RFC: pointless arguments in apionet #482

'neither of the above'

I think we should do both, by the way.

caesar, would you mind elaborating why not?

yes

i don't have access to all channels of apionet. and having a well-meaning discussion forcibly moved elsewhere is incredibly irritating.

which channels of apionet do you not have access to? all apionet channels should presumably be accessible on all platforms that apionet is bridged to.

also, what is your opposition to the conversational guidelines?

the guidelines are already implied and being followed

the guidelines are already implied and being followed

caesar, there have been arguments with you wherein you have completely denied direct evidence provided against your claims.

i don't recall those

i don't recall those

well, perhaps the guidelines will help you reduce this behavior in the future.

i already follow those guidelines? and what's that image meant to imply? it's hard to not find offence by it.

We believe that implementing both policies would be beneficial to apionet.

i already follow those guidelines? and what's that image meant to imply? it's hard to not find offence by it.

the image is meant to imply that those who cause the events which this thread is about are the ones in this thread saying that they aren't a problem and never happen.

take a moment to consider the fact that the least likely person to recognize that a behavior is causing problems is the one perpetrating it, that perhaps you should actually rethink what you have done and do regularly. since, if you were immediately able to recognize it, you probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

ok so you assume i'm not following the guidelines just because i said i'm following the guidelines? maybe you're not following the guidelines yourself?

ok so you assume i'm not following the guidelines just because i said i'm following the guidelines? maybe you're not following the guidelines yourself?

you are breaking the guidelines right now.

caesar, citrons, please discontinue this argument or take it elsewhere

where is elsewhere? we have no other means of contact that i know of. anyway given this, yes, i shall change my vote.

instead of reverting to your dogmatic principles, I will ask you to instead consider why someone might dislike having their interest called "objectively harmful and masochistic".

Assuming ‘interest’ refers to ‘thing that one has an interest in doing’ and not ‘thing one is epistimologically interested in’, and with effort to make as few other assumptions about the containing conversation as possible, and with effort to list only those which apply to the whole set of possible containing conversations instead of those which apply only to a subset, consideration has revealed that possible reasons include:

• The claim is incorrect.
• The claim is incorrect, and others are ignorant of why and therefore think it's correct.
• Unexpected acquiration of new information requires planchanging.

These are all of the reasons i can think of.

I concede that it may be difficult, for one reason or another, to consider how what you say affects another person. but when they tell you how it affects them, you should actually listen to them.

I do this. If the affectation is harmful, as i assume you are implyïng, there are multiple methods of solving that; halting saying of that thing is one option, but making the saying of that thing not cause the harmful affectation is also an option; my own past experience has shown that if the latter is possible, it is most optimal to pursue it long-term.

if you can't understand this, we might have to just ban you. again. indefinitely. oh, how unethical!

I have been complying with that already. All punitive criminal justice systems are immoral.

consider the fact that I mean words the way I mean them, not the way you mean them. when I say "kind and appropriate", I mean "kind and appropriate" by my standards, not by yours. I am expecting you to adhere to "kind and appropriate" by my standards.

Then it is your responsibility to comprehensively and unambiguously elucidate what you mean by that, extending such elucidation upon requests for clarification, so that all subordinate to power may know that the enforcement of the law is consistent and knowable.

I propose we create a second channel, with a policy similar to what I have described, on a trial basis, for a period of say 2 weeks. After that, we can discuss its efficacy. If it isn't working, we can unimplement it again.

I'm all aboard hanging a question mark on our assumptions and testing ideas by experiment, but is 2 weeks a sufficient sample size?

no comment

what time period would you suggest?

making the saying of that thing not cause the harmful affectation is also an option

note here that this option is not possible; you'd have to somehow get everyone involved to agree the saying of that thing does not cause the harmful affectation, which is borderline impossible.

caesar, there have been arguments with you wherein you have completely denied direct evidence provided against your claims.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

since, if you were immediately able to recognize it, you probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Humans sometimes act irrationally or make mistakes.

you are breaking the guidelines right now.

Faceless words on a screen communicate nuance poorly.

making the saying of that thing not cause the harmful affectation is also an option

note here that this option is not possible; you'd have to somehow get everyone involved to agree the saying of that thing does not cause the harmful affectation, which is borderline impossible.

People are able to change their minds.

yes, but this is different to that.

How so?

the crucial thing here you fail to understand is, another reason someone might find it harmful to hear their interests be called those things is that they have an emotional attachment to such interests, as humans are very, very good at forming emotional attachments to things.

Is that a condition that can be cured?

if someone takes offence at something, you can't simply convince them that they shouldn't have taken offence. that's not how brains work