Ways to experience an alien invasion

I think what matters is that we are not owed an explanation or clarification.

If something appears to be an incoherent rambling, maybe it is, and complaining about it will not change that.

Speaking of accusations, if anyone must really stir a conversation that way, it would be best to back them up with evidence. I don't think there can be a more obvious way of 'discussing people' than by accusing them of breaking rules... So if it somehow adds to the conversation, in a way that isn't the obvious logical fallacy we know all too well, please make sure to backup your claims. Thank you.

This thread proves my original point nicely I must say, about how subjective bias closes peoples minds to opportunities in a topic. It's good to be open minded so one doesn't cut their own noses off despite their faces. Kyrin threw her hands in the air when I proved my point was accurate yesterday and tried to make it about me being evasive and using 'big words' and now Gisteron rushes in to say the same thing, seemingly because they both shared the same view which I argued. There is no need to wave your hands around in frustration just because I had a point.

Gisteron wrote: What on earth is a "mental health accusation"? You make it sound like "mental health" is any kind of undoing one can be accused of.

The reason I don't understand what you are talking about is that you make no effort at all to be clear and indeed are going out of your way to not be.

Incorrect. I made a post, someone asked about what I meant, and I tried to explain. What I meant in that post was the way of thinking about the topic, which is why that is what I was answering about the way of thinking.

That is an important point to consider. Because it is exactly what makes my posts relevant to her questions, for that is what she was asking about.

Gisteron wrote: The topic at hand was fairly specific: Alien invasions and how to experience them. Jumping fourteen-and-a-half levels of meta higher from one post to the next and then continuing on with deconstructing "reality" is - at least in my understanding - not a way to get a message across such that it be understood by any would-be interlocutors.

That is what was asked of me, because that was the point that she enquired about. As it was I was accused of being evasive for not answering questions, but I had to answer them in the context to the point I was making otherwise it would have just been a one way conversation.

Gisteron wrote: None of this has anything to do with the topic nor even with the posts immediately preceeding.

When Kyrin finally asked for how that might apply to the topic specifically I gave her an answer. It's at that point that you both seemingly replaces the purpose of my original post with this and blame me for rambling about 'meta' none-sense. Which as I've explained here is wrong. Perhaps if she'd asked the question she wanted an answer to earlier she might have gotten it earlier - but I give people the benefit of the doubt that they can ask what they want to know. It's a bit rich to then turn around and attack the person trying to help by answering about not being a mind reader and knowing what they really wanted LOL. It's obviously rotten as heck to then attack the person for it.... if we're being genuine about it.

Gisteron wrote: Kyrin expressed her own confusion at what you were saying back in post #335771 where it could still have been argued that you are engaging with the topic at hand, after which you proceeded completely off any rails this discussion might have had at the time instead of clearing up any unclarities raised. I disengaged two pages ago because my interest in deconstructionism is slimmer still than your apparent interest in the topic.

Which is why I've been answering her questions while she tried to understand my point. It's called discussion. Interesting to see how you end on making a personal slight against me there in your post. That is a good example of shifting from a topic to the person. You assert that you think I have no interest in the topic because you know being on topic is important, and it supports your position that I was off topic and being unclear. Yet you've no given any evidence, just constructed narrative which happens to be false. I don't mind if you don't understand something, but why the attacking of people if not just to be argumentative? Is that why your hear, because you only ever seem to post when you argue with someone? It's good to argue ideas and concepts, and explore them... but arguing people, blah.

In regards to the mental health thing. I thought I had I made my point clear... but since you asked
It's abused online a lot because of the anonymity afforded by the platform. So, as I said, if someone thinks this and feels the need to communicate it to a person, it seems way way way more appropriate to do it in private. As it can be a delicate topic for sufferers of it, and private. So if unqualified people (or even someone who actually is qualified to make a diagnosis) come out making public claims about it to someone... then not only can it make it worse for a sufferer, but it can compromise their privacy. That is my main concern. Another angle on this is people can, and have, used these unqualified internet 'diagnosis' as a form of bullying to marginalize a persons contribution by making their participation appear as if mental illness equates to dysfunction, and/or that they are displaying it sufficient to be obvious. Which is why I used the word 'tact' in my original comment about it.... it's not difficult to sit at a keyboard and offer a diagnosis under the auspices of good faith, but it might be difficult for the person your sending it to or others reading it.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Attachment images.jpeg.jpg not found

I'll take that as a reference to yourself since the rules clearly say to not attack 'other' people.

Unless you meant me! So it would classify as an attack AFAIK, unless of course you can point it out - as I have now several times about how and where yours was limiting you. But I'm happy to keep amplifying my explanations as you seemingly require... in defence of my argument. So given the absence of any evidence from you and Gisteron... it shouldn't be required anyway, but you keep stoking it Kyrin if you want - maybe all things considered, perhaps take it to PM (you can even include Gisteron if the platform supports it).

Adder wrote: This thread proves my original point nicely I must say, about how subjective bias closes peoples minds to opportunities in a topic.

If we want to claim cheap victories, let's. This line alone demonstrates my point nicely, that you are not talking about the topic, you are talking about thinking about not even just the topic, but topics in general.

It's good to be open minded so one doesn't cut their own noses off despite their faces. Kyrin threw her hands in the air when I proved my point was accurate yesterday and tried to make it about me being evasive and using 'big words' and now Gisteron rushes in to say the same thing, seemingly because they both shared the same view which I argued. There is no need to wave your hands around in frustration just because I had a point.

If by now me rushing in you mean my rushing in three days ago to express the same confusion at your sudden leap to a meta-discussion and off the actual topic, and then a subsequent step back while you kept exploring that peripheral rabbit hole further, then sure. Point granted.

