I / P

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: I / P

Postby Keirador » 04 Nov 2015, 21:25

ExiledAtHome wrote:
What I think is interesting is how difficult it sometimes is for people to learn about the attitudes and positions of others under certain conditions and when perhaps certain attitudes and biases are in play. Sometimes it is like people are reading different threads or only reading the portions of posts which affirm their understanding of their "opponent" as terribly wrong and completely holding the views they assumed they held.


Is this an observation about Antigonos and I, or might it always apply to Keirador and yourself?

I've certainly been wrong about the positions you hold, Exiled. I assumed you condoned violence on behalf of the Palestinians and, as you rightly pointed out to me, talked past you on an ethical concern that didn't apply to your position. Sorry again!
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 9199
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: I / P

Postby Crunkus » 04 Nov 2015, 22:37

Keirador wrote:Finally, I have no idea what you mean by my last post "gives away my game." It gives me the impression you believe me to have a secret agenda that I've left unspoken. Could you clarify this?


ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: I / P

Postby ExiledAtHome » 04 Nov 2015, 22:42

Crunkus wrote:
ExiledAtHome wrote:If you agree with this completely, then what is your objection to my proclivity to discuss my positions on the conflict itself, rather than always frame it within the context of some teleological conciliatory end?


I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about here and what it has to do with something I objected to. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really don't follow you.

I thought it was somewhat apparent. You've been pretty pointed in your critique of what I choose to prioritize. You find my focus on history to be overly susceptible to bias, and you don't understand what it is I'm hoping to achieve (which is, by the way, simply to establish agreement on what has actually transpired in the conflict, what root-causes are in play, and motivations drive both sides). You've articulated your preference for discussing solutions and ways to better the lives of Palestinians and Israelis. But, you say you agree with Antigonos' assessment that what we say here counts for very little, and the most interesting thing we can hope for is to learn more of eachothers' attitudes as we explore the past and the possible future. So, if you agree with Antigonos' assessment of what potential this discourse we're having actually has, I'm merely asking how you see my approach to this debate / conversation as differing from that?

ExiledAtHome wrote:
What I think is interesting is how difficult it sometimes is for people to learn about the attitudes and positions of others under certain conditions and when perhaps certain attitudes and biases are in play. Sometimes it is like people are reading different threads or only reading the portions of posts which affirm their understanding of their "opponent" as terribly wrong and completely holding the views they assumed they held.


Is this an observation about Antigonos and I, or might it always apply to Keirador and yourself?


I'm not sure what you mean by "might it ALWAYS apply"...

Sorry, that should have read "...or might it also apply to Keirador and yourself?"
Gold Classicist Member
User avatar
ExiledAtHome
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 22:56
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1385)
All-game rating: (1590)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: I / P

Postby Crunkus » 04 Nov 2015, 22:51

ExiledAtHome wrote:I'm not opposed to discussing solutions generally, when there is a common consensus on what the issues at stake actually are.

I think more so than most international topics, the I/P conflict is deeply misunderstood, to put it mildly.


Could you identify how you feel it is misunderstood by the people you are specifically "speaking" with?
If you're not sure how we understand one aspect you feel is often misunderstood, ask.

ExiledAtHome wrote:[color=red]I'd posit that you've put a lot of effort into deconstructing perceived bias against Israel in my commentary. I don't actually recall you acknowledging the historical entrenchment of bias against Palestinians that permeates most western political and media power structures. Nor have I seen any indication that you have any interest in deconstructing that bias.


I'm not addressing someone that seems to have a bias against Palestinians. This rather easily explains why it hasn't been a primary focus of mine.

I noticed you haven't been addressing a great deal of injustices in the world in this thread. I wouldn't find it reasonable to conclude from that tacit approval of anything in particular.

I don't have a lot of interest in deconstructing the bias of people that aren't here right now, no.

I've been exploring possible areas relating to bias with you, but most of the time it's the bias that is leading to a projection of viewpoints onto other people...because of your focus on bias against Palestinians. Bias is just that...you look hard enough...you find what you're looking for whether it is there or not.

You have to admit, it's happened here more than a few times. I think we've dealt with a good deal of it though.

