The $%*! frustration thread

[Truthordeal]

"Hey guys, sorry that everyone in my 'state' except for me and everyone who thinks like me is a complete screw up."

Whether or not this is what you meant to say, the implication is definitely there. Your position is not what frustrates me, Uboa, but rather your method. These "apology" statements are nothing but pure condescension; there's really no argument made here. This is probably the main part of most of Lord J's discussions that irk me the most, although to give him credit, he has been abstaining his typical method in recent weeks, and I've found that his arguments aren't nearly as maddening when he does this.

Uboa, you personally have been able to make potent arguments about a position you feel strongly without this insulting and elitist attitude. I know you can do better than this.

Although, to be frank, the fact that both you and Lord J patronized me for my use of the word asshatery(and a fine linguistic construction it is) because it is not considered "standard English" makes me second guess that notion.

[Mr Bekkler]

These "apology" statements are nothing but pure condescension; there's really no argument made here. This is probably the main part of most of Lord J's discussions that irk me the most, although to give him credit, he has been abstaining his typical method in recent weeks, and I've found that his arguments aren't nearly as maddening when he does this.

Yeah I actually left the forum for a little while because of a few of J's more condescending comments. They are frustrating, but luckily, he and I have not had too much trouble as of late.

[Uboa]

"Hey guys, sorry that everyone in my 'state' except for me and everyone who thinks like me is a complete screw up."

Whether or not this is what you meant to say, the implication is definitely there. Your position is not what frustrates me, Uboa, but rather your method. These "apology" statements are nothing but pure condescension; there's really no argument made here. This is probably the main part of most of Lord J's discussions that irk me the most, although to give him credit, he has been abstaining his typical method in recent weeks, and I've found that his arguments aren't nearly as maddening when he does this.

Uboa, you personally have been able to make potent arguments about a position you feel strongly without this insulting and elitist attitude. I know you can do better than this.

Although, to be frank, the fact that both you and Lord J patronized me for my use of the word asshatery(and a fine linguistic construction it is) because it is not considered "standard English" makes me second guess that notion.

Your chosen spelling of that fine linguistic construction suggests the act of hating asses, rather than "asshatting".

I suppose that I am a little flattered that my apology carried enough chutzpah to be considered as an argument.  I don't usually enjoy inciting heated political arguments on forums, so I try to refrain from tossing out such statements unless I'm really willing to see an entire argument through.  Still, instead of a political argument I seem to have incited here a bizarre diatribe about the sincerity of my, um, apo-argu-logy-ment, in addition to my potential "elitism".  Or, does that count as a political argument these days?

Since you were so considerate to read into my statement for the benefit of everybody I clearly intended to insult, allow me to return the favor.  As a general rule, if anybody at the Compendium expresses regret, remorse, disappointment, anguish, woe, etc. about the direction of their country, state, district, or any other social group to which they belong, without a doubt they are really intending to distinguish as a "complete screw up" everybody within that group who does not think exactly as they do.  Truthordeal will graciously point out this transgression and remind them that they can do better, free of charge.  He will even offer an uplifting reminder about all the times they did not speak so unbecomingly!  (Bonus "Lord J" typification while supplies last.)

[skylark]

"Hey guys, sorry that everyone in my 'state' except for me and everyone who thinks like me is a complete screw up."

Whether or not this is what you meant to say, the implication is definitely there. Your position is not what frustrates me, Uboa, but rather your method. These "apology" statements are nothing but pure condescension; there's really no argument made here. This is probably the main part of most of Lord J's discussions that irk me the most, although to give him credit, he has been abstaining his typical method in recent weeks, and I've found that his arguments aren't nearly as maddening when he does this.

Uboa, you personally have been able to make potent arguments about a position you feel strongly without this insulting and elitist attitude. I know you can do better than this.

Although, to be frank, the fact that both you and Lord J patronized me for my use of the word asshatery(and a fine linguistic construction it is) because it is not considered "standard English" makes me second guess that notion.

