 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Realms Beyond
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
All right. This is getting silly.
From the Canadian thread:
damoose:
| ...There has been no mention in this thread I can find (prior to you last post) about the joke about whom God gave the Canadians for neighbours... |
|
Sirian:
| ...If I remember correctly, it was not posted by a member of your empire. Instead, a certain other empire with harder feelings toward things American was doing some of its rabble rousing. (See the post directly after my previous post). [Editor's Note - reference to a post by Cypher Pax of SpecFor providing two humorous anti-Bush links to The Onion.] A number of folks from that group have taken an active dislike to me. I did not blame you for the joke, or any of their actions, but it took place in your thread and sparked the ensuing discussions about relations between America and Canada.... |
|
| ...There are no messages between the lines. You will have to get to know me a lot better before I would trust you enough to write anything cute or sly. That is why my posts are so long. I take pains to say it all right out in the open. If you want to understand my views, strive not to add to them or rephrase them or be suspicious of what is left unsaid. Instead take them at face value only... |
|
Well, if I'm to interpret your comments at face value only with NO interpretations whatsoever, that means that my empire - not certain members in my empire, but the whole thing - has "harder feelings towards things American" (harder than Canadian feelings, I suppose) and was actively "rabble-rousing." This judgment being based on ONE POST that entered at the END of your rant - ahem, "discussion."
Special Forces is international. We have Australians, Americans, a Canadian, an Israeli and a European that I know of; not everyone has posted a bio, so there may be other areas represented. FYI, nearly HALF of our membership is American - including CypherPax, who left the quote that you mention, and myself. Piers, an occasional contributor to these forums and a regular one at our off-site "bunker," is active-duty U.S. military.
Yet, "a certain other empire with harder feelings toward things American was doing some of its rabble rousing." Sorry, pal - wrong address.
As Americans go, I'm probably an arch-conservative when it comes to foreign policy. I think the American military is badly overcommitted as it is and needs an expansion. If Henry Kissinger was Catholic instead of Jewish, I'd try to get him nominated for canonization. Compared to the American mainstream, I'm probably a bit of a warhawk.
I realize that others have different views. One of the great strengths of America is her willingness to tolerate differing cultures and ideas. There are no thought police here. The American culture that you trumpet has nothing to do with bluntly attacking everyone who disagrees with your personal viewpoint. Rather, we'll take disagreement as an invitation to talk about the issues - hopefully politely. Lord knows we Americans love to talk.
As for "rabble-rousing" - umm, the Onion is HUMOR, Sirian. When Clinton was in office, the tone was exactly the same. When the Florida election results were contested, it was a riot. And regarding the current situation, check this one out:  Link Am I conservative? On the whole, probably - but when someone is pointing out the humor in a conservative politician's views, I take it with a chuckle. Our politicians are flawed, driven by polls, and waffle ONLY on the issues that we seem to hold most important; but we'll keep plugging away at trying to find the honest ones who support our views. Churchill was right - Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable...EXCEPT for every other form that has ever been tried.
That's a paraphrase, as I don't have the original in front of me - my apologies. And yes, I realize that the United States is a representative republic and not a true democracy.
Speaking of paraphrases:
| But if push comes to shove, we have a saying. "We don't want you to die for your country. We want you to make the other guy die for his." |
|
"We" - Americans - do NOT have this saying. It's a paraphrase of a line from Patton, not an American truism. Another quote from Patton - "Real Americans love the smell of war." Not very indicative of American mainstream views. Patton was effectively demoted for trying to physically strike a shell-shocked soldier in a hospital because he considered him a coward. In real life, I believe there were two separate occurrences, not the single incident portrayed in the film; one of them may have been verbal instead of physical. Regardless, you're not gonna find many Americans who'll swallow that kind of "patriotism" whole, regardless of the man's strategic prowess. So much for quoting for the American mainstream.
With all of that said...
| A number of folks from that group have taken an active dislike to me. |
|
You don't know us well enough to speak for us. I even agree with a couple of your political opinions. BUT, I strenuously object to the fact that you seem compelled to phrase them as God's own truth, trampling any hope of discussion, taking even the mildest disagreement as misguided or insulting. I strenuously object to the fact that you've been propping up your political views by grabbing the microphone for all of America and draping yourself in MY FLAG while you attack others' viewpoints.
