Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 5:57 pm
Here's the right vibe: I don't understand why you are choosing the extreme response (aggression) rather than the more balanced response (assertion) [Part 1]. I also don't understand why you describe your choices to conditions here as aggression/submission rather than assertion/surrender [Part 2]. It appears to me that it is your choice to respond to whatever you perceive to be the conditions here in an extreme manner that results in a pattern of rules violations. As we both agree that your responses are a choice, why do you choose to be more dickish?
If I ask questions in this response, they are not really meant to be answered, rather they are asked to make a point. You can obviously answer or do anything you want, just saying that to put the questions in context and so this is not read like a deposition.
I have more clarity today on what it is that you do not understand. In contrast to what I thought you understood or did not, today is more clear to me than it was yesterday. You are unclear why I interpret the conditions as ONLY extreme. Meaning, you believe that I observe the conditions, and that I only see submission or aggression as my option, and that I choose aggression (Part 2). You are unclear on why choose only to respond aggressively where a more centered response is available, including a controlled and centered assertive response (Part 1).
Surrendering does play into this. I think this is an important clarification. Before making a choice, we have to accept the conditions. I can surrender to the conditions, and still make bad choice. I can surrender to the conditions, and still make a good choice or a mild choice or an extreme choice. When I say that I surrender to the facts or conditions, it may not be the same conditions that you see or accept. If you, being a Satanic New York Yankees fan and member of the Evil Empire, walked into the Boston Chowder to watch the Red Sox beat the Yankees' arses, you may not experience or describe the conditions the same as I would with my Red Sox neck tattoo and F B Dent shirt.
The difference between surrendering and submitting, as it applies to this forum, is accepting the basic conditions and the formal rules of the board. And, also, accepting that when those rules are trampled, there may be consequences. It is not a true surrender to the facts (rules, etc.) and conditions to go bananas on here and expect to get cookies for it, A-hole. Neither is it a true surrender to pretend that one is a victim if a consequence is handed down for a violation or if harsh comments come back in response to a deliberate troll/insult, dick. Neither is it a true surrender to pretend that the actual conditions are not the actual conditions, bruh. And, importantly, it is not a true surrender if the conditions are acknowledged, but one just lays down and deals and lets everyone else do their thing, cat.
You are seeing the conflict with dickishness and a-holery largely because the others - submission and "la, la, la, rah, rah, rah cool shades bro" are silent in this theater. They are still here and they are preferred because, bruh, we don't have to go jackin' threads for cats, bruh, they just lay there and purr and lurk.
So then..... why? Why do I choose aggression over assertion?
Very simple, Res. Very simple.
You, Res Ipsa, have said some very triggering things for me. For example, and this is not personal, the Rosenbaum/Atlanticmike conversation triggered TF out of me. I was clearly not going to back off of that, as a matter of principle. I may have tried everything out in that conversation. I know that if I was talking to you that an assertive approach could and would work. I have a history with you and can and do return back and speak without punching you in the face. With you, an assertive approach works, it establishes and leads to connections or communications, and things build up and move forward. This conversation is an example of that, IMNSHO.
The same is not true for your entire moderating team or other members of this forum. Any rational or assertive approach gets trolled, twisted and insulted. And that is fine, because trolling, twisting and insulting are all included in the conditions of the forum and as we are figuring out, in the terms of the forum. It would be an insane and unhealthy approach to try and have a different view of things here, including views on some political topics, and expect that these views would not be subject to direct insults and presuppositions even if an assertive approach is used. We can't all be expected to be insulted like ajax and just accept it - or can we? Or, must we?