Your chosen spelling of that fine linguistic construction suggests the act of hating asses, rather than "asshatting".

I suppose that I am a little flattered that my apology carried enough chutzpah to be considered as an argument.  I don't usually enjoy inciting heated political arguments on forums, so I try to refrain from tossing out such statements unless I'm really willing to see an entire argument through.  Still, instead of a political argument I seem to have incited here a bizarre diatribe about the sincerity of my, um, apo-argu-logy-ment, in addition to my potential "elitism".  Or, does that count as a political argument these days?

Since you were so considerate to read into my statement for the benefit of everybody I clearly intended to insult, allow me to return the favor.  As a general rule, if anybody at the Compendium expresses regret, remorse, disappointment, anguish, woe, etc. about the direction of their country, state, district, or any other social group to which they belong, without a doubt they are really intending to distinguish as a "complete screw up" everybody within that group who does not think exactly as they do.  Truthordeal will graciously point out this transgression and remind them that they can do better, free of charge.  He will even offer an uplifting reminder about all the times they did not speak so unbecomingly!  (Bonus "Lord J" typification while supplies last.)

I know this is a frustration thread, but I think Uboa has become my new favorite person on these boards.

[Sajainta]

I know this is a frustration thread, but I think Uboa has become my new favorite person on these boards.

She's pretty spiffy, isn't she? 

[Truthordeal]

This isn't an argument Uboa. Just a frustration of mine. I don't consider being condescending to anyone as something to be happy about.

[GenesisOne]

Here's what I don't like:

The media trying to disguise shoddy reporting techniques and pass them off as fact!

As anybody who has ever wistfully imagined Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly fighting to the death over a pit of lava knows, most media outlets are biased. Usually it's not part of anybody's grand scheme to brainwash you, but rather just the result of newsrooms being staffed by fallible, opinionated humans.

The problem is they're generally not allowed to come right out and say they think the subject of their news story is a hate-mongering idiot, so they have to rely on subtle and sometimes downright dishonest methods to gently sway you one way or the other.

Weasel words, false correlation, burying inconvenient facts, biased photos, active voices, and guessing the motives are but a few convenient means of churning out a news story without having to dig for answers.

I'd just like newspapers and the news media to be more honest in their reporting.  Just give me a straight-forward report!  No punditry, no misleading photos, and definitely no unqualified interviews.  Maybe then I could tolerate their crap a little more.

[Thought]

I'd just like newspapers and the news media to be more honest in their reporting.  Just give me a straight-forward report!  No punditry, no misleading photos, and definitely no unqualified interviews.  Maybe then I could tolerate their crap a little more.

But if they did that, what would be left for historians to do?!

[GenesisOne]

But if they did that, what would be left for historians to do?!

Fix the History Channel.

[Lord J Esq]

But if they did that, what would be left for historians to do?!

Fix the History Channel.

Nice.

Edit for P.S.: Time constraints have limited my Compendium availability recently, Truthordeal, but as I am able I will pledge a return of the thrashings and rebukes you so consistently deserve. Elitism, bad? Does it follow, then: "Mookery, good"? Attacking the obliviousness with which you write some of your stuff, as well as the stuff itself, is not a pleasure sport of mine. It genuinely follows from my philosophy that you do a lot of damage by saying shit that either isn't true or doesn't follow. If I spoke to you politely, you would accuse me of condescension, perhaps not unwarrantedly. I prefer to be honest: You should ask more questions, do more studying, keep a more open mind, and resist the temptation to make snap judgments or use faith-based logic. When you fail in all these, you fall significantly short of your human potential. If that burns you, good. Now go do something about it other than complaining about Lord J.

[Samopoznanie]

Edit for P.S.: Time constraints have limited my Compendium availability recently, Truthordeal, but as I am able I will pledge a return of the thrashings and rebukes you so consistently deserve. Elitism, bad? ...  It genuinely follows from my philosophy that you do a lot of damage by saying shit that either isn't true or doesn't follow. If I spoke to you politely, you would accuse me of condescension, perhaps not unwarrantedly.

