From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 17:17:41 -0000 (UTC)   
   Howard  wrote:   
      
   > usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:   
   >   
   > > On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 20:18:01 -0500, Boron Elgar   
   >   
   > >>I will call out bigotry, prejudice, and sexism wherever and whenever I   
   > >>see it.   
   > >   
   > > And your judgements are absolute with no room for nuance or error?   
   >   
   > I think it's helpful to take a step back look back at the names in   
   > rroger's first post for a bit of perspective.   
   >   
   > Unfortunately, I think rroger has gotten a little too much guff here   
   > over the years. Perfect understanding of logic and detailed knowledge of   
   > the world? Maybe not, but I think the guy tries and has a more open mind   
   > than a lot of the people who have wandered through here over the years.   
   >   
   > But the ones he mentions, Shawn and Friedman? Holy cow, what train   
   > wrecks.   
   >   
   > Friedman was a nut who was so devoted to his priors that he ended up   
   > arguing that Somalia under warlords was somehow a good place beacuse....   
   > because.... people were creating cell phone service networks?   
   >   
   > And Shawn. Wow. I rememember Mike Muth, who had honest to god serious   
   > service in Vietnam and serious academic credentials trying in good faith   
   > to get Shawn to grapple with military policy, and Shawn was unable to do   
   > anything but retreat to his idiotic solipsism due to his cracked   
   > mentality.   
   >   
   > I think it's worth asking -- is this guy any different from Friedman and   
   > Shawn? Is there anything to think he'll respond any better than those   
   > guys?   
   >   
   > I think the answer is no. There is no reason even a Muth could make a   
   > Wilson be anything but a Wilson.   
   >   
   > So what then? It's fair to ask whether Boron's approach is right, but I   
   > don't think it's fair to say Boron's any more doomed than Muth.   
   >   
   > It's possible for these guys, and the latest one to show up on the   
   > scene, that the path to frustrating them is not so much pure bile.   
   >   
   > Maybe it needs to be a more complex mix of bile, condescension and   
   > sarcasm. Or maybe it's funnier jokes about them. Or maybe it's social   
   > pressure that lets them  know that people can see the hollowness of who   
   > they are, not just what they say. Engagement as if they are operating in   
   > good faith may reinforce them more than simply calling out the bad   
   > faith.   
   >   
   > I'll admit, though, that calling them on their insecurities and their   
   > stupidity may not be enough. Shawn at the end seemed to be showing just   
   > the slightest signs of regret for who he had become, but only the   
   > slightest. And I don't think it had anything to do with the endless   
   > knockdowns he got in arguments, but with a grim realization that his   
   > personal qualities had let him down.   
   >   
      
   Well, quite. Just shouting down "the  bad guys" simply polarises it into "us"-   
   (good) v "them" (bad)   
   - there's no chance of convincing anyone to change positions; more likely   
   it'll entrench existing prejud^w positions  urther.   
      
   Some on usenet seem to take to siding with one (generally extreme) position,   
   either due to listening to one-sided arguments, or just to provoke outrage in   
   people opposing such positions, aka trolling. So my preferred approach is:   
   either state your case    
   calmly, or walk away (don't feed the trolls). But that's just me.   
      
   Goodnight.   
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed Humbug.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)