Conversation is good. Preaching is unsettling. Attacking those who disagree with you, in a gaming forum of all places, is ridiculous. One of the RB members mentioned that you write for a living. As do I. I realize that the tone of my words is just as important as the words themselves. Humans are not computers, digesting only factual data. They are quite likely to respond to the emotions carried within a pattern of written words. While you may feel you were merely being blunt and factual, re-reading the Canadian thread, your tone clearly shifts over several posts, from an explanatory one to attack mode. When called on it, you dodged accountability while choosing to take a shot at another empire entirely.
We've had this discussion before. I feel that it's possible to have a civil discussion; you favor bluntness, and push it to the edge. That's your call, but you shouldn't be surprised when others are offended, shutting down the conversation.
The irony here is, you make a few outstanding points about Americans' reactions to 9/11 and how it has changed views on terrorism. But they're buried in your diatribe and vitriol. This Forum has seen a lot of off-topic threads; a political one would certainly be interesting and thought-provoking. But if you shut down the debate with your word choice, what have we gained? If I'm labeled as having "harder feelings toward things American," while BEING an American, and without even commenting on the discussion, why the HELL would I want to participate?
This isn't a flame; it isn't a demand for an apology. I'd just like a more civil atmosphere around these parts.
I now return the RB soapbox to its regular location.
       
| |
|
#103
by Citizen Sirian - 2/15/2004 6:22:14 PM
| This judgment being based on ONE POST that entered at the END of your rant - ahem, "discussion." |
|
No, it's not. There's more behind it.
I'm a controversial person. I use strong language. I get into disagreements with lots of people over expressing strongly held views. Take a good look around the metaverse, you will find me debating or even arguing with lots of different folks. Then look closer. Every time my discussions get heated, there are posts by members of your empire that are aimed to pour fuel onto the fire so it flares up higher. It's not just one person, it's several and growing. Nobody else does this. No other empires. Everybody else "minds their own business". Your compatriots make a point of going out of their way to take cheap shots under cover of somebody else's argument. This is the first time I've said anything about it, there in the Canadian thread. And you're going to get mad at me for confronting it? Fair enough. But what about their behavior? If that gets a free pass while you take issue with me, I'm not going to take your complaint seriously. If you approach me with a fair minded view, then I will be more responsive.
You and I had a dispute during SG2, and to my knowledge, that is the only time I've argued with anybody from another GalCiv empire where one of these few from Special Forces did NOT jump in with "me too" remarks.
Perhaps it is both wrong and unfair to paint Special Forces as an organization with a brush that fits the behavior of only some of its members, but I can go only on my own experiences. Cotal has started several political discussion threads and expressed strong criticisms of American policy in them. Hurley and Wombat have contributed the most to my perceptions. This is the only face of Special Forces that I know, and it is colored by the trolling posts made any time discussion involving me grows heated.
My apologies for drawing you into that, and to everyone at SF who has had no part in what I've described.
| I even agree with a couple of your political opinions. BUT, I strenuously object to the fact that you seem compelled to phrase them as God's own truth, trampling any hope of discussion |
|
Argue with me on substance, not style. That's where we tripped up before.
In my remarks to you after your first turn in the SG, you took issue with my style. Yet on the substance, I was correct. The game had not skipped a turn. It only appeared that it had. I misdiagnosed the reason, as had you. We finally got it sorted out. But I had said right from the start that I did not hold you to blame, and only sought to get it straightened out so that the incident did not repeat.
If you are going to take issue with my phrasing, every time I have anything to say, we won't get anywhere. I state my views. I do not, and never will, add impact deflectors and qualifiers. I will take responsibility for what I have to say.
| taking even the mildest disagreement as misguided or insulting. |
|
You mean, like describing a request to take better care with your turns as a "kick in the teeth"?
| I strenuously object to the fact that you've been propping up your political views by grabbing the microphone for all of America and draping yourself in MY FLAG while you attack others' viewpoints. |
|
Firstly, how come when I disagree, it's an "attack", but if someone else disagrees, it's "mild"?
Secondly, I would welcome more voices in the debate, especially points of view that differ from mine, as those are the ones most likely to say something to change my mind or teach me something.