But yeah, i do see that there is a distinct difference in how you process the same type of behaviours depending on who is committing them. You see this as justified I think because of this, that, or the other thing. I'd say that the nature of bias is to feel justified in having it.

The nature in moving past bias is to not worry about the justification, and just focus on the behaviour itself independent on who you are talking about, as much as possible anyway. As I said, it isn't hard to UNDERSTAND as you understand Palestinian violence and don't seem to understand Israeli violence. Understanding is one thing, but we should be clear about not confusing understanding why people do things with endorsing it as a positive means to attain any objective they might want.

If this issue for you starts and stops with getting people to realize who is in the right and who is in the wrong, for me the conversation is not an interesting one. I consider that mentality already in abundance and not getting anyone anywhere.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: I / P

Postby Crunkus » 04 Nov 2015, 23:02

ExiledAtHome wrote:
Crunkus wrote:
ExiledAtHome wrote:If you agree with this completely, then what is your objection to my proclivity to discuss my positions on the conflict itself, rather than always frame it within the context of some teleological conciliatory end?


I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about here and what it has to do with something I objected to. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really don't follow you.

I thought it was somewhat apparent. You've been pretty pointed in your critique of what I choose to prioritize. You find my focus on history to be overly susceptible to bias, and you don't understand what it is I'm hoping to achieve (which is, by the way, simply to establish agreement on what has actually transpired in the conflict, what root-causes are in play, and motivations drive both sides). You've articulated your preference for discussing solutions and ways to better the lives of Palestinians and Israelis. But, you say you agree with Antigonos' assessment that what we say here counts for very little, and the most interesting thing we can hope for is to learn more of eachothers' attitudes as we explore the past and the possible future. So, if you agree with Antigonos' assessment of what potential this discourse we're having actually has, I'm merely asking how you see my approach to this debate / conversation as differing from that?


Counting for very little and counting for nothing are too different things. What we're doing here by definition can at best count for very little in terms of this actual conflict. That, as I said before doesn't make it not a conversation worth having. Understanding each other's views and perspectives is the most interesting element of this, because it must happen before anything else even can. So far, it's been a difficult task.

But I don't understand what that has to do with my view of your historical contextualization approach. I don't see the connection to be honest. I also don't see your characterization of the alternative that is as very descriptive. K has voiced the same concerns.

I think world opinion focused on what helps and what doesn't help and turned away from who is wrong and who is right makes much more sense for the lives of the people involved. Partisanship is quite simply making people less reasonable, more confrontational, and in the end...it gets people killed.

We spend more time explaining why obviously upset people hurt each other, and we start to forget why the other side feels the way it does...we start to disconnect from the reality of the people we disagree with.

That's the problem with focusing on picking a side and trying to "combat the bias" of the people who you think haven't picked your side.

We don't need more anti-Israeli sentiment.

We need more anti-bullshit sentiment. There's plenty of bullshit to go around, and more than most partisans feel they can admit to. It helps your case to call your own side unequivocally on their bullshit. As I've said...I don't have a side here. I'm for relinquishing that mentality, whether you've decided that means I'm for the status quo or not. Just because that's your talking point, doesn't mean it describes where I'm coming from or who I'm concerned about.

An interesting I/P thread to me would be a systematic calling of bullshit wherever it is found. Because both sides' leadership are making horrifying decisions.

For me, when Palestinians do things that ultimately hurt Palestinians, understanding why they do them and not unequivocally condemning them as unhelpful basically just makes things worse for everyday Palestinians. Palestinians supporters should be able to support Palestine and criticize Palestinian leadership and actions. In my view, that's how you ACTUALLY support Palestinians. You use "does this actually help us" as a metre stick.

The world is full of people who take the same approach whenever there is an Israeli action. They talk about how they understand where it is coming from but they don't talk about how self-destructive it is or how unacceptable the impact is on Palestinians. Support of Israel works the same way. You aren't supporting Israel if your examination of the issue starts and stops at who is involved in this action.

You're for eliminating one of those things, I'm for eliminating both.

