1) It's not like the chemical weapons are new. It's not like they suddenly sprouted up. They've been there for years. Decades, even. A rain of shit on Karl Rove? That's new. And it's a good thing, as Martha Stewart says. 2) I know more about this than you and am more interested in learning about this than you, as evidenced by the fact that you linked to an f'ing Breitbart page instead of the NYT article while I linked to a couple books I've read. You might want to consider that when picking your tone, considering this is our first interaction and you decided to shit down my neck. 3) Isis is a joke. 4) Seriously, Isis is a joke. 5) No, I mean it. Isis is a joke. I don't mean that in a "funny, ha ha" kind of way but in a "these terrible human war tourists that hate women and torture and behead for fun are about as effective a military threat as The Miami branch of Al Qaeda. 6) You really think somebody, anybody, up to and including an Islamic jihadist is going to somehow pluck a 30-year-old chemical weapons munition and use it effectively in war? Would you care to explain how exactly that would happen? 'cuz I'm all ears. ______________________________________________ 'cuz here's your choices: 1) Prove me wrong in a big way on everything listed above. 2) Apologize for choosing to be an abject dick in our first interaction. 3) Get muted and ignored. We value civility around here, Mr. 20 days. We've never talked before, which means I've done nothing to deserve your condescension. So you can either reef it back or you can STFU. Lemme know. Choice is yours.
I have no options here, you are going to choose option 3 on your own based on how you just responded. It is clear you have already made your decision. Here are my arguments, though: 1) We didn't as a society know about them. You might have, that's great. This means our public opinion on current events have been swayed for years and we have been swindled, essentially. I don't see that as good news. 2) Cool. I never said you didn't. I was just curious if you had seen the original video and was a bit upset by you being happy about this news. I'm not even mad at you, I just think you are a bit too politically inclined and that it is slightly jading you about death and suffering. I am jaded in other ways as well, does that mean I'm a bad person? No. Does this mean you are a bad person? No. I simply asked why you thought today was a good day when I feel it is an awful one given this news, and why we give a shit about Karl Rove getting blamed at all when the ultimate message here is that more people are going to die, more people suffered from chemical weapons in the recent Iraq war than previously known, and the government is continuing to lie to us as a society. That's all bad news in my eyes. 3-5) I don't really know what your point is here, to be honest. Is ISIS going to take over the world? No. I never claimed it was. Can they kill people? Yes, every human has the ability to kill others. Have they killed people? Yes, which shows they have intent to do so. Have they got numbers? It seems like it, though I could be wrong about that. Is that guy on death row that killed one person "a joke", too? Every loss of life is not a joke in my mind. 6) I'm not talking about using these as a giant bomb and strapping them to an warhead and launching it at the United States. IEDs can be improved by strapping these things to them, for instance. Large droves of these can be detonated as a dirty bomb inside Iraq if they get lucky as well. Even the US's crude detonation caused US soldiers to have chemical burns as evidenced in the video, all they did was blow them up. The only way that the enemy might not in the future get any shells at all is if we found every single one of them while we were there and destroyed them all. How can we know this? They apparently accidentally discovered a few shells, blew them up, and found an ass ton more underneath them by accident. I don't see how I condescended in the first place, but then again I have problems with seeing that sort of thing sometimes so maybe I really did. I'm really unclear why I was just attacked so outright like this, could you elaborate without being so angry at me? I'll apologize if I really was being a dick. I'm not angry with you. Is this a defensive reaction? Did you feel like I was challenging your knowledge on the topic? I know this happens a lot for a lot of people when they get invested deeply into a topic and know a lot about it. Anyone who shows ignorance (like I did) can sometimes appear to be an affront on a person who knows a lot about a subject. I do it all the time on my fields of study, so I think it's human nature. I try to mitigate it but it's really hard to, so I understand. Keep in mind that not everyone has in fact done all the research that you have on the topic, so you're going to face ignorance all the time so it's best not to get angry at people for being ignorant. That's what I try to tell myself (even though I fail miserably at it). I think there's even a name for this psychological phenomenon, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. The video came out this week, so I was curious if you had seen it. You can talk to the best academic scholars on any subject and sometimes they aren't fully up to date on every single piece of video or factoid that has come out even in the last year, or even decade sometimes. There is a lot of knowledge out there, and no one person has all knowledge about every subject. I was trying to be helpful. I am also not sure why the duration of my account was even brought up. Does me having an account for only 20 days make me less of a person?We value civility around here, Mr. 20 days. We've never talked before, which means I've done nothing to deserve your condescension. So you can either reef it back or you can STFU.