Thirdly, my side of the political aisle is underrepresented to other cultures. We currently hold the presidency, a majority in both houses of congress, a majority among state governors. That's a clean sweep. The margin of majority is slim, but it is a majority. Yet in the media, the CLEAR majority point of view is from the other side of the aisle. Those folks have had an exclusive lock on the microphone for so long, they wouldn't know equal air time if it bit them in the behind. A lot of the problem with our relations with other contries is the FALSE impression created and fostered by our media that President Bush and his policies enjoy no support among the American people, that we consider him an illegitimate leader, etc etc blah blah ad nauseum.
Are you equally upset when folks from the liberal side of the aisle grab the microphone and pretend to speak for us all? At least in this case, I have been forwarding what is a majority held viewpoint. Folks on my side have tired of complaining about it. If you can't beat em, join em.
| We've had this discussion before. I feel that it's possible to have a civil discussion; you favor bluntness, and push it to the edge. That's your call, but you shouldn't be surprised when others are offended, shutting down the conversation. |
|
What's the point of peppering every remark with a tag line saying, "I don't really mean it," or "I don't intend to offend anybody." That's a means to hide behind excuses if someone takes issue. It's a cheap way to shield oneself from criticism, and more pointedly, to deter others from voicing criticism or disagreement.
I'm sorry, I don't see it as "more civil" to avoid meaningful discussion and pretend otherwise. To have a meaningful discussion, there must be some depth to it. You don't reach the depths if everyone wears floatation devices to keep everybody on the surface. Sure, it's calm and polite, but it is also empty and pointless.
Sometimes empty and pointless is appropriate. Quiet time and calm environments can be relaxing. Everything has its place. So I accept the request of the CSF to stop talking about off topic subjects in their thread. They want to chat about the game or other surface-level topics, and that is understandable. I will comply. The fact that they broke the surface at one point and struck a nerve with me (without intending to) has been addressed, and now it's over.
The offense I gave was in trying to continue to pursue an in-depth discussion in a forum where the hosts prefer to keep it light. For you to continue to harp on my bluntness and lay all responsibility on me, I reject. I particularly reject it from you, Ben, because you do not practice this yourself. You, too, use blunt and strong language. You, too, react strongly when you disagree with someone. Even this post shows that plainly. If it's good for you, why isn't it good for me? 
| When called on it, you dodged accountability while choosing to take a shot at another empire entirely. |
|
The curse of politics. If you leave in ANYTHING that others can use against you, they will ignore your intent and all the good remarks you make, and focus on your weakness, to exploit it into oblivion, to silence you. That is what happened bit by bit in the CSF thread. My points got ignored over and over, while they focused on some tidbit that was abrasive. Did they have an intent to silence me? Perhaps not. Yet they also did not have an intent to pay attention to my concerns.
A perfection standard is the curse of politics, and we carry it to an extreme here in America. So we are left only with the career politicians who have lived squeaky clean lives, enough to insulate against the inevitable witch hunting.
Hurley started hurling mud at me the moment he thought he had some cover. Once I had upset one of the local hosts, he could safely chime in. Look, it worked! As in the NFL, the ref (you, in this case) misses the first punch and flags the retaliator. Of course, the retaliator DESERVES the flag, no question, and it's on him to know that retaliation will only hurt his cause and therefore not to do it, even if somebody else is doing it and getting away with it. Well, good show, ref. You flagged me. Congratulations on getting half the call right.
Yet the refs were missing half the calls all game long. It started with the joke, continued on to folks ignoring my points, picking out the most controversial bits to the exclusion of all else, and kept going right to the end, where Paguma would ask that the conversation be ended but then himself continue it. What kind of biased refs are these?
I made a lot of remarks in the Canadian thread. They chose to respond only to a few, which wastes all my good intentions. They could have chosen to focus on the positives, but they did not. That dictated the course of the topic. Of course my tone's going to shift to the negative, if that is all they respond to. I'll take my share of responsibility, but I won't take it all. That's the very problem I'm complaining about, the double standard that lays all the blame on one side and none on the other. America is tired of that game being played on us by an ever-increasing number of other cultures and nations.