It's that simple. I think if more people were for eliminating both, it would serve everyday Israelis and Palestinians a lot better. I think it would get us closer to our preferred solution. I think that's the right kind of mentality...and it's missing pretty much entirely from popular discussion and especially activist discussion on this issue.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: I / P

Postby ExiledAtHome » 04 Nov 2015, 23:49

Crunkus wrote:That last post by Anti just demonstrated how much I think he misunderstands about the people he's talking about. You have to admit there's a lot of selective reading going on there and much of it is directly contradicted in thread by the people who he says holds these views. I'm obviously the wrong guy to point it out to him, but you might be the right guy.


I'm probably not the right guy, because I applauded his comment as I read it. I didn't see Antigonos explicitly misattribute any views to Keirador. He asked some pretty suggestive questions, so he may very well not fully grasp where Keirador is coming from, but then again I don't see that as all that much different than Keirador asking me if so and so innocent person deserves to die. That's pretty suggestive, too. I haven't seen you tisk tisk that yet at all, which is sort of the problem I have with your overall participation.

You seem to be reading my commentary very closely, and Antigonos' commentary very closely, and picking out any and all instances of possible anti-Israeli bias, or at least instances of us presupposing the positions of our interlocutors.

I have yet to see, despite a number of prime examples, you pick out anything in Keirador's commentary (or raworawi's previous commentary) that reflects or indicates anti-Palestinian bias, or instances where he has presupposed the positions of his interlocutors. You just said above that the reason you haven't deconstructed anti-Palestinian bias is because you're addressing me, and I haven't shown any anti-Palestinian bias. But why are you only addressing me and Antigonos, when there have clearly been other biases that have seeped into the conversation from other parties?

You disapprove of the word, I know, but you "rebuked" me specifically for reading too literally into Keirador's comment about picking up any newspaper outside of North America to see what a campaign to kill all the Jews looks like. You said:

Crunkus wrote:Exiled, seriously. Just go back and read the quote you are responding to. Please.
Do you sincerely believe that Keirador is saying that if you pick up a newspaper anywhere outside of North America where Jews live you will be able to see a movement to kill all the Jews and what it would look like?

...Why do you keep jumping to assuming that K is essentially crazy? Honestly...he'd have to be to have stated what you just attributed that you understand him to be saying. Again, go back and read what he actually said and TRY to see another way of reading that which doesn't make him out to be absurd.


I mean, you were very sure of this. You went through mental gymnastics to reach a conclusion other than the obvious, and you stated that I could only reach that obvious reading of his comment if I failed to re-read it in a more understanding manner. You were convinced, Keirador was not literally saying that you could find evidence of campaigns to kill all the Jews anywhere outside of North America. He made that comment merely to stress that anti-Semitism exists, and not that a "movement to kill all the Jews" exists, even though he literally said pick up any newspaper to see "what a campaign to kill all of the Jews would look like."

You said:

Crunkus wrote:However, your interpretation, given the point K was making, and the fact that if he actually meant to suggest "widespread campaigns of genocidal anti-Semitism" exist in the world, he would be making a ridiculously overstated claim completely unnecessary to substantiate the claim he was ACTUALLY speaking in support of AND he'd be frankly batshit crazy, which he isn't.


Well, lo and behold, Keirador responds with:


Keirador wrote:
ExiledAtHome wrote:If I pick up a newspaper anywhere outside of North America where Jews live, I'll be able to see what "a movement to kill all the Jews would look like?" Are you prepared to stand by that comment?


More or less. Maybe not "kill," but "expel from our society," either through marginalization or literal expulsion. Of course, the desire to expel all the Jews often goes hand-in-hand with fervent opposition to the existence of Israel, so the upshot still appears to be "kill all the Jews, but don't say 'kill.'"


So, is Keirador "bat-shit crazy?" (I don't think that he is, by the way). And are you going to withdrawal your indictment of me? The more forgiving interpretation you drew from Keriador's very literal statement turns out to be too kind, and the more literal conclusion I drew turns out to be correct. Was I still being unfair in reaching that conclusion based on his literal statement which he now acknowledges was to be taken fairly literally?
Gold Classicist Member
User avatar
ExiledAtHome
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 22:56
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1385)
All-game rating: (1590)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: I / P

Postby Crunkus » 05 Nov 2015, 00:09

ExiledAtHome wrote:
Crunkus wrote:That last post by Anti just demonstrated how much I think he misunderstands about the people he's talking about. You have to admit there's a lot of selective reading going on there and much of it is directly contradicted in thread by the people who he says holds these views. I'm obviously the wrong guy to point it out to him, but you might be the right guy.