You do realize how incredibly silly this sounds, right? Shaking your fist, promising to go about what you see as a moral duty to correct people on the internet? For fear of others digesting their views, however (in)correct they may be? You've got a long fight ahead of you if that's the case.  Especially (try not to take this the wrong way, Truth) if you're going to cast as wide a net as to go issuing lectures to people almost ten years younger than yourself.

Honestly, giving online verbal beatdowns in an effort to push your views on someone or simply obliterate their own is a waste. Respect is earned. Patronizing rhetoric and dueling monologues get you none. 

Reading some of your longer posts, J, I don't think I'm even that far off from you on major issues, but come on.  We're some of the oldest members here. Let's save our haughtiness and philosophy for mature items like doing dishes, paying the bills and writing congressmen as opposed to online bickering.  It shouldn't be such a distraction that we have to leave foreboding PS messages in threads we didn't have time to argue in.

[Lord J Esq]

I've had many years to think this over. My position is that it is irresponsible for people to be vapidly opinionated, and irresponsible for others to let it go unchallenged. If I wanted whatever you think "respect" is, I would surely behave differently.

There is an analogy in politics, in the form of the right-wing noise machine, whose agents will sink to the lowest depths of taste imaginable in their charades and circuses. And so many gullible people buy into it! That's a good reason not to give idiocy a free pass. But the real point of interest here is: What do you do about it? Do you ignore them in the hopes that reason will prevail? Do you respond to them on their level, vying for dominance over the lowest common denominator? Do you fight back with reason, facts, and head held high? I've had years to practice all three. I've learned something of the art of argument. I like Truthordeal. Despite my best efforts to write him off entirely I think his head is in the right place. But he needs constant correction, constant rebuke, constant pushback. He'd morph into one of those drooling right-wing troglodytes if the Compendium were a conservative haven. But it's not; it's a moonbat oasis, and so here his ego is checked every time he ventures an opinion. That's a good thing. I don't much care that he doesn't much care for me; I'm simply doing what I think is the right thing to do. Don't assume that the more genial conduct of others better serves him or them or the Compendium as a whole. My role is an important one. As you said, respect is earned, and I don't give mine out to anyone who manages to post opinions on a website. In a world filled with mooks it does no good for everyone to make nice with everyone all the time. In such a world, learning is stifled. I say enough with this infernal Get-Along Gang! Let's stand for our principles and go fight evil.

Before I go: You've got one point that I have to address specifically: He's considerably younger. That does figure into his state if not his abilities. I find it interesting, though, that you were so embarrassed to point this out that you felt compelled to tell Truthordeal "not to take this the wrong way." In fact the "wrong" way is exactly the way you meant it; else your modesty would not have stricken you. You're calling him too young to stand with the rest of the crowd. You're giving him a pass that you imply you wouldn't give to an older person. You're disrespecting him as much as I do, but, unlike me, you're unable or unwilling to admit it--and, unlike me, you've come out and put it in large part on his age. I never did that. Nor would I. To me it is an irrelevancy; he is old enough to think: He just needs to learn how.

With me, total honesty. And that works both ways: When people honor themselves, I respect them, and I'm as direct about that as I am with my shenanigans against mookery. The ones who can't get over me are the ones who can't get over themselves in some way: Daniel Krispin's incuriosity, for instance. A fine person, but utterly self-defeating in intellectual discourse. Truthordeal's problem doesn't seem to be incuriosity, but dogmatism and self-entitlement. He keeps coming back with the expectation that he'll be allowed to introduce his opinions into the community discourse without criticism. As if! That, Samopoznanie, would be elitism of the wronger sort. His opinions are ever so deserving of criticism! Not always; sometimes he's an ally. But often enough. It'll do him better to recognize he's living in a world where there's something more to life than shutting himself up in an insular existence of yeasaying and backpatting. And I don't need to make innuendos about his age to chart a course.

