Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

Well, ok, but the argument they show breaking down has to be my argument, or else isn't it a form of misrepresentation?Actually, that's something I'd like a moderator ruling on, since none of you have said one way or the other. If I respond to an argument my opponent didn't make, but I do so in a way that I'm implying like he made it, or at the very least I'm acting like he made it, is that a form of misrepresentation?Intentional or otherwise, just for the record - would that be a form of misrepresentation? This is inaccurate. Hooah did not construct an example where "black people had privilege." So he could not have been responding to my response to an example that wasn't given. Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood? Did I misunderstand him when he called my statements lies in that message? Did I misunderstand him when he attributed to me the position

quote:

---

merely having a certain skin color does... in all scenarios, grant universal privilege

---

or was it that I misunderstood that he was attributing that position to me? That doesn't seem to be the case, because I did ask him if he was attributing that position to me (this was in Message 408) and he, in Message 410, confirms that he was. Are you sure you didn't misunderstand (or, perhaps, misrepresent) Hooah's post, here? Has anybody criticized Hooah's execution of it? The only one anyone seems to want to criticize is me. Once again, Mod, I'm forced to conclude that you're doing a great job of moderating an internet board - just, by any indication, a completely different one than EvC. I appreciate your look, but you don't seem to be done, yet. Is it your contention that every one of the seven examples I've given so far has just been a "misunderstanding"? Are you sure that's the case? Before you arrive at that conclusion, could you please look at each one, and consider them as a pattern and not merely individual isolated cases each to consider in the light of the maximally generous interpretation for my opponents?

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden

No, not true. Again, I understood that he intended to present an example of where black people had the privilege. I mean, duh, I'm not an idiot.But I made a convincing argument that he failed to do so, which constituted my reply. In this case you appear to have misunderstood me, rather than me misunderstanding Hooah. Surely Hooah's arguments are not so universally convincing that to dispute them is to prove that one has not understood them? (I would not even ascribe such power to my own posts.)And again, we're speaking specifically about positions misattributed to me, so I'd like to repeat my question from earlier:

quote:

---

Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood? ...was it that I misunderstood that he was attributing that position to me?

---

If your answer is "no, that wasn't the misunderstanding" that would seem to be your admission that I correctly understood that Hooah had attributed to me a position I don't hold. Could you address this? It's the central point, and I'd like it to not be lost in your general habit of addressing peripheral statements and asides while ignoring the main point. My mood is calm and rational. Have I given any indication to the contrary? Rahvin asked that this be discussed in this thread, Admin asked me for more evidence for what I've asserted, and I'm perfectly happy to oblige. Contrary to your earlier imprecations I'm perfectly happy to have you take a look at this regardless of your decision. My only objection is with being dismissed as a paranoid delusional by people who have not actually reviewed the situation. Irrelevant. It's called a "loaded question." A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the discussion to date might easily be mislead, since they would assume that Straggler would have no reason to ask that question unless I'd said something like it. This stands as an example of a position attributed to me that I don't hold. Straggler has already admitted to doing so on the basis of his misunderstanding and my lack of clarity, and I accept that. Um, I don't see the difference. It's precisely Straggler's act of asserting my position amounts to something it doesn't amount to where he's misrepresenting it. This stands as an example of misrepresentation - again, unintentional I'm sure. What argument are you referring to? Hooah didn't make that argument, so how could he "continue" it? Ok, so there's the one example where you actually do admit that Hooah misrepresented my position. ...And? That's not what Straggler said. He said that he was "unconvinced that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts." Reading that statement now, don't you get the impression that he's referring to an argument someone made, trying to convince him that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts?But since no such argument was made, isn't that an attempt to attribute to someone, at least, an argument that they did not make?So, just to sum up, we have 5 examples that you misunderstood, 1 you admitted was an example of misrepresentation of my argument, and 1 you simply didn't make any kind of ruling about at all. Again, I'm not asking that these be considered examples of "actionable misrepresentation" - which is a new category of misrepresentation introduced by you - merely as examples that I'm not making this shit up because I'm a paranoid delusional.