I'm probably not the right guy, because I applauded his comment as I read it. I didn't see Antigonos explicitly misattribute any views to Keirador. He asked some pretty suggestive questions, so he may very well not fully grasp where Keirador is coming from, but then again I don't see that as all that much different than Keirador asking me if so and so innocent person deserves to die. That's pretty suggestive, too. I haven't seen you tisk tisk that yet at all, which is sort of the problem I have with your overall participation.


Perhaps things are too far gone then.

ExiledAtHome wrote:You seem to be reading my commentary very closely, and Antigonos' commentary very closely, and picking out any and all instances of possible anti-Israeli bias, or at least instances of us presupposing the positions of our interlocutors.


I'm kind of tired of competing against the oppositional narrative that keeps getting imposed on how I am perceived as approaching this subject. I think you just profoundly don't understand that there is an alternative to a partisan stand on this issue and can't properly interpret what people who don't have a partisan take on this issue mean when they speak.

I've gone out of my way to explain how I'm approaching this, and if it still "seems" that I'm approaching this from a the opposite partisan position you're taking and that I'm trying to pick apart everything you say for the sake of doing so while attempting to raise K up on a pedastal, because this is some sort of competition (and it might not have anything to do with I happen to be talking about YOU when I respond to YOU and I tend to respond less to K because more of our opinions tend to line up with each other, come on, you can't see ANY OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION for why I'm talking about you more when I'm responding to what YOU say?)....I'm honestly not sure what else I can say to change your mind.

I'll let us part with you just profoundly misunderstanding where I'm coming from.

Sorry we didn't get further. Thanks for the chat though. No hard feelings. If I thought you actually wanted to learn more about a perspective you don't appear to understand on the subject, I'd love to continue chatting. But this feels like you see me as engaging in gamemanship with you. I don't want to risk prolonging that impression...because multiple episodes of assuring you otherwise don't seem to work.

Also your response to the "batshit crazy" sentence does not show any comprehension of what I said in that selection of the text. It seems like you sort of skimmed it...because your response doesn't make sense in light of what I actually said. Maybe it's all my fault and I was completely unclear. I tried to be clear. You seem to be a bit overly preoccupied with not being held to have ever misunderstood anyone or been mistaken about anything. I think it's telling you keep talk about rebuke. Adults should be able to discuss issues like this without personal investment at that level. Who gives a shit if you or I are wrong or mistaken about this that or the other thing? I know I don't. This isn't about that for me...and the idea that having a difference of opinion about something you have said is a rebuke is quite foreign to me in this setting. There's this undercurrent of opposition suffused through this thread that I've been trying very hard to distance myself from. Perhaps it stems from being so heavily invested in one side of the conflict. I don't know. But it has nothing to do with me or where I'm coming from. It's hard because it keeps showing up in responses despite constant assurances that it is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what I mean. I suspect at its base is the suspicion that anyone not having your view is in favour for the status quo and therefore doesn't place enough value on the lives of Palestinians. I understand why you might feel that way given what I think you understand the options to be in having an opinion on something related to this issue, but I have to observe that it seems like no matter how far we come, this theme keeps coming up and getting in the way. This suspicion if you have it, is misplaced and due to a fundamental difference in perspective that has nothing to do with being in favour of the status quo, being an Israel supporter, or being a Palestinian supporter. There seems to be always this suspicion that all of this is leading to support of the things you are fighting against and therefore needs to be opposed...that's what I think leads to the unnecessary and unproductive opposition in how posts are interpreted and what you assume lies just underneath the surface. I think I get where it's coming from...but I'm losing hope the misunderstanding can be penetrated. I don't see you as having an anti-Israel bias really as much as I see you as not being able to see anyone's perspective on this issue as anything other than partisan. I think down deep inside, it's either what you know or the status quo more or less. Maybe I'm wrong. But all I know is the responses make a lot more sense if some of this is underlying the conversation. You often refer to our "philosophy" or some sort of strange focus on something not really relevant to the issue. Again, not a thing. Where I think you see basically two sides, with one side enjoying masking themselves behind a bunch of word play perhaps even to themselves...I just don't see it that way. From what K's said, I don't think he does either. There's a lot that needs to be addressed and public opinion is critical. I think as long as it is focused on which side deserves our sympathy and which does not...both sides are fucked...mostly the Palestinians, because they have less in the way of resources. So it seems to me, that sort of public opinion, whether it is outwardly pro-Palestinian or not is effectively anti-Palestinian. Another way of looking at it is I'm against the status quo, I just disagree as to what the status quo is. In my view the status quo is approaching this issue by picking a side.