[Lord J Esq]

Uh oh. I just realized I've got to be up for something in less than five hours. Nuts!

[Truthordeal]

Sampoznanie, I understand J's philosophy regarding the Internet and arguing. He's explained it once or twice before. I find his condescension maddening at times, and I still think it's the wrong policy, but, I guess that's about a moot point at this juncture.

I realize a lot of the criticism I receive from here is based at least partly on my first months here, where I was extremely immature during debate and refused to part ways with some of the more onerous right-wing rhetoric I'd grown accustomed to. Particularly in the Fuck Sexism thread. I've grown a bit since then, and re-reading a lot of it makes me cringe, so it's perfectly understandable why anything I say is at first glance met with some level of...for lack of a better word, skepticism.

Finally, there's a lot one can say about J, but one thing is that he doesn't discriminate by age. It'd be far easier for me personally if he did, but at the same time the Compendium wouldn't challenge me if that were to happen, and that's something I'd rather not give up. It's also worth mentioning that I think J's thread "Ask a Liberal," is complete genius; it allows Compendiumites to challenge him, and for him to challenge us, without the usual shenanigans that arise out of a typical debate on here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your chosen spelling of that fine linguistic construction suggests the act of hating asses, rather than "asshatting".

Also, I can't believe I let Uboa get away with this in my previous post.

Asshattery is a noun that means "the art of asshatting." It comes from the word "asshat" which Urbandictionary defines as: "One who has their head up their ass. Thus wearing their ass as a hat." To prove my point, two case studies.

1) The word "poetry," a noun meaning "the art of making poems," or "the art of making poetry." It's typically bad mojo to use the word itself in the definition, but since the two instances of the word have different meanings and functions, I think it's excusable for the sake of clarity in this case.

Both words the same ending morpheme "-(e)ry" to change them from a verb form--making poetry, and asshatting or being an asshat--to a noun form. The "e" in the case of asshattery merely exists to help with pronunciation. A person who does either is referred to by the root word--Poet, and asshat, respectively. The only deviation would be in the adjective form: poetic vs. asshattish(ok, "asshat" doesn't have an adjective form as far as I know, but this is probably the closest supposition of what it would be). Even then, the morphemes -ic and -ish, and even -esque aren't very different. The deviation here is minimal, at best.

There might be some confounding in the fact that asshat is a compound word, whereas poem is not. But, I feel that the word "asshat" is inseparable, so that doesn't exactly change much either. But I'll get more into this particular point of "declension"(this was a pun, a lame one, sure, don't take it seriously) in a bit.

So what does poetry mean? Making poems. What does asshattery mean? Being an asshat.

2) Jackassery, or "the state or art of being a jackass." Jackass is an English colloquialism meaning "to be an idiot." It uses the exact same construction of "asshattery" and even uses a compound word as it's root.

To be a jackass does not mean "to jack asses," nor does jackassery mean "the art of jacking asses." If it did, jackassery would probably be considered a homophobic slur, which it is not.

Again, to Urbandictionary: "Conduct consistent with a Jackass," and "a large quantity of stupid, asinine behavior; typically referring to a group of people exhibiting poor judgment," are the first two definitions. Since asshattery functions the same as jackassery, one can infer correctly that asshattery has to do with being an asshat, and not hatting asses.

Truth be told, I could've used Urbandictionary from the start, but I wanted to make sure that the reasoning behind this construction was abundantly clear.

But, for the sake of I-Told-You-So, here's the Urbandictionary entry on "asshattery."

1. Acts committed by an asshat or asshats. 2. Engagement in an activity normally reserved for asshats.
I demand that all of you stop this asshattery at once!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asshattery

Check it yourself.

[Shee]

The brackets are officially a mess. 

Big ups to J for using "troglodyte."