I started from a weak position. I was responding to an antiamerican remark, at first. That already put me on the defensive. I tried to focus on the positive, but at every turn, they ignored my larger points, picked out choice bits, and narrowed the topic. That is not responding in good faith. That is, in fact, searching for the bad to the exclusion of the good. Yet I get all the responsibility laid on my shoulders, with my blunt language as a convenient excuse to cover for it? No. The only responsibility I will take is for not being an effective politician, by not editing out anything that could be used to distract and divert.
Yeah, I chose unwisely. I should have let it drop at the first sign of bad faith from their end. Once it became clear they had no interest in my point of view, but only in challenging the things I said that disagreed with their views, I should have seen the writing on the wall and quit. Everything past that is genuinely my responsibility, and I've made a mess of it. As one of your SF pals had to say, I should go get a clue.
| The irony here is, you make a few outstanding points about Americans' reactions to 9/11 and how it has changed views on terrorism. But they're buried in your diatribe and vitriol. |
|
Buried, you say?
How do a few indelicate remarks bury the rest of the piece? They don't. PEOPLE choose to bury the rest in favor of giving some bits all of their attention.
Well guess what? Nobody in this world understands any body else well enough to hold to a perfection standard when it comes to what we say. I know that giving offense can end the conversation. The other side stops listening. But if we let ourselves get so tied up in diplomatics as to be sure never to give offense, we will also be sure never to get anything useful done, either. Only when both sides approach with patience, granting the other side benefit of the doubt about their INTENT not to give offense, and stay in the conversation, nothing useful ever gets done. No new understandings will emerge. No problems get resolved.
Too much diplomacy smothers change, by keeping everything on the surface. There is no hope of useful relationship on the surface. Everything of value lies way down in the depths, some down so far, the light of day does not extend to it, and diving for it requires you to feel your way through in the dark. Bluntness may have more potential to go awry. It may go wrong faster and harder. But ONLY it has the potential to reach the depths.
Given partners acting in good faith, my methods can go where others cannot reach. I'm more interested in finding partners willing to explore the deep waters than I am in getting along with everybody. When I do find them, we can explore the depths together, leaving everyone else on the surface to paddle around on their diplomatic floatation devices to their hearts' content, with us out of their hair. There's a role in this world for people with my style. I wish there were more who were willing to pursue bold goals, even though it means taking more risks and doing more hard work. You may not agree, but that is your prerogative.
- Sirian
     
| |
|
|
|
Polite Me  |
|
| Sometimes too laid back. It's hard to imagine any issue that we can all get excited |
|
uSE dA lINK
Link
[Message Edited]
    
| |
|
#106
by Citizen Bam_Bam - 2/16/2004 12:33:03 AM
Hey Hurley, do you not even have the common courtesy to use words instead of abbreviations? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. At least Ben had the courtesy to post views and explain his thoughts, which provides a measure of respect around these parts.
Sirian, I do not buy the original offense at the "joke", which was made by an American (Ben), so your post in the Canadian's thread did look evasive, IN PART. As for the rest--well, I do not mind your style, because there is meat within. I may not agree on all the subjects, but I know there is thought behind the words. I, for one (and maybe one of the only ones) do not mind how you do not mince equivocations in you points. I know that about you--others do not, and, as you say, in these times strong points of view stated without the "cover" of "in my opinion" and "I don't mean to offend" generally do offend. Too bad.
Ben--Sirian already stated it, and would not have been the first if I had not decided to delete my response last evening and shut down the machine. The post at the end of Sirians "rant" as it has been called served no purpose, had no thought, and did nothing but fan the flames. In another light, with friends and the like, where the folks have common ground and mutual trust, irreverant and sarcastic humor may find good audience. That was not the case. Hurley's post above does the same.
I do fall into the trap of pulling punches and playing the diplomat here. I think some may have seen that in the debates about the empire spam. I called a few people on their arguments, and I spoke out against some of the vitriol that Sirian had in his posts. Funny, no one had anything to say in response.
I will no longer deal with the folks from the other empire involved in that debate, unless they decide to account for their behavior. Sirian, I do not know if you read what I wrote (it's in the empire thread--not the one on the general forum). You may have a similar response to what you posted above--though I stand by what I wrote that your vitriol had crossed the line relative to your normal posts, and reminded me a bit like some of the posts in the RB forum to which you have voiced you objection in the past.