That's not support of doing nothing and leaving things how they are. If you say it is, you're not listening.

I just think the best way to get from point A to point B is by focusing on what gets us there and identifying what doesn't and calling out what doesn't unequivocally for what it is no matter which side is engaged in it or how justified you think their "cause" is historically speaking.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: I / P

Postby Keirador » 05 Nov 2015, 01:04

I reckon it would be more interesting for Exiled to respond to what I said and for me to clear up any misunderstandings that may have occurred, rather than y'all debating what I said.


That said, Crunkus does seem to have a knack for anticipating my response anyway. A solid distillation of my entire view here would be:
I think as long as it is focused on which side deserves our sympathy and which does not...both sides are fucked...mostly the Palestinians, because they have less in the way of resources.


This is what I was getting at referring to the Suffering Olympics, put more directly. People are complex, war is complex. Most people have the ability to have sympathy and empathy for more than one thing at a time. Just because Palestinians are being oppressed--and they are--does not mean their oppressors don't have legitimate grievances and fears of their own. And becoming a victim doesn't offer any sort of moral absolution for any of your own actions. Fighting over which side is right and which side is wrong is. . . fighting. And fighting's not peace. If you're more interested in tallying up, weighing, and measuring grievances, then you're not interested in peace. Nursing grudges isn't how you end conflicts peacefully, giving up grudges is how you end conflicts peacefully. Even a resoundingly successful BDS movement would still need leadership on both sides actually willing to completely renounce violence, and that's not what we have now, no matter how much Israeli sympathizers and Palestinian sympathizers would like to deny that their side is in any way responsible for the diplomatic stand-off.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 9199
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: I / P

Postby ExiledAtHome » 05 Nov 2015, 01:05

I'm not, in fact, implying or assuming that you're an Israeli partisan, Crunkus. I believe you when you tell me that you're invested in a discourse that dissects various frameworks to improve the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis. I've actually tried to move the conversation that way multiple times. I've agreed to move on from some of the more normative, historical discussions onto solutions, where both you and Kierador have said you have more of an interest. Neither of you have taken me up on that offer so far, and you've chosen to continue to parse some of my comments in a manner that can only prolong the contentiousness that you say you want to stamp out, especially when I have a perception that you're not investing your stated principles as evenly across the board. I don't think you have an Israeli bias, necessarily, I just think, for whatever reason, you're very tunneled in on affecting a change in my mentality, and it may be causing you to narrowly read some of the back-and-forth in a way that makes me feel you're singling me (and Antigonos) out. We do have some previous baggage, no?

All I'm asking is that you actually have the conversation you claim you want to have. Don't worry about misunderstandings between Keirador and I, or between Antigonos and I. Don't worry that someone maybe has a biased inclination toward one side. There's too much commentary already typed out for us ever to find a perfect instant where all is settled, all is agreed, all is understood, and where we can move the discussion over to another sphere. There's going to be loose-ends. Leave them. Let's move on.

Really.