No, you were a dick. See, here we were, having a useful discussion about chemical weapons, history and politics and YOU throw down with: Way to make it about me. Way to go off on a tangent. The discussion here is Karl Rove. We can take as a base assumption that chemical weapons are bad, suffering is bad, and the Iraq War was a tragedy. We can even solve by inspection that all that shit is steady state, as in, has not changed. Still with me? What has changed, the only delta in the equation, is "blame for Karl Rove." Therefore, in a long long run of terrible news, finally some good stuff: There's ample blowback for one of the assholes that caused the misfortune in the first place. Net delta is positive. Therefore, the flippant title that I used, which you chose to hung me out to dry for, which you are even now accusing me of being a heartless beast for using. That makes you a dick. Apologize for being a dick. Not, " I'll apologize if I really was being a dick." You really were. Not "I'm not angry with you." 'cuz I'm angry with you and that's your fault. Not question my motives, question my thought process, somehow make you attacking me my problem. Apology. "I'm sorry for denigrating your discussion with personal slander." Under your own admission, Ya did. There's your explanation. Apologize. As far as IEDs, you can have more effect by putting a bag of ball bearings or rusty screws around a block of explosive than you can with fresh and shiny new mustard gas. Or VX. Or any chemical agent. Chlorine gas was used to great effect in WWI and any pool supply company can get a budding terrorist all the chlorine he could possibly want. The fact that chemical weapons are not used in improvised munitions should demonstrate their ineffectiveness. So don't pretend to know my motives, don't pretend to know my level of knowledge and don't pick a fight with me just so you can feel self-righteous. If the next comment isn't an apology, my next move is a muting.Is this a defensive reaction? Did you feel like I was challenging your knowledge on the topic?
How is today a good day? Yay Karl Rove is to blame, who gives a shit?
I don't see how I condescended in the first place, but then again I have problems with seeing that sort of thing sometimes so maybe I really did.
I don't know what it is I feel like crying every time I come here
No, you were a dick. See, here we were, having a useful discussion about chemical weapons, history and politics and YOU throw down with: Isn't discussion about death and suffering in regards to chemical weapons still on topic with politics? That being said, discussions in general always evolve organically, so saying I went off on a tangent is saying that yes we are in fact having a discussion. You were having a discussion about the more in depth political stuff with mk and I didn't interrupt that. I formed a new comment on the base level of this thread. I can't imagine having a conversation in person and having someone start yelling "off-topic" and being angry like this, it's kind of strange to be honest. Still with me? What has changed, the only delta in the equation, is "blame for Karl Rove." Therefore, in a long long run of terrible news, finally some good stuff: There's ample blowback for one of the assholes that caused the misfortune in the first place. Here's where my ignorance comes in, and maybe I wasn't clear on where my ignorance lied. This is the first time I have heard about this issue, period. So this entire thing is news to me. I don't always have time to be on Hubski all day every day and keep up with the news all the time, so I miss things. I don't watch the media, I tend to like to get aggregate data because I work way too much (it's unhealthy, and I shouldn't). So my ignorance lies in the entire subject. I didn't know the delta was Karl Rove, in fact, I didn't know there was a delta at all. I found that video after doing a search after seeing your post, so I decided to be helpful and post it. The fact that this whole thing came up this week doesn't really seem like something huge I missed, though. I caught it within a week of it being public, that's better than most people. As far as I can see, what you quoted didn't in fact make it about you at all. BUT, I re-read my initial post and found this particular sentence: THAT sentence did make it about you, and was completely out of line and I apologize for THAT statement. The rest I don't see as negative, really. Most of it was just a statement of my opinion on the issue. If you take offense to my use of language like "who gives a shit?", I say that stuff to my closest friends and family. It's just the way I talk and phrase things. See, I have a problem (as in a personal problem, not a grudge problem; I think being clear about what I'm saying right now is extremely important) with internet discussions as a whole sometimes, especially in regards to politics. I tend to get wrapped up emotionally on a topic and then I say stupid things like that statement I just quoted before thinking it through. I think we should both try to learn from this experience. I will attempt to not make dumb sentences like the above, but there's a really really important thing that you can take from this that I hope you do. There are tons of people that are ignorant about politics at levels that exceed mine. These are 99% of the population, and a