Nuff said for now--I have to game a bit to shake off two awful movies viewed this evening. You know a movie is bad when you expect to be bad, and then are disappointed.
 
| |
|
I shouldn't post this, as we're obviously not getting anywhere...but here's one last stab at clearing the air from my end.
| Perhaps it is both wrong and unfair to paint Special Forces as an organization with a brush that fits the behavior of only some of its members, but I can go only on my own experiences. [Editor's Note: this "brush" presumably being the presentation of Special Forces as an "empire with harder feelings toward things American" that engages in "rabble-rousing."] Cotal has started several political discussion threads and expressed strong criticisms of American policy in them. Hurley and Wombat have contributed the most to my perceptions. This is the only face of Special Forces that I know, and it is colored by the trolling posts made any time discussion involving me grows heated. |
|
Cotal - now Free Tibet - has started several threads. All are accessible by doing a search on "Free Tibet," as the thread's authors are updated in the case of a changed player name. I found the following which could be termed "political:"
Metaphysical Environmental Question...
I recall her expressing strong views on the Green side of the fence. Lots of Democrats and environmental conservationists would agree with her. Nothing anti-American there. Unless you're considering "American policy" to be the Republican party line...
Mars...when?why?how?
Space exploration, which she favors in this thread, is usually considered on the conservative side of the fence - associated with the Cold War, not spending money on the homeless, etc. But conservative or no, hardly anti-American. In fact, her views here match Bush's plans to a "T." Note that the thread starts with her statement: "America is a great nation, congratus on the recent touch down of thier latest rover probe on the red planet..."
Stock Options...
This isn't political in nature at all, but I include it on this list in the interest of fairness. There are some insights here I'm not comfortable with...I'd really like to see the supporting documentation. But still nothing attacking U.S. policy.
If I've missed the "political discussion threads" you mention, I invite your corrections. But I can't find anything that rises to the level of "strong criticisms of American policy." Anywhere.
I invite you to specify at least a couple of those numerous "trolling posts" made by Wombat. Though I haven't read this entire Forum, I can speak from what I know of his character and style, and it's not in him to repeatedly perform drive-by mockings.
Hurley is a university lecturer and professional consultant. I realize the university reference is most likely setting off "LIBERAL" alarm bells in your head, but even after speaking to him for months on- and off-Forum, I have no idea what his political views are, except his own business. Many in this Forum - not just you - have been the recipients of brief interjections from Hurls, often historical facts, designed to derail conflicts between people that are taking away from the discussion at hand. Are they barbs? Depends on how you take 'em. I see them as puncturing balloons that he sees as being filled with hot air. Are they rude? Certainly, for anyone who takes a story in The Onion as an attack on U.S. policy. They have the same flavor, and I've already given you my take on The Onion in my previous post. Have they changed in recent days? Yep, and I note that he's apologized to everyone in this thread EXCEPT you. You'll pardon me for not diving into the middle of that one.
OK, on to ME.
| You mean, like describing a request to take better care with your turns as a "kick in the teeth"? |
|
Thought we'd settled that. I DID take your comments at the time as a shot, which was why I chose those words. Surrounded by six paragraphs of constructive comments on the game. Followed by a six-paragraph post in further explanation. Followed by agreement from you to put it aside and get on with the game. If that isn't enough to cover four offensive words to you in my eight months on this board, Lord knows I'm sorry.
| Argue with me on substance, not style. |
|
I thought that's what I was doing:
1. You painted SF as "having harder feelings toward things American." I objected.
2. You specified a post by Cypher as an example of anti-American sentiment. I pointed out that a quote from The Onion does not constitute a criticism of American policy.
3. You specified a quote from Patton as an American saying. I responded that this was a misconstruction.
4. You blamed SF for being the spark behind the discussion that turned into an argument, by posting the original joke. I find this a bit of a reach. Sort of like the Canadian PM stating the root cause of 9/11 is American behavior, ignoring the little facts that we neither planned the attacks nor flew the planes.
