Thought Experiment: Which Button do you press?

[garlicsoup]

I’m seeing a pattern where the various topics here quickly degenerate into questionable rhetoric and “yes it is” “no it isn’t” back and forth.

It is especially these accusations that I would consider to be insulting:

@Regenwasser

I’m sure you won all the medals in your high school debating club.

@Regenwasser

So I’ve looked if there is a term for what you’re doing here and apparently it’s known as Gish Gallop. And you, my friend, are the master of Gish Gallop.

These and other comments that may or may not strictly be insulting, give me the sense that Regenwasser has difficulty engaging in productive discourse with people who see things a little differently. He seems to repeat the same statements and assert that anyone trying to bring new ideas to the discussion is obtuse or malicious.

@Regenwasser

No, this is not true. The thought experiment here is not a variation of the Prisoner’s Dilemma

I feel this is an example of unhelpful rigidity. Whether it is or is not “a variation of the Prisoner’s Dilemma” obviously depends on context. He asks for an authoritative source but doesn’t provide one for his side, he simply asserts it.

@benjito

I am willing to go along with your stricter definition for the sake of this thread.

and instead of accepting that and trying to have a meaningful discussion, the reply is

@Regenwasser

You yourself would argue against the statement you just made if someone else but you had written it.

which is quite rude indeed and an accusation of bad faith.

[Regenwasser]

@CelestialObject

I am not commenting on whether Mr. Water’s statement is wrong or not.

Thanks for trying to come to my defense but don’t get yourself in the line of fire. I can take it, it’s fine.

During the last weeks I’ve spent quite some time here and really tried to integrate myself into the community. I created a PR for the platform, I organized a Challenge Event with a prize pool, I started this community poll that created a lot of engagement and I tried my best to give my ideas for various aspects of OGS, e.g. how to tackle abuse on the platform more efficiently.
I really just tried my best to generate some fun here and to help enhance the platform. I also tried my best to never insult anyone and stay polite.

The result? I got called “troll”, “silly”, “vile” (the comment not me to be fair), “unreasonable”, “bad faith actor”, “uncivil”, “rude”, “user of weaponized pedantry”, “unscientific”, and actually many more.

The poll in this thread got 69 votes and 29 people (other than me) participated in this discussion. But in total it got one single like lol

This kind of makes me want to reduce my time and engagement on OGS again.

@garlicsoup

It is especially these accusations that I would consider to be insulting:

@Regenwasser

I’m sure you won all the medals in your high school debating club.

@Regenwasser

So I’ve looked if there is a term for what you’re doing here and apparently it’s known as Gish Gallop. And you, my friend, are the master of Gish Gallop.

I think it’s definitely fair to consider the first one somewhat insulting. For the second one I geniunely believe what he did is some form of Gish Gallop. I do not want to say anything bad about JethOrensin. But I do have to say that the conversation with him was probably one of the top ten most frustrating online exchanges I’ve ever had in my life and I’ve been on the interwebs since about 2006 (maybe even earlier). Still not saying this is solely JethOrensins fault that’s just how I felt and this annoyance is what lead to the first quote.

@garlicsoup

He seems to repeat the same statements and assert that anyone trying to bring new ideas to the discussion is obtuse or malicious.

This is actually somewhat true in this thread but both of these things are connected with each other.

I several times made a statement explaining something and then people would ignore that comment and say something for which that comment would have been directly relevant. This then causes me to point to whatever I already said earlier (repeating myself) in an increasingly annoyed way (getting the impression my statement was maliciously ignored).

@garlicsoup

He asks for an authoritative source but doesn’t provide one for his side, he simply asserts it.

True. But 1. the original claim was also simply asserted and 2. now having to repeat myself again (kind of related to the previous section):

The Principle of “Onus Probandi”
The fundamental rule is that the responsibility to provide evidence lies with the party proposing a new idea or asserting a fact, rather than the party who is skeptical of it.

[Noymen]

@JethOrensin, you are the hero of all red pressers! And the parallel airplane example you showed couldn’t be sharper at exposing the absurdity of wanting to press blue in the original scenario.

[Uberdude]

Does your view change if you are now aware (so not part of original thought experiment where you operate in isolation) that a significant proportional of people would vote blue? Or do you continue to think red is the logical answer, and if the blue% is >0 but <50% then so be it, the illogical blues dying is fine, it was their own dumb fault for being illogical?

[benjito]

@garlicsoup

@benjito

I am willing to go along with your stricter definition for the sake of this thread.

and instead of accepting that and trying to have a meaningful discussion..

In fairness, I should mention that @Regenwasser did take me up on my subsequent offer to discuss further in DM - I think we had a more fruitful chat around where our misunderstandings came from.

@Regenwasser

I really just tried my best to generate some fun here and to help enhance the platform. I also tried my best to never insult anyone and stay polite.

The result? I got called “troll”, “silly”, “vile” (the comment not me to be fair), “unreasonable”, “bad faith actor”, “uncivil”, “rude”, “user of weaponized pedantry”, “unscientific”, and actually many more.

I think you genuinely have generated some interesting conversation, and have improved the platform via your contributions.

To be clear, these descriptors were not used to describe your positive contributions. It would be worth reflecting on what specific behaviors attract these kinds of descriptions.

We can take, for example, “user of weaponized pedrantry”. To be totally pedantic this phrase wasn’t used. Just “weaponized pedantry” was part of a quote I pulled from Wikipedia. I shared this in the context some discussion where you had earlier called @JethOrensin the “master of Gish Gallop” and someone had pointed out your argument was cherry-picked.

I think if you avoid (not just try your best to avoid) calling people names or otherwise seek argument, then you will find this community will return the respect.

[Sadaharu]

@Regenwasser

The poll in this thread got 69 votes and 29 people (other than me) participated in this discussion. But in total it got one single like lol

Are you an OGS influencer wannabe? This is the first time I’ve heard someone complain about the number of likes lol

[Fragile_Pākehā]

An observation unrelated to buttons

@mart900

And just 3 days later…

It is as the prophecy foretold.