In Defense of the Feud thread

@maxdancona,

I never went after your daughter.

I'm not interested in your solutions. You're a unilateralist who makes decisions and expects everyone else to follow suit.

That doesn't work with me, I'm a bolshie bastard who won't be told what to do by anyone. I thought you might have realised this by now.

I have you on ignore and have to click on your posts to see them. I don't want to talk to you.

I only respond when you say something offensive or when I think you're being dishonest.

This isn't an insult, but I just do not believe anything you say. You present yourself as one way then act completely differently. I don't believe you and I question your motivation. I've said this before, but it bears repeating, you're the only person on A2K I feel this way about. Everyone else I take at face value, not you, I just can't. There's something in my gut that comes straight to the fore whenever you post something I don't believe.

I'm not going to change. I won't go round insulting you just because you're Max, but then again I never have. I will continue to challenge you whenever you say something offensive or dishonest.

You could stop being offensive and dishonest, that would work. Why not try that?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I am looking for a way to stop having this nasty fight that derails thread after thread with off topic insult. This feud jas been going on.for years with the same insults.

If Izzy truly put me on ignore, it would work. However if he keeps clicking anyway in his self-appointed role as able2know cop and defender of women, it defeats the purpose of ignore.

If Izzy stayed on topic rather than obsessing over his personal issues with me... that would also work. I wouldnt mind if Izzy chose simply to stop. It isn't me who os enganging on thread after thread.

I am apparently unable to refrain from responding to Izzy's insults. So the alternative is to keep derailing thread after thread.

I dont think I ever engage Izzy other than in response to his insults.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

1) The feud thread...success.

If it was such a success, then perhaps you can explain why it was cancelled.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

I can only guess. I am defining success as preventing threads from being derailed. And that it did. I am guessing that the thread ran afoul of a moderator's sense of fairness. I disagree with the decision, but it isnt my call.

Do you agree with the intent... that by putting the nasty feuds into single threads we can avoid swrious threads from being derailed?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It was a success. By success I mean that while it was in use there wero no threads derailed.

I don't think that's true and in any case it was only up for, what?, one day? Two days?

maxdancona wrote:

A thread gets derailed when I express an opinion that upsets Izzy. He responds accusing me of one of his list of go to insults; racist, homophobe, liar, right wing, rape apologist or neo-nazi symathizer.

This results in 3 or 4 or 5 pages of nasty insults focusws on whether or not I am in fact a neo-nazi sympathizer. This is by definition off topic

Going off-topic is not against the rules, all threads do at some point or other. And when someone argues that your views betray you to be a right-winger or misogynist, that's a political argument, and it would be a bit weird if A2K banned users here from calling out what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as racist or homophobic views. Personally I think that some of the labels thrown at you are wildly over the top (and in general discourse would greatly improve if people stopped calling anyone but actual Nazis, Nazis, and you're obviously not a Nazi). But the mods aren't here to adjudicate arguments about who can be rightly ascribed which political views, they have their hands full dealing with spam and people calling each other idiots and cunts.

maxdancona wrote:

Maybe people prefer that we spam thread after thread with the same insults. I am getting tired of it.

Then stop taking part in it. Izzy tends to get into these obsessive spats, and he's had his shares of time-outs and series of pulled posts over it. But there's no feud without two people taking part in it. We have an ignore function for just this occasion. If you guys could show just the slightest bit of self-discipline in ignoring obvious bait instead of letting your hair-trigger defense of ego rule your every response, we wouldn't have this issue. The Internet's over 25 years old, this should be a basic skill to have acquired by now.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Quote:

8) No personal attacks
No personal attacks on other members. Heated arguments are okay; mudslinging and calling each other names is not. It’s not okay when done in response to attacks on you or others either; please just report and downvote the offending comment instead. (If you feel provoked by offending comments, you can also use the "ignore user" function.) Creating topics specifically to criticize or mock another individual member is definitely not okay. Neither are specific or credible threats to other members.

9) No personal arguments ad nauseum
If a personal dispute between members drags on and on and gets in the way of others being able to discuss a topic (or crosses from topic to topic) members may be suspended.

Both of these rules are routinely violated. If someone wants to claim that my argument is misogynist, then fine. We can have our disagreement and then move on. That's not the issue.

People are dragging their personal issues to engage is name calling on thread after thread. I was called a misogynist on a thread about organic food.

I don't mind scrapping with Izzy or any one else in his little group. I can take a punch, I can throw a punch (I admit that it is hard for me to ignore a punch... but I am only human).

The real issue is that this feud is spreading from thread to thread. Countless threads have devolved into a discussion about whether Max is a nazi sympathizer, a racist, a homophobe, a liar and or a single father.

I can't be the only person who is getting tired of this.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Both of these rules are routinely violated.

And posts by both of you have routinely been "disappeared" when they went too far or when the two of you just kept going on and on and on.

Regarding what counts as personal attack, the line about how "heated arguments are okay; mudslinging and calling each other names is not" is also further clarified on the A2K blog:

Quote:

We are keenly aware that any line we draw is going to be arbitrary to some extent. People will always disagree about what constitutes a “personal attack,” “personal arguments ad nauseum”, or “toxic behavior”. A couple of the rules of thumb we keep in mind, however, involve:

- distinguishing between personal attacks and criticisms of someone’s views or arguments, however harsh; [...]

- considering whether a post solely disparages another user or has other, redeeming content;

When a spat just keeps going on and on, of course, at some point the argument ad nauseam rule you cite should kick in. But when someone claims that the views you express here show that you're actually a homophobe misogynist, or whatever, is that just name-calling or a "criticism of someone’s views or arguments, however harsh"? When someone calls you a dumb idiot or whatever, it should be an easy pull. But when people attack each other's political views, real or presumed, is that really something we want mods to start poring over and adjudicating?

