It's important to examine the dynamic here because I think you'll find it illuminating. I think others will, too. I absolutely remember our last interaction. You picked a fight with me, I told you to back off, and then you opted to gripe to someone else about what an asshat I was. You went from zero to ad hominem in three posts, and decided to bring others into the dispute. Meanwhile, you assume I don't remember it, while also arguing that it's fresh in your memory. In other words, the interaction was de facto more important to you than to me, despite the fact that I was the one who took action over it. Moving on, I point out that what's really needed is an apology, an argument I have made at length. You claim to like my content, you claim to like my insights, yet the idea that I might want to not suffer ad hominem attacks for making them does not strike you as relevant enough to do what I'm asking point blank. And when I point out that you were insulting, you argue that you have a different view, not that my "hey dude try not to be such a dick" was actually an entreaty to not be such a dick. That is something you haven't considered: if we're conversing somewhere neither of us have any power, the only thing each of us can do is walk away. But if we're conversing somewhere I've staked a claim to? You have to converse on my terms. FUNDAMENTALLY - I choose what I post and I choose what I say and I have the ability to choose how much I am attacked for doing so. You crossed a line, I told you that you had crossed a line, and you doubled down so I chose to force you to do that elsewhere. This is my choice, and frankly, the only reason I post at all: I'm not interested in engaging in gladiatorial combat every time I opt to share something, been there, done that, got nominated for commenter of the year three years in a row (turned it down each time because really, it was people who loved the beatdowns). SO LOOK: I can avoid people who refuse to stop being dicks two ways. I can not post or comment at all or I can own my posts. Owning my posts means people interact with them on my terms. It's no more or less than what I'd get with a blog or a byline. And I'm here literally asking do you think you could say you're sorry? and you're literally here saying no. So I'll try again: apologize. That's the way you get me to extend you goodwill. You had plenty, you burned through it, I'm telling you how to get it back and refusing to do so isn't going to change my mind because right now? Right now what I'm taking note of is that you still refuse to apologize five years later. mk - this is the problem muting solves, and just because you don't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On Reddit, content is owned by the moderators. On Hubski, content is owned by the poster. That is a good thing, not a bad thing, and ownership is meaningless without the ability to assert property rights.I don't want to re-open some five year old argument, so let's please just move past this.
I didn't think anything I said in that thread was unreasonable, so I didn't think I had anything to apologise for. Even looking at it now, I don't think I said anything unreasonable. I tried to move past it, but you clearly have much higher standards for how others should behave than yourself. I expected you to not be graceful, but honestly I didn't expect this much vitriol over this. You win, I'll find another community to join.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that you griped about being muted but didn't apologize, I unmuted you and talked at length about the need to apologize, we're still here conversing about the purpose of apologizing, and your move is to - accuse me of hypocrisy - denigrate my ability to converse - remark about how "much vitriol" I've injected into a comment thread you started by accusing me of toxic tyranny. I'm just pointing that out. I think we can both agree that I'm not reacting to it. I'd like to highlight something else: you argue that this has been an ongoing problem for five years due to something "I probably don't even remember" but when I answer that I do remember, and that I will happily extend an olive branch on exactly one condition, you say I "win" by you leaving. I think you're reacting to a power dynamic. "I didn't think anything I said in that thread was unreasonable, so I didn't think I had anything to apologise for" means that you think we're on equal footing. we're not. The adjudicator of our dispute is me if it's on my posts and you if it's on your posts. wasoxygen has chosen to prevent me from commenting on his posts, which is entirely within his rights - he often posts Libertarian screeds that get under my skin like no other and preventing me from opining certainly keeps his comment threads more cordial. I could certainly reach out to him to ask for permission to comment again - he and I have largely civil discussions outside the realm of economics. But I doubt it would end well. If "it" is a dispute between you and me, and that dispute takes place on content I control, "to move past it" you have to meet my terms. I've explained what those terms are calmly and I've explained the thinking behind them. Simply put, you hurt my feelings cannot be answered with I don't think so. I win if you can understand that. So do you.
I thought you wouldn't remember because, unlike me, you don't constantly see "you're muted here". Look man, you've been incredibly condescending towards me, you were back then as well. Demanding an apology from me as if I'm some child you're scolding is just more of the same. I didn't complain that you muted me; I complained that the feature works in a way that I personally find to be a bit much. Why isn't it enough that you don't see my posts? But honestly, I just can't take this toxicity. I've never understood what was so deeply offensive about what I wrote, and I don't understand why, after all this time, you're still that angry about it. You've been really mean to me, and you act as if I'm the asshole. I'm sorry to be leaving Hubski because I've found a lot of interesting content here, but I don't feel welcome, and hopefully there are some decent alternatives out there. Must be.
