Toxic Axe Personality Disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO debate is great. It separates good ideas from bad. Some may not like someone's 'tone' in a debate. Fine, but does what he say have some validity to it ? Use critical thinking skills to spot logical fallacies. A common logical fallacy employed is the ad hominem attack - which is attacking the man rather than his arguments. When someone employs nothing but name calling, I grow highly suspicious that it's all he's got. I've seen some attack others methods. Fine. But then they offered no example of their own methods that we could evaluate. That is useless.
If you come here and promote a business, expect to be challenged. You put yourself out there as an expert (people must pay for your products and/or services). Tough, challenging questions are part of the process for determining if a customer wants to buy or not.

Personally, I think it's very unlikely that there are many true experts with the axe as a working tool, out there today. What do I mean ? The real experts are loggers who make their living cutting down trees. They went to the chainsaw many decades ago. So, most of us modern axe enthusiasts/hobbyists probably have a lot that we can learn.
 
Last edited:
FortyTwoBlades said:
I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the term. Sealioning requires aggressiveness, feigned civility, and an unwilling debate partner. The opposite party must not want to engage in the debate, and the sealion is unrelenting, while using the guise of civility to shield themselves from reproach. That's very different from the dissenting party having a point or asking for evidence of a claim.
Click to expand...

Its certainly possible that I didn't understand the cartoon. Its also possible that I simply don't agree with the point being made. Much of the reason that I disagree with it is that:
(a) aggressiveness on something as passive as an internet forum is very subjective - aggressiveness in a face to face discussion is decidedly less so. The standards of behavior for each are very different, we should not mix them up.
(b) Feigned civility is harder to spot than you think. Indeed, I would say that one of the primary purposes of civility is to keep people from coming to blows when they dislike each other but must occupy the same "space" at times - whether that be running into each other in a small town bar or having to run across each other on a forum of shared interest like this one. From that perspective, isn't most civility disingenuous if not feigned? How do you judge then?
(c) The unwilling debate partner has but to abandon interaction in order to terminate the debate. Therefore there are no unwilling debate partners on the internet.

FortyTwoBlades said:
It's often possible to sniff out disingenuous posturing. Namely because attempts to feign civility are often imperfect and transparent. :D See the original example of the literal sealion claiming to have been unfailingly polite despite ignoring flat out requests to go away and invading a private residence. :p
Click to expand...

To be honest with you, I found that cartoon to be rather silly. Perhaps I just don't get the humor though. If it was meant to be illustrative rather than humorous, the whole thing seemed far too contrived to work, even as an allegory. Just my opinion though.
 
No, the original comic was just absurdist humor. It only later became a term. It's something I've seen done many times before, though, and not just in the context of TAPD. Most often it's around political or theological matters.

I'd again assert that I don't think you quite grok the meaning of the term, but it's not really any skin off my nose and you're welcome to your opinion of it. At least now it's a phenomenon you're aware of and can at least have it on your radar, even if to decide on its absence.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
No, the original comic was just absurdist humor. It only later became a term. It's something I've seen done many times before, though, and not just in the context of TAPD. Most often it's around political or theological matters.
Click to expand...

I'd call Monty Python absurdist humor, because its absurd and funny. That cartoon is just absurd, yet not particularly funny - there is no wit involved, no irony, no sudden quip that spins the whole thing around on you.

FortyTwoBlades said:
I'd again assert that I don't think you quite grok the meaning of the term, but it's not really any skin off my nose and you're welcome to your opinion of it. At least now it's a phenomenon you're aware of and can at least have it on your radar, even if to decide on its absence.
Click to expand...

No, it sounds like the meaning of the term is roughly what I got, and I've certainly seen the behavior often enough - it's about as old as the spoken word, btw, not a new phenomenon of the internet. Its just more annoying on the internet, so perhaps more noticeable.