And, yes, I did take issue with your tone. As you point out, I'm blunt from time to time. I've never pushed it to the point of actively driving someone out of a conversation, though. Consider this:
Ben
| ...you favor bluntness, and push it to the edge. That's your call, but you shouldn't be surprised when others are offended, shutting down the conversation. |
|
Sirian
| I made a lot of remarks in the Canadian thread. They chose to respond only to a few, which wastes all my good intentions. They could have chosen to focus on the positives, but they did not. That dictated the course of the topic. |
|
I suggest you re-read the posts by the Canadians. They did not focus on negatives. You pointed out yourself the curse of politics; those that disagree with you are going to pick at what they see as weak details. But by tackling those, you move on to the meatier issues. If you lose patience with the process, you're left with a mess. What has been accomplished? Nothing. How many political discussions end with the other side IMMEDIATELY accepting your position? None. So what's the point of having them?
Even with effort from both sides, political discussions rarely end in total agreement. At a certain point, it's necessary to either agree to disagree, start flinging mud, or go home. As an observation, any future discussions tend to go better if you don't burn your bridges behind you.
| Only when both sides approach with patience, granting the other side benefit of the doubt about their INTENT not to give offense, and stay in the conversation, nothing useful ever gets done. No new understandings will emerge. No problems get resolved. |
|
I couldn't DISAGREE more. That's a beautiful description of the entire concept of the bargaining table. If both sides draw a line in the sand, all disagreements are settled ONLY by the biggest guns. If compromise is out the window at the outset, the only people left in this world - or this Forum - will be those that think exactly as you do.
As this is your thread, I'll extend the courtesy of the Canadians and grant you the last word, if you wish. If compromise isn't possible, this entire discussion is really pointless. As I mentioned before, there are no thought police in America - you're welcome to your opinion.
P.S. BamBam - While composing this novella, I missed your post. The original joke that allegedly started things off was posted by Cotal/FT as one of a series scattered through the different empire threads, about two months ago. Not that it matters.
I appreciate your thoughts. I've been in two empires in my stay in the Metaverse, and have posted comments on behavior that I didn't feel was appropriate by empire members. Others have done the same within their own empires. Most see this as an internal matter and don't comment on it, as it looks like an attempt to fuel the flames of discord. But thank you for joining me on the fence - even if it's uncomfortable.
[Message Edited]
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#115
by Citizen Sirian - 2/17/2004 11:13:25 PM
| I invite you to specify at least a couple of those numerous "trolling posts" made by Wombat. - Ben |
|
The biggest was a "me too" post after Ray flamed me for expressing criticism of collectible card games in general, in the FOTR thread. That exchange ended my participation in that thread. There have been a couple of others, but I don't remember exactly where and do not intend to go searching for them. Maybe three total, maybe four. Three's enough to define his relations with me, considering nobody outside Special Forces has done it even once.
Is that specific enough for you?
| How many political discussions end with the other side IMMEDIATELY accepting your position? None. So what's the point of having them? |
|
If you put forth a persuasive argument, pointing out facts not previously known to your audience, or relationships and implications arising from these facts, you can change minds -- if the minds are open to new ideas. If folks choose to ignore your argument and focus on distractions, all that occurs is a dance of political maneuver. Politicians tend to get caught up too much in the maneuvers, often to where the issues get lost completely amidst the gamesmanship.
There are reasons I'm not a career politician. Let me disagree with you that losing patience is a bad thing. I don't see it that way. In my view, we've got TOO MUCH patience and tolerance for maneuvering. We play along with the distractions, rather than insisting that politicans proritize the issues. We allow it to go on and on and on, chiefly because we as the electorate do not have the wisdom and discipline to stop rewarding it. The politics of personal destruction works, thus it keeps on going. The race is often a race to define the other guy, and what he is against, rather than to define what you as candidate stand for. Anything that can be used to distract, will be. All sides are guilty. There is purposeful mean-spiritedness behind this, a kind of maneuver that strikes hard and fast and deep at any exposed or even perceived weakness. Thus we are not left with the men with the best ideas, but the ones with the best suits of armor to deflect the barrage of attacks, or worse, the best arsenal of dirty tricks to take out the other guy and leave only one choice.