This is so much simpler than you're making it out to be. If you'd like to interact with me and my content, I'd like you to be civil. My calls for you to be civil have caused to you become accusatory and petulant. Have I been really mean to you today? Or have I been open, candid and forgiving in order to meet you more than halfway? I'm legitimately trying to have an honest and fruitful discussion here and you're taking every opportunity to be confrontational, even when talking about the harmful effects of confrontation. Especially when you seem to believe in your unalienable right to be confrontational on anything I care to post. Put yourself in my shoes. What do I get out of unmuting you? What did I get out of unmuting you last night? What am I getting out of this conversation? What do I get out of allowing you to comment on anything else I share? What, ultimately, is my reward for interacting with you? If we can both get along, that reward is conversation. If we can't, that reward is actually a punishment. My perspective is that I'm not asking for a lot. Your perspective appears to be that I'm asking entirely too much. Let's try this: why don't you tell me why an apology is too big an ask? Because clearly, you hold this belief deeply and just as clearly, you haven't been able to explain it to me.
Alright, I'll play along. Well... yeah. I was complaining about the mute feature, and when you unexpectedly showed up (I didn't even know you could see my posts), I tried to just move past what I perceived to be an unfair appraisal of what I wrote several years ago, and just let it go. You then proceed to act all aggressive, call me a dick, and demand that I submit to you and apologise for some supposed insult. Then you claim that you've been really open and extending an olive branch, but I felt attacked throughout this whole so called peace offering. Muting someone means something like "Your input is so worthless I'd rather never have to consciously ignore one of your posts again." So it's safe to say I felt pretty hurt by that, and I've honestly felt pretty insulted by how you're talking to me in this thread. You accuse me of ad hominems, being a dick, petulant, burning through goodwill, basically being an all round awful poster, when honestly I try to be interesting when I post, and I only post when I think I have something worth saying. You claim that you extended me a lot of goodwill, and I burned through it all. We had ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT before you muted me. I don't post a lot, so I can pretty quickly go through my whole history. We never had an argument before that one time, and I barely even interacted with you before that. Where was all this goodwill you speak of? I felt it was unnecessarily harsh to mute me after a single disagreement. I also feel it's pretty harsh to demand an apology when I probably felt just as insulted as you did, seemingly without having any inkling that perhaps you haven't been that nice to me either. Like I said, I never understood what was so bad about what I wrote. You've made a lot of hyperbolic claims about what I've been saying, but you never quoted anything to make me understand where I offended you. I thought I was making a reasonable point, maybe a little bit aggressive in tone? But you're constantly aggressive, so why is it so awful if I write something pointed?Have I been really mean to you today?
why don't you tell me why an apology is too big an ask?
I said you were blocked for being a dick years ago as part of an attempt to bridge the gap and promote some healing. I'm sorry if that makes you feel attacked (see how easy that was?). It was not my intention. My goal here is to right what you perceive as a wrong - on the basis that if we can both come out of this conversation with an understanding of the other I won't have to wrong that right again. The problem is, you're apparently having a hard time understanding that your perception of your wrongdoing isn't important here, mine is, since it's my content you wish to interact with. We're at an impasse - I'm saying "you were obnoxious, apologize" and you're saying "I wasn't obnoxious, I won't" which means I'm going to have as little luck getting you to be more considerate in the future as I have in the past. Do you see the problem here? You say you're trying to move past this. I'm giving you a roadmap. You do more than perceive this as hostile, you declare it to be antagonistic and rude over and over again. If this is the way my interactions with you are going to go, why would I want them? Do you see the problem?I was complaining about the mute feature, and when you unexpectedly showed up (I didn't even know you could see my posts), I tried to just move past what I perceived to be an unfair appraisal of what I wrote several years ago, and just let it go. You then proceed to act all aggressive, call me a dick, and demand that I submit to you and apologise for some supposed insult.
Alright, fair enough. If I hurt your feelings back then, I'm sorry that I did, and I certainly didn't intend to. I'll try to avoid it in the future as well, and hopefully we can have some more productive exchanges.