large portion of them vote in elections. Being angry at them doesn't actually improve the situation even if they say dumb or ignorant things. It is important for people with large amounts of knowledge on these subjects like yourself to educate the masses on these things, not be angry at them. You aren't going to be able to improve things if all you do is scream at the people who are directly responsible for electing people to fix these problems. I'm not sure where I picked a fight, I simply made a fleeting statement of ignorance and I apologize for that. I'm trying to help you understand this from my perspective, not making myself seem self-righteous (I never would have expected admitting to ignorance would lead to an accusation of self-righteousness). Seeing things from other people's perspectives are what discussions are for. If a person has any other motives than seeing other people's perspectives, it's not a discussion, it's a speech. Discussions add flavor to our opinions and help us become better people. Everyone has room for growth, and that's why we all have discussions every day. Why would you want someone to apologize for being a dick without knowing why they were being a dick? Shouldn't that improve the community if they learn from their mistakes, rather than just a simple authoritative "I'm sorry", and retreating into themselves trying to figure it out without bettering themselves, never knowing what it was they did? How does that better the community?Is this a defensive reaction? Did you feel like I was challenging your knowledge on the topic?
How is today a good day? Yay Karl Rove is to blame, who gives a shit?Way to make it about me. Way to go off on a tangent. The discussion here is Karl Rove. We can take as a base assumption that chemical weapons are bad, suffering is bad, and the Iraq War was a tragedy. We can even solve by inspection that all that shit is steady state, as in, has not changed.
If you're really concerned about Karl Rove over this story then you are just as obsessed about politics and getting your agenda pushed as Rove himself.
So don't pretend to know my motives, don't pretend to know my level of knowledge and don't pick a fight with me just so you can feel self-righteous. If the next comment isn't an apology, my next move is a muting.
Apologize for being a dick. Not, " I'll apologize if I really was being a dick." You really were.
Here's why you're getting muted: You were asked, twice, to apologize in general. By choosing to apologize for one tiny corner of your argument, you are steadfastly refusing to apologize for everything else. This isn't a negotiation: you pissed me off and priority 1 is to make me not pissed off. Once you've accomplished that we can move on and, perhaps, continue the discussion you apparently wanted (but were unable to broach without being offensive). The simple task was "stop offending me." Instead, you chose to scold me for being offended. You, who has already admitted to not knowing when you're being offensive. Here, read this again: The ignorant things you said are not the issue here: the issue is that you chose to use your ignorance as a plank to attack my knowledge. That's never going to work, and it's never going to bridge any gap of communication. You state in as many words that you are ignorant about this subject. Instead of looking for more information on the subject, you castigated me for having an opinion about it. Here, read this, too: How is this my problem? How is your tendency "to get wrapped up emotionally on a topic and then say stupid things" not something YOU should be cogent of? And given the above, how am I not owed a blanket apology for the effect of your inappropriate affect? This is the third time I've made it clear that you owe me an apology. Not a conditional apology, not a half-assed apology, not an apology contingent on my further meditation on what a bad man I am and how I don't know what "discussions are for." You: - have a problem with online discussions (your statement) - are ignorant about politics (your statement) - often offend people by accident (your statement) - only need say "oops, sorry, didn't mean to offend you." Try it. It's liberating. I'm sensitive to your mental health issues and am having a challenging enough day as it is but sweet jesus, dude, you were wrong, you were a dick and I need you to try really hard not to do that anymore. Okay?I apologize for THAT statement.
There are tons of people that are ignorant about politics at levels that exceed mine. These are 99% of the population, and a large portion of them vote in elections. Being angry at them doesn't actually improve the situation even if they say dumb or ignorant things.
See, I have a problem (as in a personal problem, not a grudge problem; I think being clear about what I'm saying right now is extremely important) with internet discussions as a whole sometimes, especially in regards to politics. I tend to get wrapped up emotionally on a topic and then I say stupid things like that statement I just quoted before thinking it through.
Yeesh. The "mission" was to get you to say "I'm sorry." Amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid that.
I know this is old, but I'd have liked to see that guy stick around (he's obviously intelligent and willing to write long thought out comments), and you both acted like dicks IMHO.