That may be how the game is played for politicians, but for everyday citizens trying to discuss issues and understand one another better, it is a false standard. We can choose whether or not to prioritize the issues or the distractions. Perhaps if citizens focused on the issues, we'd be more deserving, in a cosmic sense, of better behavior from our politicians. We might even be able to lead them by example to behave better.
As with everything else, education is the key. The more you know, the more skills you have, the more potential lies within your grasp. Knowing how to conduct a fair and honest debate is a skill. So is editing one's own remarks to remove distractions and discard dead end comments. How much skill do we need to display in order to get anywhere? In a professional environment, only perfection will do. ANY weakness will be exploited. In a friendly environment, that should not be the standard. Deliberately choosing to pursue a distraction rather than remain on-topic with the issue is acting in bad faith.
The Canadians passed up the chance to talk issues, and went for the distractions in my posts. That is their right, but to insist that I be patient with it is asking too much from me. To edit out all the distractions is a standard I can meet, but only with a whole lot more work -- and unless I'm getting paid to do it, I won't. When among friends, I don't have to hold that standard. Friends will grant benefit of the doubt to questionable remarks, ignore distractions, and deal with the essence. I invested a chunk of time and energy into expressing my point of view, only to have almost all of it ignored. That's not friendly. I became increasingly impatient with it, yes. As I already said, my chief failure was trying to keep going past the point at which I saw they were focusing on the distractions. Right then and there, I knew we were not connecting, but rather than give up and go away, I kept on trying, the way I would for a friend. That was not appropriate. They were not my friends, and I crossed the line of what is tolerable among strangers.
Were my remarks friendly? They were intended to be. Not received that way, though, so... no friendships will be emerging from this exchange. I've ended it from my side, and all parties will go their separate ways.
I will end all participation with other empire threads, except those few who pristinely stick to game talk. The ones who start to talk about politics, nationality, and other topics... To invite opinions and then react poorly when they are given is not the kind of social game I play well. I had best stay out of it.
Now to the four points of substance you raised.
| 1. You painted SF as "having harder feelings toward things American." I objected. |
|
You were right. I was sloppy with this point. There are a few folks in SF who have issues with me. There are a few who have issues with America or with some American behaviors and positions. There are a few who make trolling posts. None of this extends to SF as an organization.
| 2. You specified a post by Cypher as an example of anti-American sentiment. |
|
False. I specified it as rabble rousing. Here's the exact quote: "Instead, a certain other empire with harder feelings toward things American was doing some of its rabble rousing." Hard feelings toward things American is one item. Doing rabble rousing is another. I did not and do not connect them, although in the case of the original joke, it was both together. In Cypher's case, it was only the latter.
| 3. You specified a quote from Patton as an American saying. I responded that this was a misconstruction. |
|
Pinning down quotes is tough, since they will often be repeated and requoted by many people, and may have different phrasings or even different emphasis or meaning.
I have seen documentaries detailing history specifically from the Pacific theater of war in World War II wherein veterans describe their training, the missions, the events. These range from the Doolittle raid on Japan to the closing days of the war, and I saw several different soldiers describe the emphasis. Several who were there offered, on camera, different versions of the same concept: "don't die for your country, make the other guy die for his". America had a strong aversion to the suicide mission. Why? We don't want our soldiers to die. Quite the opposite, we value the lives of each soldier to the point of committing to them that we'll never give up on a single one. We'll do all we can to keep them alive, and failing that, to bring their bodies home. We don't leave men behind, we don't throw them away. We do priortize how well we train and equip them. All of this was emphasized to our men at the time to help motivate them, especially later in the war, when the kamikaze attacks were doing great damage to our fleet.
Usama Bin Laden praised the ferocity of German, Russian, Japanese and other soldiers and questioned the effectiveness and sturdiness of American soldiers. He has been preaching to his followers about how weak America is, how cowardly our soldiers are, how much of a paper tiger we are. He is far from the only one to believe these things. Yet if he persuades others that we are an easy target, he will be able to use these lies against us. We have a vital interest in debunking these assertions.
Ferocity of the individual is not what wins wars. Ferocity of the total army is what wins. The force with the greater will has the advantage, and in this regard, America has the edge. We gain that edge in many ways. One of them is the will to improve our equipment. Another is the will to instill our soldiers with initiative, rather than train them to obey without question. Might is not just about strength, but also how it is used. The right leverage, the right maneuver, the right application of strength can magnify the effects. Communication, coordination, response times, deconflicting with friendly units... The main ingredient in victory is brain power, not muscle power, although both are essential.