The difference is, I think, that I prefer to not assign motives to other persons' behaviors, knowing from experience that I do not always fully understand their motivations so my interpretation of them is likely to be flawed to some degree or another. This is part of what I meant about being polite to others by default for our own benefit, rather than for theirs. We politely assume the best motivations in them rather than the worst, to stay out of petty feuds and small minded bickering. It seems to me that you may not understand that, or perhaps just haven't gotten the knack of it yet.

Its like the old Shaw quote about the futility of wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it. As I said, this stuff is vastly older than the internet!
 
:oops:

sea-lion-fight.jpg



Bob
 
serotina said:
I'd call Monty Python absurdist humor, because its absurd and funny. That cartoon is just absurd, yet not particularly funny - there is no wit involved, no irony, no sudden quip that spins the whole thing around on you.



No, it sounds like the meaning of the term is roughly what I got, and I've certainly seen the behavior often enough - it's about as old as the spoken word, btw, not a new phenomenon of the internet. Its just more annoying on the internet, so perhaps more noticeable.

The difference is, I think, that I prefer to not assign motives to other persons' behaviors, knowing from experience that I do not always fully understand their motivations so my interpretation of them is likely to be flawed to some degree or another. This is part of what I meant about being polite to others by default for our own benefit, rather than for theirs. We politely assume the best motivations in them rather than the worst, to stay out of petty feuds and small minded bickering. It seems to me that you may not understand that, or perhaps just haven't gotten the knack of it yet.

Its like the old Shaw quote about the futility of wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it. As I said, this stuff is vastly older than the internet!
Click to expand...

Ok...if you don't find it funny that really has nothing to do with anything here. Not even sure what the point of remarking on it is?

And as far as the rest of your remarks I'd ask you not to make presumptions about me. I absolutely do understand what you're saying, and it's not what the meaning of the term is. That's as far as I'm going to discuss this matter (I've not the time nor energy to continue on this line of debate) and quite frankly am regretting having brought it up in the first place because it seems to be muddying the waters rather than making them more lucid.
 
Sea lions - saw a bunch of those this weekend. Stole a Silver off one of our lines - hope the hook does him good.

This is a picture I snapped months ago from one of my daughter's picture books. My wife works with a "sea lion" - the one and only guy in a crew of women. I've been sending this to her with meme style quips on it regularly to share with her coworkers after hearing of his daily "Cock in the Hen House" routine. He does a lot of barking from the highest rock.

Untitled by Agent Hierarchy, on Flickr

Difference is he actually looks like a sea lion as well.
I know this isn't helpful but it makes me laugh and I hope it does someone else :thumbsup:
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Ok...if you don't find it funny that really has nothing to do with anything here. Not even sure what the point of remarking on it is?
Click to expand...

The point of remarking on it is to acknowledge that different people see things differently. You find stuff funny that I don't. To recognize this is to understand that people's differing perspectives is just the way the world is, and that those perspectives are not necessarily better or worse for the fact that they differ.

FortyTwoBlades said:
And as far as the rest of your remarks I'd ask you not to make presumptions about me. I absolutely do understand what you're saying, and it's not what the meaning of the term is. That's as far as I'm going to discuss this matter (I've not the time nor energy to continue on this line of debate) and quite frankly am regretting having brought it up in the first place because it seems to be muddying the waters rather than making them more lucid.
Click to expand...

This is actually very humorously ironic to me, because I expect you will now call me that sealion, and it was completely and fully unintentional :D

In that regard I wouldn't say you've muddied the waters at all, though I doubt you've made the point you wished to make.

We can certainly drop it if you prefer - since discussion takes two, you have the power to end it.

(BTW, I'm laughing at my part in this as much as anyone's - just in case that isn't clear. Honestly this is hilarious to me how we fall into roles without always meaning to do so :D )
(part of the reason its so funny is there is another example in the thread that I expect you don't see due to your ignore list - going on a vague recollection there - The example is one of a discussion by one instead of two.)
 
Nope, not calling you a sealion. I'm just saying I'm done on that front and regret having brought it up. I totally get that people view things differently--especially when it comes to humor. It's just that the humor factor kind of didn't have a significant role in the point I was attempting to make; it was just the origin of the term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top