournal.com

Your apology was "Additionally, I thought you liked arguing. I'm wrong, so I'm really sorry."

My response was that this wasn't the issue. At this point, you started whining about how I don't admit I'm wrong, such as how "[I] conveniently skipped over the one portion where Whitetip caught [me] contradicting [myself]." Then you bitched about Keleri. I must say I think the argumentativeness is largely yours.

And listen very closely. Take a deep breath. Go back to the forums. Read them once through without any preconceptions rather than deciding you're right in advance and looking for things that support this. It would likely have been wise to do this with the original post here and my comments, but it's clearly a bit late for that.

Then you'll see Nowehre wasn't referring to my story. She was referring to someone else's (godawful) story. If I may make an assumption, her logic can be explained as considering my reviews overly harsh responses until she saw the context they applied to, which is a perfectly reasonable stance. (Your response, in contrast, is not reasonable. Nowehre was not ambiguous in her wording and your interpretation could only have arisen if you were actively looking for it.)

And I keep arguing with you because I do like arguing and it's good practice. I think anyone who believes in something without being able to defend their reasons is remiss.