Bin Laden is wrong about us. Explaining how and why he is wrong is crucial, because our war with him is as much a war of ideas as it is of arms.
The use of suicide attackers by Muslim forces has religious connotations, and that makes it complex to deal with. Yet this tactic is an idea, and we can match it with our ideas. Since they are taught that killing themselves in an attack takes them straight to paradise, their side can persuade no end of volunteers to make the attacks. Whether or not the attackers actually go to paradise as a result of their action is not relevant to why this tactic serves them poorly. They have come to rely on it too much, as a cheap and easy answer, readily available.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If the lives of your soldiers are not valued, you won't invest a lot into protecting them, will you? Playing loose with human life seeps into other parts of the culture, fostering an atmosphere less conducive to freedom and prosperity, more conducive to dictatorships and ongoing misery. It will be essential that we convey to Muslim peoples the notion that freedom and prosperity can go hand in hand with their core beliefs. (Another reason why Iraq may be crucial. We can explore this point more if you like).
"We don't want you to die for your country. We want you to make the other guy die for his." That is an Americanism, and it extends well beyond General Patton and his version of it.
The concept behind the quote extends all the way back to our revolution, where we rejected the notion that we were supposed to meet the English army on the field of battle, toe to toe, in line formation. Washington ran an insurgency campaign, falling back, fighting from cover, using his superior knowledge of the land, losing many battles, retreating often, preserving his forces to fight another day. He placed great emphasis on trying to look after every soldier because he had so few. We won about three battles total compared to many we lost, but it only took one big win, at Yorktown, to end the war. We've been following Washington's lead ever since, caring for every single soldier, and it has yet to fail us.
Patton added his own colorful take on the concept, and perhaps that has soured it for some, but it hardly originated with him. Nor can you distract from MY points by applying Patton's full quote to what I said and pretending I said more than I did. Do not mix the two.
That I ignored this point at first does not mean I had no answer for it. Sometimes I will choose not to respond in the hope that a minor point passes, that the focus remains on more relevant points. I'm far more likely to ignore points for which I do have answers than for those I do not. If I'm proven wrong about a point, I usually concede it quickly.
| 4. You blamed SF for being the spark behind the discussion that turned into an argument, by posting the original joke. I find this a bit of a reach. |
|
I blamed SF for rabble rousing. The evidence on that score is clear. Several of your players make trolling remarks and drop grenedes into threads, without bothering to participate otherwise.
And it is precisely that kind of behavior that should not be granted cover by inserting shielding remarks. I ignored it while talking in the Canadian thread, but I have no idea whether it affected the Canadians and their impression of me and how they dealt with me. It certainly didn't help, nor contribute in any positive way.
That strikes a nerve with me. A lot of people have been pulling drive-by's on America lately, and then squirming and hiding if confronted. There are a lot of flat-out LIES about us being bandied around and accepted as truth because they are spoken so often. Humor is an outlet, a means to lightening up, but it can also be used as a knife to stick in the back or the gut. Let's not pretend that never happens, that humor is never used as a weapon. I'm sure you know better.
"It's only a joke" is the most-often used cover for remarks made with malevolent intent. Sometimes it is only a joke. Sometimes it is something more sinister. Sorting out which is no easy task, so societal norms instruct us to give benefit of the doubt.
So that's what I did. Rather than confront the drive by directly, with the likely result that even if my perception was right and there was a dark edge to it, the person involved would squirm and hide anyway, and nothing would be accomplished. So I tried instead to present the other side of the argument, to forward our position and our point of view to what I thought would be an interested third party. I hoped that at least with the Canadians, they would hear me out. I misjudged that. They did not welcome serious discussion in their gaming thread.
Here's an idea. If we don't want to include politics in our gaming forum, lay off the political jabs, jibes and jokes. I'll tell you for sure, if others had stuck to discussion of games, I would have too. See the Aldarian and ANZAC threads for proof.
- Sirian
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "jeux de mots" in english |
|
"Play on words" or "double entendre" would be how I'd translate it...
Alex
     
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
