Heero wrote:
intenseoldman wrote:
Oh, shit, I thought I might be stepping into it there. So.... I went back and read what you wrote. Let me see if I understand and correct me if I'm wrong, but try to keep it to a 100 words
Haha, no worries. And if you can keep it to 100 words, you're a better man than I.
Disclaimer: there are times I use "you" a lot here. It is the proverbial "you" much of the time. I hope such times are clear by context.
intenseoldman wrote:
So you're using your syllogistic fallacy as a non example of logic for not having a hard rule about inclusion.
You keep saying I made a syllogistic fallacy. I did not.
True, I knew what a syllogistic fallacy was, once, but, yeah, you're right, no conclusion.
I don't know how it got twisted up that I thought you wanted an inclusion rule. It was my understanding you didn't, but this soup's had a lot of stuff throw'n in since it's inception... hard to keep up.
Heero wrote:
And if inclusion concerns you, several better solutions than fighting in the forums have been given.
Yeah, we might be going around in circles, but it does concern me. The fighting, in as far as "responding with vitriol". I see very little of compared to the amounts of patient, gentle, reasoning that, IMHO. people just refuse to listen to.
Heero wrote:
It seems to me to be a very decent chance of late, that the people who are calling for less negativity and more inclusion are in fact the ones causing the problem. And the post could have gone on just fine without the negativity being hurled at the OP.
And I see it the opposite... so agree to disagree.
Heero wrote:
This reminds me of another post the other day when some kid said they're ocd or something, I forget, and they went on to describe a problem they have, asking for advice. And someone went up in arms about how it's a serious medical condition blah blah blah and they should not make light of it. It's a phrase dude, chill. The poster OBVIOUSLY didn't mean anything by it, and it was NOT the place or the way to bring awareness to something like that. If you think that phrase is detrimental to society, there are better ways to go about bringing awareness to that. As I vaguely recall, the poster actually wanted some serious advice on something, and the hate comments just derailed things. Luckily some users saved it and could get some good advice in (as well as push back against the shit poster--good job people, you're heros in my book), but by that time, I was already so turned off I stopped paying attention. So my memory of the specifics might be off somewhat.
And that's what we're all standing against.
Heero wrote:
But what that person did with the phrase "ocd", is what some people are doing with gender and other things. And it's NOT helpful. And I know many of these people have the best of intentions, which is why I do want to emphasize that it's not helpful and trying to explain why. It is my assumption, giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they actually want to do right and not just appear right.
Nah, that's not the best comparison. There's more layers of complexity to this. We are seeing the same thing, but drawing different conclusions.
Heero wrote:
I will say this though, I am NOT advocating for a rule here...because I don't think there needs to be one. On the contrary, it is the other side that is saying what SHOULD be done.
Damn, so now we're picking sides?
intenseoldman wrote:
Nobody here is asking for any hard rule for inclusion.
Heero wrote:
Really? Because when you say to someone something like "you should use 'people' and not 'ladies'", you are in fact creating a rule. It's not a formal one, but it is a rule nonetheless.
sounds like a suggestion to me... but, no need to write a Bible about it
intenseoldman wrote:
You give examples of situations where it would be absurd for everyone to be included, and I agree. You think for me to say where you could, you should is wrong... okay. How about where you could, you might at least think about it. Just be aware.
Heero wrote:
Sure. I'm all for awareness. A lack of awareness is one of the great problems with society as far as I can see.
It is.
Heero wrote:
And again, I don't think we're actually disagreeing about how to go about things generally. What I am saying is that what you're saying does not happen all the time. And a lot of people who are trying to be a part of the solution end up being a part of the problem. They do not phrase things as eloquently or softly as you do. If people spoke the way you do here, kind sir, then no post would be taken down, and we would not have such animosity. But clearly there are a lot of people here with strong negative feelings.
And others with passion for what they believe, and they are just trying to be listened to and not reacted to
intenseoldman wrote:
Some feel others could be more inclusive and have explained their reasons for their stances without vitriol, but with patient gentle reasoning,. I feel they deserve to be listened to. In the end, I think what everyone wants is a better tone.
Heero wrote:
Agreed. No problems with that at all.
Kumbaya
intenseoldman wrote:
And, yeah, I guess sayin you were saying the public forum is exclusionary by nature since it includes personal issues.... that was fallacious. That's not where you were going. Kumbaya
Heero wrote:
Haha, yes. Of course. I'm glad we're getting more on the same page. I'm quite long winded as you can tell, so feel free to let me know of anything else you need cleared up.
No, but if I ever need the waters muddied...