It was Message 408, and the reason I know it was convincing was that he stopped using the example. But.. that's not a misunderstanding, that's my argument. (If I were Rrhain, I'd be making some kind of "boggle" type remark because I'm really boggling at this.)Look, Mod, you're not making any sense. I didn't misunderstand Hooah's example, I refuted it. Do you really not understand the difference?Again, am I supposed to treat Hooah's arguments as so inherently convincing that to not be convinced by them is to be taken as proof that they weren't understood? That's absurd - doubly absurd to suggest that Hooah, of all people, is the one of us capable of arguments of such power.You're just not making any sense. I think you're scrambling to defend your erroneous conclusion than I've misunderstood Hooah in some way, when it's clear that I haven't. I'm not asking you to explain, I'm asking you to answer a simple question. Did I misunderstand Hooah when I understood that he attributed to me the position that

quote:

---

merely having a certain skin color does... in all scenarios, grant universal privilege

---

or not? Was that a misunderstanding on my part, and if it was, why did he agree that he had attributed that position to me in Message 410? And if not, is that my position? And if it isn't, isn't it a misrepresentation to attribute it to me?Can you please answer these questions? Fair enough, but then let's leave my mood out of it, ok? Remember, "argue the position, not the person." That's fair. Like I said, I'm not looking for moderator intervention on something like that unless it keeps happening over and over again and genuinely disrupts conversation. What I would like it to lead to is the recognition among moderators that people are misrepresenting me and it's not just something I'm making up out of paranoid delusion. How does that sound? I don't see the argument you refer to in Message 312, but maybe I'm just missing it in between all the times I'm called a "honky" and a "cracker" which isn't racist, but are certainly violations of the forum guidelines. I dunno, I guess personal attacks make it kind of hard for me to see whatever argument you think you're referring to in there. For instance I don't see the word "institutionalize" in any of that. How, exactly? How do you get "viewpoint of the implication", whatever that means, out of "So" and a question mark. How does that work? Can you show me in a dictionary or something where the word "so" plus a question mark is defined as a "viewpoint to what one's position implies"? It's the part where he attributes to me the position that "Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts." Since that's not my position, but it was attributed to me as though it was, that's a misrepresentation of my position. I asked him several times who had asked him to be convinced that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts. If the answer is "blog posts", why didn't he say "blog posts"? But he doesn't say "misogynistic thoughts", does he? So that's not a statement of his saying that "blog posts" are asking him to be convinced that Elevator Guy was exhibiting misogynistic thoughts. Straggler never attributed that to "blog posts"; by implication, he attributed them to me. In this discussion, you're the one who introduced the idea of "actionable misrepresentation." I don't care whether it's actionable or not - I'm not a moderator, I have no reason to be concerned about that. I'm very concerned about getting the moderators who accused me of paranoid delusion - which is a pretty serious accusation as well as a deeply personal attack - to recognize that, in fact, people are misrepresenting my arguments just exactly as I said. Well, yes, you do. You said so:

quote:

---

With Message 312, I will grant that hooah didn't quite get it right

---

"It", being, his representation of my argument. Again, I'm not asking for Hooah to be punished on the basis of it. I've not asked for anyone to be punished. I'm asking for moderators to acknowledge what is plainly at the end of their own noses, something that now includes the text of your own posts, Mod.

Yes, it's certainly been my experience that discussing moderation issues with you is futile.

Oh, come on. This is plainly "Mom, Crash hit me back!"-type complaining. I didn't make a personal attack; I asked Panda to clarify his non sequitur: I guess I could have phrased it better, but I was just trying to get Panda to explain his non sequitur about fucking children. Can anybody explain to me how that's in-context or on-topic? Should I have not been surprised, or something, that Panda responded to a question about the social utility in displacing one kind of homicide to another by saying "fuck those kids, right?"

That post isn't even in the chain of replies, nor did I see it. If your remark "fuck those kids" had been a reference to an earlier post, why didn't you just say so? And again how is "fuck those kids" anything but a non sequitur in a chain of conversation where the context was not about children?Look, at this time I'd like to register my discontent yet again with how my opponents, in the gun control thread, are being allowed to misrepresent my arguments. Panda and Theodoric are deliberately misrepresenting my support for the claims I'm making as being intended to support other claims, and then they're using the fact that my evidence doesn't support those claims to suggest that I'm not supporting my claims. But, honestly, it's so complex a feint that I don't suppose any of the admins will even be able to see it. Doubtless they'll once again bend over backwards to interpret everyone's remarks with an absurd degree of charity, except for mine.

Again, I asked for clarification of a complete non-sequitur comment. That's pretty clear from the chain of conversation. Your attempt to portray it as a serious accusation of pedophilia is a misrepresentation.

I agree that it is plainly vile and reprehensible to talk about fucking children. Doubtless we can expect Panda's apology any moment now.

You're misrepresenting the exchange. Again, given that my question had nothing to do with children whatsoever, what makes "fuck those kids, right?" an appropriate response?I mean, to me a pretty obvious example of Panda quoting me out of context so that he could misrepresent me as being callous towards children, but I'm reliably informed that whenever that happens its just my imagination or something. So there's only the literal interpretation left.