3 Replies

@nimh,

In any case, yes, the spreading from thread to thread is a problem. And there is an argument ad nauseam rule for that, and I have definitely seen whole chunks of exchanges between you and Izzy disappear. Because both of you -- I repeat, both of you -- just keep going at it over and over. But the mods, who are also just volunteering a their time, can't go police your every interaction. They also have to rely on users exercising the slightest smidge of self-discipline. The site provides an "ignore" function. Use it.

1 Reply

@nimh,

I was sure the Maxdancona post I was responding to here was shorter when I started replying. Must be getting old.

0 Replies

@nimh,

Quote:

But when someone claims that the views you express here show that you're actually a homophobe misogynist, or whatever, is that just name-calling or a "criticism of someone’s views or arguments, however harsh"?

It is a definitely a personal attack when someone says that you... as a person... are a "homophobe misogynist". Whether you are actually a homophobe misogynist is by definition off-topic in any thread that isn't about you as a person.

I don't think you can defend this... either by the rules or by any rule of civil debate. It is the very definition of an ad hominem.

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

In any case, yes, the spreading from thread to thread is a problem. And there is an argument ad nauseam rule for that, and I have definitely seen whole chunks of exchanges between you and Izzy disappear. Because both of you -- I repeat, both of you -- just keep going at it over and over. But the mods, who are also just volunteering a their time, can't go police your every interaction. They also have to rely on users exercising the slightest smidge of self-discipline. The site provides an "ignore" function. Use it.

Let's be very clear about what is happening here in thread after thread.

1) I am posting opinions that are unpopular to Izzy and friends.
2) They are responding with personal attacks.
3) I am responding to the personal attacks.

If you are claiming that my feud with Izzy and friends is symmetrical, the facts don't support this. You can look at thread after thread, the personal attacks always start with them. (If you would like, we could look at example threads. You will not find a thread that breaks this pattern... I suspect you already know that).

I admit that I could skip #3. But, when Izzy posts on a thread to say .... "Max is a Nazi sympathizer" it is very difficult for me not to defend myself.

I am human.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Damn! They got rid of Setanta's thread.

And I asked them nicely not to do that.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Unless you're a moderator or site owner, your statement of desire is rather useless in this regard.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I'm not sure whether that solution will work or not, but I agree completely with your opinion. There is a difference between spirited debate and ad hominem attacks.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It is a definitely a personal attack when someone says that you... as a person... are a "homophobe misogynist".

If someone literally just keeps posting "you're a Nazi!", without any further content, I could see that, but that rarely happens. If someone makes any kind of argument about why they believe you to be homophobic or misogynist -- which Izzy usually does about you -- it's an argument about political views: where you're coming from, why it's only logical you would see things a certain way, why people shouldn't lend it credence, etc -- not just name-calling.

Of course the qualifications in question will often be unjustified, because people love to put each other in political corners -- I don't agree with a lot of the stuff Izzy throws at you either. But I wouldn't want mods to spend their time trying to adjudicate whether a political accusation is called for or not, that's not what they're there for.

Now if people keep posting the same thing over and again without adding any substance and it gets in the way of others being able to discuss a topic, it's an argument ad nauseam and can get pulled as such ... and does get pulled pretty regularly. I've seen a bunch of posts by the two of you disappear -- hell, even in this thread some posts seem to have gone. And you already pointed out how that Setanta thread that was created to make fun of you (which is specifically against the rules) is gone too. But you can't expect mods to monitor your every interaction, especially if both of you have proven singularly unable to take your own responsibility, lose the hair-trigger ego, and act like a grown-up. You're only human, yes, but we've all been around long enough on the internet to have been called stupid and unreasonable stuff and learned to hit "ignore". "But he started it!" has never been an accepted defense here, it's literally in the rules.

2 Replies

@nimh,

You are arguing in favor of personal atracks and name calling.

I don't buy it. I don't think that attacking a person is ever appropriate (and it is against the rules). You should be reaponding to the argument rather than to your judgement on the person making it.

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

If someone literally just keeps posting "you're a Nazi!", without any further content, I could see that, but that rarely happens. If someone makes any kind of argument about why they believe you to be homophobic or misogynist -- which Izzy usually does about you -- it's an argument about political views: where you're coming from, why it's only logical you would see things a certain way, why people shouldn't lend it credence, etc -- not just name-calling.

Exactly, Max would rather misrepresent this as name calling because that means the fault is all mine. The alternative would be to ask himself why people may think he's being bigoted, and he won't do that.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I take full reaponsibility for my own posts.

Izzy and friends (the people in his ideological bubble) should take responsibility for their behavior. The people they label bigot is their business

I believe that Izzy is a bigot. He has a narrow ideological view and os unable to acknowlwge any ofter point of view. So what? Does this mean I have to follow him around from thread to thread atracking him?

The question of whether Izzy is a bigot or Max is a bigot is irrelevant in any discussion.

What is happening is thread after thread is being derailed by people insulting each other rather than discussing the topic. I think this is a bad thing.

Each discussion should be focused on the topic at hand.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I believe that Izzy is a bigot. He has a narrow ideological view and os unable to acknowlwge any ofter point of view. So wjat?

That is so vague as to be meaningless, I have said specifically why I believe you are bigoted. You need to redefine the word so it includes people who don't want to invite neo Nazis around for tea.

Not spending time with people who want to recreate the Holocaust only counts as bigotry in your book.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Each discussion should be focused on the topic at hand.

Is this you loving irony again Max? As far as I can see your focus seems to be to making the topic at hand Max.

1 Reply

In Defense of the Feud thread

Quick Links

My Account

able2know