I made a post, someone asked about what I meant, and I tried to explain. What I meant in that post was the way of thinking about the topic, which is why that is what I was answering about the way of thinking.

That is an important point to consider. Because it is exactly what makes my posts relevant to her questions, for that is what she was asking about.

I remember the first thing she said to you on page 4 was that she didn't know what you were on about. I suspect that she, too, was confused like I was, because out of nowhere you came in with a meta-discussion that had almost nothing to do with the topic at the time or the thread more broadly, and hence, enquired for elaboration. But my memory has failed me before...

Gisteron wrote: The topic at hand was fairly specific: Alien invasions and how to experience them. Jumping fourteen-and-a-half levels of meta higher from one post to the next and then continuing on with deconstructing "reality" is - at least in my understanding - not a way to get a message across such that it be understood by any would-be interlocutors.

That is what was asked of me, because that was the point that she enquired about. As it was I was accused of being evasive for not answering questions, but I had to answer them in the context to the point I was making otherwise it would have just been a one way conversation.

Gisteron wrote: None of this has anything to do with the topic nor even with the posts immediately preceeding.

When Kyrin finally asked for how that might apply to the topic specifically I gave her an answer. It's at that point that you both seemingly replaces the purpose of my original post with this and blame me for rambling about 'meta' none-sense.

I came back after her mentioning a brief private exchange between the two of us and after you said something about "mental health accusations" one of which I read as referring to my advice at Rebekka to seek professional help. That you had begun a meta discussion on that same page is something you even openly admit as having been your "original point", so I'm not sure what the dispute here even is.

Perhaps if she'd asked the question she wanted an answer to earlier she might have gotten it earlier - but I give people the benefit of the doubt that they can ask what they want to know. It's a bit rich to then turn around and attack the person trying to help by answering about not being a mind reader and knowing what they really wanted LOL. It's obviously rotten as heck to then attack the person for it.... if we're being genuine about it.

Yes, it is. You have my sympathies if you suffered such an attack and whosoever issued any shall see no defense of it from me.

Gisteron wrote: ... I disengaged two pages ago because my interest in deconstructionism is slimmer still than your apparent interest in the topic.

... Interesting to see how you end on making a personal slight against me there in your post. That is a good example of shifting from a topic to the person. You assert that you think I have no interest in the topic because you know being on topic is important, and it supports your position that I was off topic and being unclear. Yet you've no given any evidence, just constructed narrative which happens to be false.[/quote]Granted, my conclusion that you had a slim interest in the topic was a bit rash. It could well be that you have strong interest in the topic and elected to speak of thinking about topics generally instead of engaging with the topic itself for a more pressing reason. I apologize and promise to remember to try and be more careful in making such deductions in future.

I don't mind if you don't understand something, but why the attacking of people if not just to be argumentative? Is that why your hear [sic], because you only ever seem to post when you argue with someone? It's good to argue ideas and concepts, and explore them... but arguing people, blah.

Eventhough my conclusion was made sooner than it'd have been completely warranted (though one has to remember that your very first contribution to this thread was already beginning a meta-discussion, unconnected to even the posts preceeding it, so we are not talking about anything far-fetched here, just rash), I do not believe that an "accusation" of disinterest in the topic constitutes any kind of attack. My apology for doing it stands, but I made no attack against your person and needn't defend against that accusation.

In regards to the mental health thing. I thought I had I made my point clear... but since you asked
It's abused online a lot because of the anonymity afforded by the platform. So, as I said, if someone thinks this and feels the need to communicate it to a person, it seems way way way more appropriate to do it in private. As it can be a delicate topic for sufferers of it, and private. So if unqualified people (or even someone who actually is qualified to make a diagnosis) come out making public claims about it to someone... then not only can it make it worse for a sufferer, but it can compromise their privacy. That is my main concern. Another angle on this is people can, and have, used these unqualified internet 'diagnosis' as a form of bullying to marginalize a persons contribution by making their participation appear as if mental illness equates to dysfunction, and/or that they are displaying it sufficient to be obvious. Which is why I used the word 'tact' in my original comment about it.... it's not difficult to sit at a keyboard and offer a diagnosis under the auspices of good faith, but it might be difficult for the person your sending it to or others reading it.

Be that as it may - and make no mistake, I do agree with everything you said here - I still do not know what a "mental health accusation" is. If you find that I have been mocking or bullying or in some other way tactless with respect to matters of mental health, I can only hope to assure you that my intentions were... if not pure, then surely, still, not to cause any distress. While I wouldn't dare speak on anyone else's behalf, I did not yet get the impression that anyone else meant more harm mentioning such things than I did either.

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: This thread proves my original point nicely I must say, about how subjective bias closes peoples minds to opportunities in a topic.

If we want to claim cheap victories, let's. This line alone demonstrates my point nicely, that you are not talking about the topic, you are talking about thinking about not even just the topic, but topics in general.

That is because that was what my original post was about, which was what was being enquired about, which as explained above is why I answered about it.... rather then something which wasn't said or asked about :silly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C91gKuxutTU

How sad. I'd lost track of this thread since its early stage until now, and find that nearly the entire second half of it has departed from the original topic almost entirely in deference to an ongoing exchange focused on a modestly aggressive comparison of the intellectual and emotional weaknesses of the participants. The most frequently used words since somewhere on the fifth page seem to be "I" and "you".

Metaphorically, it feels like a descent from the fabled Atlantis to a barroom brawl. We could do better, yes?

Aliens invaded our minds, then the thread caught an alien-transmitted-infection and here we are, wondering how much a brain condom would have cost.