Let's have the conversation you want to have. I'm ready and willing to do that in good faith and with the best of intentions if you're willing to.
Gold Classicist Member
User avatar
ExiledAtHome
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: 19 Aug 2014, 22:56
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1385)
All-game rating: (1590)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: I / P

Postby Crunkus » 05 Nov 2015, 01:27

ExiledAtHome wrote:I'm not, in fact, implying or assuming that you're an Israeli partisan, Crunkus. I believe you when you tell me that you're invested in a discourse that dissects various frameworks to improve the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis. I've actually tried to move the conversation that way multiple times. I've agreed to move on from some of the more normative, historical discussions onto solutions, where both you and Kierador have said you have more of an interest. Neither of you have taken me up on that offer so far, and you've chosen to continue to parse some of my comments in a manner that can only prolong the contentiousness that you say you want to stamp out, especially when I have a perception that you're not investing your stated principles as evenly across the board. I don't think you have an Israeli bias, necessarily, I just think, for whatever reason, you're very tunneled in on affecting a change in my mentality, and it may be causing you to narrowly read some of the back-and-forth in a way that makes me feel you're singling me (and Antigonos) out. We do have some previous baggage, no?


I don't know what you mean by I want to affect a change in your mentality.

I don't know how what you think it is that I'm doing or what baggage you and I have. I do know I'm tired of being read into. Anti's post clearly represents he thinks K's revealed his true colours on the matter, you applauded that post when it was posted, so I'm really confused as to what you think.

It honestly seemed like a return to everything negative I've been trying to avoid here. I don't seem to be able to disagree with anything you say without being accused of focusing unduly on you. I apparently must simultaneously talk about everyone else while talking about you to avoid that issue.

This seems a very odd way of looking at it. I don't get it. I am simply trying to respond to the person I'm responding to. Sometimes I disagree. Sometimes I'm trying to be persuasive and change something about your point of view. I don't see how that's different from anyone else doing the same thing.

You don't seem to be able to separate what I'm talking about when responding to something specific from what I feel about everything else I'm NOT currently responding to. Stop inferring everything else I believe from what I'm NOT saying please. It's really out of line.

Maybe you have some sort of personal baggage that's helping you assume that's what is motivating me to centre on you exclusively.

I don't know...but I don't know how many times I have to say it has NOTHING TO DO with where I'm coming from for you to stop injecting it into what we're discussing.

Can I respond or disagree with something you say without this assumed undercurrent? Whatever its form...pro Israeli partisandship or personal grudge? WTF...I have neither and have said so repeatedly.

When I respond to you, I'm responding to YOU. It's GOING to naturally feel like I'm singling you out...because YOU are the one I'm responding to. A healthy perspective unbiased by some sort of inference of some secret grudge or baggage I might have is going to understand that. I don't honestly know how to avoid this when responding to you if you feel this way. Short of ending every sentence by finding someone else I disagree with about something to make you feel I'm not simply tunneling on you...I don't know what to do. I don't see why that should be necessary. I have in fact agreed with you on a couple of things you said you didn't think K was giving you a fair shake for. Not all of them. I don't know what more else you want from me. I can only offer my perspective. You can disagree with it...but I can't deal with or continue guessing at what you are assuming is underneath everything.

I had thought our issue was resolved. Guess it wasn't for you.

ExiledAtHome wrote:All I'm asking is that you actually have the conversation you claim you want to have. Don't worry about misunderstandings between Keirador and I, or between Antigonos and I. Don't worry that someone maybe has a biased inclination toward one side. There's too much commentary already typed out for us ever to find a perfect instant where all is settled, all is agreed, all is understood, and where we can move the discussion over to another sphere. There's going to be loose-ends. Leave them. Let's move on.


Apparently you do want me to get involved when K misunderstands you.

Honestly, is anything about ideas anymore or do we have to make everything about who you're talking to. Stop being so personally invested. It's not a rebuke. If it's this personal for you, I'm not interested in discussing anything frankly...too many landmines. I'm talking about ideas here...and I'm tired of all the perceptions of rebukes and unstated grudges or agendas. It's exhausting. I'd much prefer to talk about ideas. That's all I've been trying to do. I mean, read my goddamn posts. They were dripping with positivity. If you are still convinced that unresolved baggage is driving my responses to ideas you put forward...it is you who have baggage.

I've hardly demanded that all loose ends need to be settled. That's ridiculous. I don't know what anything you're saying in that regard has to do with anything I've said.

But I am getting bored.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest