Are you exceptionally likeable?
I already know that I’m not.
Some people like me exceptionally well. But I think most people find me a trifle odd.
Maybe not just a trifle.
And now I know why. I don’t fit this profile at all, and what’s more I don’t think I find people who do fit it all that exceptionally likeable. The article describes exceptionally likeable people as having the nine characteristics I put in quotes in the following list:
(1) “They don’t talk a lot.” They listen instead.
Well, I listen too. But when I get going, I talk a lot.
(2) “They don’t blame.”
But I see nothing wrong – and a lot right, actually – in blaming where blame is due. Use it sparingly, but don’t be afraid to use it. That doesn’t preclude taking responsibility for what I’ve done, because the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
(3) “They don’t try to impress.”
I think I conform to this one, at least.
(4) “They don’t interrupt.”
Oops! I’ve been accused of this, but I usually err only in my zeal to show that I understand, or because I honestly think the person has finished talking when he or she has only paused to think. It also has to do with regional and ethnic differences in conversational rhythms. New Yorkers are not sensitive about being interrupted; they consider it part of conversational enthusiasm.
(5) “They don’t complain.”
I don’t complain much (or at least, as much as I might), because I’ve learned that people don’t like those who grouse. But whenever someone else apologizes for complaining to me, I tell them I’m perfectly fine with their doing it. Because I am perfectly fine with it, up to a point, and few of my friends ever go past that point. If friends can’t listen to complaints, they’re just fair weather friends in my book.
(6) “They aren’t controlling.”
I think I’m okay on this one.
(7) “They don’t criticize.”
I”m usually very careful to couch criticism in very polite terms, if I do it at all. But with those near and dear to me I certainly will criticize if it’s called for, and sometimes it is called for. Intimacy requires some criticism, unless one is involved with a saint.
(8) “They don’t preach.”
I think I’m okay here, too. I do discourse a bit, though.
(9) “They don’t dwell on the past.”
Depends on the meaning of “dwell.” I don’t bring up the past transgressions of anyone unless and until there’s a repeat in the present and the person acts like it’s the first time it ever happened. But I do ruminate internally on the past quite a bit, as most introspective and contemplative people do. After all, it’s only human, as Robert Burns said in 1785 to a field mouse whose nest he’d disrupted with his plow:
But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!Still, thou art blest, compar’d wi’ me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e’e,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward tho’ I canna see,
I guess an’ fear!
That list of qualities essentially describes a human bean bag chair, someone who is there without actually in any way doing anything that requires you to notice and/or pay attention to them. It seems to equate “likable” with “allows other people to be the center of attention.”
Mike
Exceptionally? Oh hell no.
Exceptionably? Heh. Others may concur: “Rather“.
Are you exceptionally likeable?
I’m at about the 15th percentile.
I already know that I’m not.
Neo’s online persona occupies a point about halfway in between Carolyn Glick and the fictional Elaine Benes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxfWZqfVEys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOIGCyAR-0w
This may not be popular here, but I’m going to say that these criteria are little more than a flawed attempt to describe simple courtesy.
To care too much whether you’re liked is an unfortunate kind of servility. That’s not what we need to talk about. I’ve never met Neo, and never will, but her writing is unfailingly polite, if usually vigorous, and often firm. That’s likeable, and more. I’d like to think that I also qualify. And am thus likeable. If you don’t like it, then shut the hell up. Whoops.
I guess I must like you for all the wrong reasons.
This is classical Leftist tripe, disguised as good advice, which intends to create passive populations for its oppressive rule.
Having common courtesy is different than being an obsequious doormat.
All nine reasons are negative. They don’t, they don’t, they don’t… But what do they to be so likeable except force themselves not to do?
I’m really not all that likable. My wife loves me and all. But then, she’s a saint. I have been compared to Archie Bunker quite a bit, by people who still remember the show.
Regarding (7), ‘They don’t criticize’
I learned a technique from an old soccer coach, and I now use it when I coach soccer, and little league, and when I train rookies. He called it the ‘Bad News Sandwich’ and he learned it from a seminar on leadership or some such.
It basically means, you tell someone one good thing they did or do, put the criticism or bad thing in the middle, and then tell them another good thing.
It works wonders with children and coaching. Sometimes even works with adults.
Hmm…likeable. What’s that mean exactly?
I’ve known a fair number of narcissists who fail all items on this checklist, but nonetheless were quite charming and popular. Their relationships often crashed in the long run, but there always more people waiting in line.
Pierre:
They mostly are bland and inoffensive, but also upbeat and fun, I guess. That may appeal to the widest number of people, like beige or white walls.
Girlfriend: Are you done already?
Mistress: Are you done yet?
Wife: Beige… I think I’ll paint the ceiling beige…
Likeable?
Heck, I’m Mr. Does Not Play Well With Others.
KRB
No!
What’s it to ya?
I may be, to a point. The best evidence here, I guess, would be how I was elected president of my high school,. I only ran as kind of a joke, after I’d discovered I spoke well extemporaneously in front of a large group of people. There were four candidates (including myself), and we gave speeches in front of everyone in front of the entire student body, in what was supposed to be a runoff, leading to two finalists, but I got over 65% of the vote — so there I was.
Earlier I’d been chosen captain of the football team, by the new black coach, and I didn’t expect this but it also seemed kind of natural.
I wasn’t pushy. I didn’t care.
Similarly, I guess, years later when I taught for a while at a local university, I thought I was a very hard teacher, but when the students did their evaluations, to my surprise they were highly positive. But I quit teaching because I believed it was bad for my writing. (There’s a big risk you will dull your capacity for self-criticism. I’ve seen this happen with blogs, by the way, notably in the case of Ann Althouse, who parades her vanity wildly, comically, but also to some extent in the case of my friend Michael J. Totten, who has tended for a long time now to close down any conversation of the Middle East with “I’ve been there, you have not.” Neo is to this point reasonably free of such vanity, though some of her commenters would tempt anyone to shut them down.)
When I took a job working as an admitting interviewer in ER the staff gradually gave me more and more responsibility, unsought, because I got along so well in general with most of those who presented themselves during the night.
It’s strange to “talk” about any of this. It’s making me smile, because it’s not something I generally think about — and it doesn’t always work. Occasionally someone will just dislike you on sight. Bullies sometimes were drawn to test me, and I was never a good candidate here to submit. It’s funny, though, how often, the confrontation, the fight, they might become very friendly later on, as though we shared something. Hmm.
Anyway, here I present a contrary example to what’s been presented in the thread. “Exceptionally” may be going a bit far.
Ha! Here’s something else. I just remembered the period when I briefly had to go out and sell. I was low-key, I didn’t really care how it worked out, but it actually went very well.
Moderately likeable, and do not fit any of those descriptors.
My wife, my dog, my kids, my church, my co-workers, my radio audience, my neighbors, other than that, I don’t know.
I don’t do too well on some of the criteria.
(6) “They aren’t controlling.”
I spent 38 years earning my keep flying airplanes. I love to be in control.
(7) “They don’t criticize.”
I instructed pilots a lot of the time. Did I criticize? How’s this: “If brains were gasoline, you couldn’t start a piss ant’s motor scooter.”
(8) “They don’t preach.”
Preaching the gospel according to the gods of aviation was my thing. “There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. There are no old, bold pilots.” And so on.
(3) “They don’t try to impress.”
I never gave up trying to impress my squadron mates or fellow airline pilots.
(2) “They don’t blame.”
I liked to blame a bad landing on “gusty winds.”
(5) “They don’t complain.”
Have you ever eaten airline food?
(9) “They don’t dwell on the past.”
Have you ever met a retired pilot? Especially one in his 80s. The future is short. The past was long. Where would you dwell?
So, I don’t do too well on the likeable check list. 🙂 Next subject.
I fit all of those pretty well, but I have to work a little on a couple of them (the not interrupting, and the not dwelling on the past). The others come naturally to my personality.
If you care about whether or not you are likeable, you are not true to your self. You are what you are. A rose is…..Why worry what others think? They will think what they choose regardless of what you think. Be true to yourself. Only you can do that.
Likeable to whom?
It’s not an inherent attribute, but either a question of quantity or quality, i.e., likeable to “most” people in a given group or in general, or likeable in a Platonic sense, due to one’s virtue or whatever. The former doesn’t entail the latter, and vice versa.
More exactly, there’s a purely positive (descriptive) sense of “likeability” which contents itself with ticking off traits that Our Survey Says people like, and there’s a normative sense that aims for that which is in-itself likeable, whether or not most people are wise enough to actually like it.
For my part, I find that when I like a person, listing off behavioral qualities one by one doesn’t capture what it is I like about them. I like some people who are obnoxious pricks, and others who are gentle, even-tempered saintly types. I suppose that might mean I adhere to a Platonic standard of likeability, but then we might wonder what qualities underlie the enumerated traits of the “exceptionally” (descriptively) likeable; that is, those who simply are liked by many. After all, there does have to be *some* quality or set of qualities possessed by these people that draw others in.
I don’t know what they are, and there probably isn’t a single answer, but I do know that it’s as likely that I’ll dislike someone with the listed traits as find them likeable. Because, again, there’s always something more intangible I’m responding to, certain qualities I could only describe metaphorically or poetically.
So, e.g., if I like a given person already, the “exceptionally likeable” traits become signs of a generous equanimity and quiet self-confidence; if not, as others have said, he’s a doormat. The liking (or disliking) comes first; the trait enumeration comes later, and is typically colored by already established judgments of the person.
For what it’s worth, I recall there was a study done a little while ago (Willis and Todorov, I believe) purporting to establish that we require, and normally only take, a mere 1/10 of a second looking at someone’s face to form an all but indelible impression of them, before they’ve even opened their mouths.
Worse still, it seems that the more baby-like, feminine, and “happy” (whatever that means) your face is, the more people will judge you trustworthy – again, in just 1/10 of a second. Apparently you’re also perceived as significantly smarter than average if you simply look people in the eye when conversing. People with “loose gaits” are judged as more adventurous and extroverted than the norm (probably dovetailing with some of the traits of the exceptionally likeable). The list goes on.
I’m not saying any of this is true. I’m just noting that the discussion, as tends to happen when social science tries to pin things down, has this illusory precision that turns to mush once one looks at all the “data,” making it harder rather than easier to find a foothold.
What are we even talking about?
What is it to “like” someone in the sense in question? Do people tend to like those perceived as smarter or more extroverted and adventurous? Then which traits are more important: the behavioral ones in the article we’re discussing, or mere facial appearance and the looseness of one’s gait? Which traits are dominant in the economy of “liking”? And what exactly does “liking” mean? The best I can determine is that we’re really talking about something more along the lines of finding people not unpleasantly inoffensive, of *not disliking* them rather than positively *liking* them.
Just think about it. If someone said to you, “Man, I really like him. He doesn’t interrupt me, he listens, he’s reluctant to judge and criticize – awesome guy;” wouldn’t that sound a bit off? In fact, it would sound more natural to my ears if someone said, “Guy just looks like an asshole – don’t like him, don’t want to like him.” For that reason alone, the intuitive, pre-discursive aspect of the “facial/gait” line of research seems to me *nearer* the truth, whatever it is.
As for my own likeability – dunno. I’m certainly more of a listener than a talker, and I never express strong opinions in any conversation except with those I know and trust (people with whom I can meaningfully converse).
On the other hand, I’m more of a brooding introvert than a smiling extrovert. I’ve been told my normal appearance is distressing because I seem to be sitting around quietly judging everyone while being tortured by boredom; the brooding seems furtive, which understandably bothers people. I’ve had far more people tell me they intensely disliked me at first based on how I look, or more broadly my comportment, than the opposite.
Yeah, so – probably not likeable, alas.
Haha. What is with the human ego and mortality’s issue and obsession with being liked?
Just kill them all or cut them in two.
Be true to yourself. Only you can do that.
That works up until someone criticizes Trum, which triggers the ego defense of Self/Identity/Politics.
“What kolnai said” lol.
I worked in a small, family owned music store for several years in the 80’s in the Pacific Northwest (it was also the largest music store in the region, so for a “small” store, we moved a substantial amount of merchandise).
Our personal earnings included salary plus commissions (which could be quite substantial… we did much better than merely “make a living” lol), so it quite literally paid to be nice to people. Along with being open, helpful, friendly, and informed.
(I never really “sold” goods: I explained, demonstrated, recommended, and directed customers and other music pros to instruments and to the early music tech which was rapidly changing during that era… I had to like something to “sell” it. From that perspective, I was a crappy salesman. But I was a great teacher, and that characteristic naturally came out when I was enthusiastic about something. I loved the job, and the business, and the customers… it was a good period in my varied life story.)
But… there was this one guy… a regular customer… a professional musician… with nothing striking or strange or annoying about him at all… but, well, I just did not like him.
Instant dislike really… and that was my reaction to him – in his case – from the moment I was hired and became accustomed enough to recognize the regular clientele and separate them out from the walk-ins.
From the start, he gave me the willies (he could “harsh my cool” if you will)… I couldn’t point to anything specific, but I made a serious effort to avoid him.
(If I spotted him in time, and I wasn’t the only one on the floor, I’d escape to the guitar workroom… as I was also the guitar tech, that was always a valid excuse to make myself scarce.)
Anyways. That guy would make a beeline for me every damn time he hit the door.
He liked me. (No, not in that way lol. Most people “liked me”. I was accustomed to that. I may not be able to define why, but put me in some situations, and I guess I’m likable “enough” that it doesn’t surprise me. I like most people, most times, as far as that goes.)
Anyways, my normally warm and convivial persona (which was not entirely an act, lol) would get a little, umm, let’s call it terse, around him.
Likeable? Maybe (probably lol). But I’m pretty sure I can noticeably lower the temp in a room by a couple of physical degrees centigrade if-and-when I’m annoyed enough.
That guy though? He never noticed. He was impervious to the cold.
Fortunately, Chuck – the veteran employee in the store – knew this (we were close, and he had a couple of people he reacted to in exactly the same way… who didn’t bother me at all).
And Charles would effortlessly “switch customers” with me, gracefully inserting himself into the situation (which generally became a profitably remunerative outcome too: the guy-I-avoided-like-the-plague was a professional, and he regularly spent good money on instruments and music tech).
Even thinking about that guy now, 30 years later, sends a shiver down my spine.
All that, to say this.
While I don’t know how (as others have observed) the “likeable list” differs from what seem to be simple rules of courtesy, I’m with kolnai when it comes to pondering on “likable to whom” LOL.
brdavis9 – I’m assuming you’re my old comrade davisbr (from the “old neo” days)… in which case, good to see you, man!
I realize I’m always the prodigal son around here – disappear and return periodically – but it’s awesome to see so many of the old guard still coming out in force. (And newer names too, of course.)
Anyway, loved the anecdote and, suffice it to say, I know exactly what you’re talking about.
kolnai:
Always good to see you.
It’s really kind of an inane list for the insecure. I have friends, and in new situations I seem to get along with new people I meet; that’s about as far as I ever went into analyzing my “likeability”.
My stress test for this sort of situation is that I ref youth soccer, which automatically makes me a “bad guy” in many eyes as soon as I appear. Yet, 99% of my games go well, and I have good interactions with coaches and parents. But there’s that one exception. A few weeks ago doing pregame on a U10 girls game I came across the usual few girls who were wearing earrings. This is major safety concern as balls struck to the ear have caused some serious injuries (including the studs penetrating the soft area behind the ear into the skull). I did the usual reminder that they needed to be removed. Again, in all previous cases the coaches backed me up and sent the girls off to their mothers for remedy. This time the coach went nuts. His first words were “I knew you were going to be a problem!” Never met the guy before, never did any of his games previously. Somehow, my pregame field inspection, warmup etc, where we had no interaction at all convinced him that I was an asshole. He went on a rant and received his yellow card for his efforts. You can’t please everyone.
Likeable is overrated. Progress is made by people whose ideas are superior and who have the ability to impose their will. That silly list of likability attributes has nothing to do with success.
My thought when I read neo’s take was that she should start making YouTube videos.
What she does is unique and needed at this time in history. A YouTube Channel would provide her analysis to a much larger audience, which would be a very good thing.
A family friend is a tennis pro and he is adroit in all nine of these techniques, especially listening and getting others to do the talking. I’ve pointed this out to my children. “He gets paid by the hour. Every minute a client spends happily talking about his or herself is one less minute he has to shag tennis balls.”
I also figured out early on it is a great technique to illicit attraction from the opposite sex. The more time I could get a girl to talk on a date, and listen (feigned or sincerely) the better my odds of getting more dates.
Peter Drucker:
“In every successful organization there is one boss who does not like people, who does not help them, and who does not get along with them. Cold, unpleasant, demanding, he often teaches and develops more men than anyone else. He commands more respect than the most likable man ever could.”
I might disagree with Drucker about whether such an individual should be a *boss*, at least in the sense of a direct people-manager (other than perhaps for a small group under certain circumstances), but I very much agree that there needs to be room for such people in organizations of all kinds. And I’m afraid there isn’t, today, in all too many cases.
I noticed that the list is almost entirely about verbal traits; which is obviously very important. What do you expect from a writer with a verbal brain?
I had a best bud in high school who was extremely likable. No it wasn’t a bromance. He was the eldest from a large Italian family and was very charming and charismatic. Easy to smile and laugh, intelligent and witty and socially laissez-faire. He was very musical and an excellent musician and a sensible thrill seeker (like me), at least until he was able to afford motorcycles.
While his motorcycling exploits were extensive, I don’t believe he ever came off his bike which was a testament to his brains and skill; unlike another childhood friend of mine who put himself into the hospital on numerous occasions, but lived to tell the tales.
My pal and I had many conversations to be sure, but I remember the fun sports and performing music, and so on, more.
I’m pretty likable, by choice; Boy Scouts suited me:
Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent. (12!)
This list of 9 is how to have fine times with work “friends” when you go out on team-building exercises. It’s pretty good for avoiding a lot of problems with the wife, too. It’s shallow, so it fits with what to avoid: “Don’t sweat the small stuff”. Day to day life is much easier that way.
Wife and I have more important things to discuss, sometimes disagree on (drug legalization, for example), how to raise kids, how lovely she is (compliments are VERY important, tho not too many), how to change the world, what did we think of the last movie we saw.
The reason to be likable to most at first is to find some with whom you can enjoy spending more time. Friends require both quantity time, and quality time.
Great anecdotes above, thanks.
They listen? You mean they suffer all the having their ears talked off?
I won’t talk your ear off, most of the time, but I really resent your using it for your own talking my ear off.
brdavis9 : Your story reminds me of a trip I took to Mackinac Island years ago with my kids.
We took our German shepherd on a leash and sat on a wall eating lunch.
People would walk up and ask to pet Motley and she loved it.
Lots of people.
But one guy, just one, that when he walked by, she started a low guttural growl.
He was twenty feet away!
I wonder about that guy to this day.
I just try to be friendly, put a dash of light heartedness in the moment, see their point of view if we differ, and try to keep things in perspective. This usually works with my non-supervisor colleagues. I have two supervisors, both of which I would never, ever want to have drinks with. I avoid talking about politics unless it’s the most driest of politics with friends and family members.
I think you’re off the mark on #2 (They Don’t Blame)
It’s fine to blame yourself. It’s also fine to recognize failings.
The issue is people who make failures into personal attack against someone else.
Nobody likes to be targeted, and while people may approve you targeting another, it erodes trust because they might be next.
We all make mistakes: we’re all human. So if we’re excoriating people who make mistakes, it’s only a matter of time before we ourselves are in the dock.
Frequently when pointing out a failing someone has made, sometimes I first minimize it by making fun of a similar failing I have.
I may even have to embellish or exaggerate my own failing so that it appears to be on par with theirs.
Then I’ll explain how their mistake is easy to make if [insert made-up excuse here].
They now know that they don’t need to defend themselves because I’ve already given them an excuse.
I’ve exonerated them of guilt, so we can get right to the technical mater of what actually failed, why, how to prevent it, and how to move on.
Very valuable technique for dealing with engineers.
kolnai on October 27, 2019 at 7:27 am said:
Thanks kolnai! Yep. New-ish name, same me… mostly only lurking these days (work busy). I see a lot of new names, and some of the old, too. You I know lol.
That guy wasn’t our tribe nor Motley’s pack. Superior dogs sense stuff and share lol.
Well, I’m exceptional, and I like you.
Does that count?
If you care about whether or not you are likeable, you are not true to your self. You are what you are.
Haha. While I care less and less as time goes on, I notice that others here care a lot more about whether I am likeable or not. Including you, parker.
Fractal Rabbit on October 26, 2019 at 8:03 pm said:
I’m really not all that likable.
You are ok by standards. On the medium grade of tolerable, because you at least try not to waste your time and mine with tangents and meaningless arguments.
There are a lot more emotionally unstable people who think they can hide their outbursts from me, if they only write shorter criticisms.
I”m usually very careful to couch criticism in very polite terms, if I do it at all. But with those near and dear to me I certainly will criticize if it’s called for, and sometimes it is called for. Intimacy requires some criticism, unless one is involved with a saint.
It is not criticism that concerns me but when you violate or go against your own stated principles of free expression, debate, discourse, discussion.
When you try to hide topics from other people’s eyes merely because you claim you are not interested. I do not hide anyone else’s comments here from other people merely because I find them less valuable or less useful or off topic, nor would I if I had the power to do so.
Why?
Because the Divine Counsel is with me.
(9) “They don’t dwell on the past.”
That issue will become very important for humanity due to the creation of a Borg/collective conscious mind. You know it as Facebook, social media, and the Wayback internet machine. The ability for a race or species or civilization to actually REMEMBER exactly what happened to people in the past, righteous or unrighteous, will be very important later on.
But I think most people find me a trifle odd.
You look normal to me. Although I have yet to find anyone even similar to me. They are just a bit too normal for that.
I am also normal, given America’s Trum standards at least haha.
Neo is to this point reasonably free of such vanity, though some of her commenters would tempt anyone to shut them down.
Some of that is due to an intellectual, rationalization reaction of protecting the Ego from some hard hitting truths. The other part would be difficulty in reading grammatical or spelling problems that result. And the last part would be the lack of substantive arguments.
The anti left prides itself on intellectualism superior to SJWrongs, and on that point I concede. Yet when they lack an argument, many still default to name calling although it is not ad hominem name calling. They do not say “Ymar is a troll, thus he is wrong”. They actually side step the rational point entirely, which is a good tactic. Whereas the Left says “you are a racist, thus you are wrong too and evil to boot”, the Right or the anti Left doesn’t quite do that. They just use the ALinsky Rule to ridicule, they do not out right claim that the argument is correct because the arguer is a weak woman or someone Trum stomped on. Rather, Trum stomped on them on twitter because they were weak, not that they were weak and then someone came and stomped on them saying that they were justified in doing so due to weakness. Whereas the leftist alliance uses Might Makes Right, the anti Left coalition uses “IQ is right, and the weak are ridiculous”.
The problem with that is when someone, like Ymar comes along, and cannot be dismiss as having a low IQ, nor can he be labeled as a SJWrong or Leftist (hahaha, you ….), so what is left? Just ignore em and he will go away? Well, that’s probably the best people have.
They can’t deal with the logical arguments. THey can’t even understand the logical arguments. In that fashion, they can experience the same reaction that leads to Leftist Sj screaming about Bad Man Orange.
The sum total of physicsguy’s response to the 3 body problem in calculus differential equations that Newton failed to solve, thus leaving his gravity theory with a serious mathematical problem, was basically “Ymar needs to get an education”.
Really, a physics teacher and professor tells someone online that they need an education because… they cannot understand the math nor can they out argue the facts or even repeat the debate’s central thesis and issue to argue against it.
If conservatives are slightly more polite about having their sacred cows being cooked, it is not much more than the emotional reactions of Leftists that I have experienced for more than 10 years online.
Also, Neo and the other regulars here can maybe remember, but I do recall warning people repeatedly over the years that their normal behavior and pacification methods wouldn’t work on me.
Normal people get angry if you criticize them but get pacified if you agree with them. Same as a previous writer here wrote about criticisms. You can disarm someone from automatically ego defending themselves vs your criticism if you layer in some sweet sugar (poison) with the bitter medicine.
Ymar, however, gets pissed off if you agree with him or if you disagree with him.
The reasons are simple.
1. People who agree, are copying ideas and creating a false borg collective bubble of same thought. This is not good. There should be no agreement unless forged from conflict and discussion/cooperation. Very difficult to do online, thus I disagree with “agreement”.
2. People who disagree, are often just contesting personal ego structures with “I know more than you do” or “you can’t attack my job and community, they give me money”. Another waste of time, most likely more of a waste than the first one.
Thus I disagree, with “I agree to disagree”. There is no disagreement, there is just meaningless conflict online between artificial personas (sorta like the one Trum and Alex Jones uses). Normal people do not understand themselves nor do they understand their enemies. To use a metaphor or parable, imagine you are a Leftist.. okay anti Leftist, and you are in a Red vs Blue fight over a Syrian war effort and strategic choice. Do you understand all opposing viewpoints and factions? The problem with Leftist alliance SJWrongs is that they do not understand the other viewpoint, but former Demoncrats can understand Leftist viewpoints (former Demoncrat Trum, as well as others here). This only becomes a problem when NEITHER side understands the other, because they have progressed too far gone into the Left hand path vs the Right hand path. Not that many people consciously on the Right hand path.
Do people understand the Satan/Alinsky that they use? Do SJWrongs understand the flaws and strengths of Trum? No and No. So what are they disagreeing about? Nothing. A dream. An illusion even.
Or maybe the use of Alex Jones will get this comment “disappeared” too? Predictable?
Ymarsakar:
I’ve indicated this before but apparently it bares repeating: on this blog there is no principle of free debate.
Free debate online in general? Yes. Shutting down views elsewhere that I don’t like or agree with? No.
But on my blog it is like my house, and debate is not free. Commenters are here at my discretion and I have the power to ban them or censor them or edit them for whatever I decide to ban them or censor or edit them for. This is like my metaphorical living room and people are guests here. I welcome many guests and many points of view, but I have certain rules for behavior here, as well as topics here. I am quite lax about it, actually, and let people natter on quite a bit (and to the point of eccentricity and/or too many comments and/or at too great length) quite a bit. But I have my limits and I will enforce them as I see fit with no contradiction in terms of my support for freedom of speech in general in public forums.
The blog is the equivalent of a house with a doorbell and door and I am the host with the right to tell anyone to leave for any reason. I also pay for this blog, although that’s not really the basis on which I reserve that right.
neo,
Not to tell you how to think about your own blog, but…
I think a better analogy than your home is your establishment, or place of business. If you own a restaurant, or a bar, you will naturally police the behavior of the patrons.
A patron can be “bad for business,” making others less likely to patronize, but, more importantly in this instance, others will judge you by the contents of this site.
It is your name over the door.
You have developed an admirable reputation among the owners of many sites (I often see links to your posts while reading other sites) and have been featured in professional publications.
Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google… it is a different argument when and how those companies police their patrons. Unlike you, they are not akin to a restaurant. They are like the public thoroughfare that gives patrons access to your restaurant.
You don’t need to apologize for how you choose to run your business.
I should add; I am not put off by any of the commenters here. I like the way you run your site, obviously. Merely making the point that you do enough by providing a place for us to congregate and kibitz. It’s the least we can do to keep our elbows off the tables and try to hit the spittoons.
J.J. on October 27, 2019 at 12:18 am said:
You are probably one of the kinder and more tolerable people here. Although your prior belief in the status quo of the American system can be a little too naive for my understanding.
And by kind, I don’t mean the quality of your writing or criticism but what is going on in your heart while you address certain issues.
But I have my limits and I will enforce them as I see fit with no contradiction in terms of my support for freedom of speech in general in public forums.
The blog is the equivalent of a house with a doorbell and door and I am the host with the right to tell anyone to leave for any reason.
Tolerating freedom for speech you dislike is part of the philosophy of freedom of speech in general. That does not mean agreement or support, but it at least means refraining from preventing two people here who are interested from engaging each other on a topic, that even if it does not interest you, is at least not offensive to the two involved.
You are not defending your ego house but invading or violating the freedom of discussion between two other adults, or more, with such behavior and justifications.
The blog is the equivalent of a house with a doorbell and door and I am the host with the right to tell anyone to leave for any reason.
I’ll give you a parable since your intellect and ego is creating distortions based upon a perceived defense of something that has never been attacked.
If I come into your house and talk to you about a subject you find offensive, you can gladly ask me to leave or be quiet and I will.
If I am a guest in your home, and you are somewhere else, and I am engaging in a discussion, polite and no offensive taken by anyone, between 2 or more people on topic A, Z, F, and E, and you, the host, comes in and shuts down the debate by putting a muzzle on one of those involved, I or anyone else might find that quite peculiar. Because this is not the host coming in and telling them “these are the rules”. This is an over reaction and quite a rude one at that.
You have “rules” but those rules don’t cover your over reactive defense of something that nobody has attacked. Thus while you criticize Ravelry and social media for shutting down debate, this argument is almost literally destroyed by your own behaviors on certain topics that apparently trigger you.
And why does it trigger you, Neo? Have you ever wondered that. Why does it make you angry or afraid. People can talk about child pedos and Art goes on forever and ever calling me moron and stupid and others even more creative name, but you don’t disappear his comments. You may edit them, but you don’t pretend they never exist and aren’t interesting.
So no, Neo, your justifications don’t even make any reasonable sense, let alone are they correct or justified. I already demonstrated quite clearly how your behavior doesn’t even follow your own rules that you had the graciousness to “rewrite” for my benefit, in the previous threads that you said I didn’t read.
For those that don’t understand what I am talking about, Neo’s tolerance for personal attacks is WAY WAY WAY higher than the FE topic. To the point where she wants me to self censor myself and not even mention the topic, to others, or when others are talking about on topic conspiracies.
The previous criticism she had was that the “rules” say off topic can be deleted or edited. But on speculative conspiracy theory threads like Epstein, every Conspiracy is allowed, except the theory she doesn’t want to see or anyone else to see apparently.
I find that strange, troubling, and also inconsistent with your theoretical support of free speech whenever you write about Ravelry and Leftist social media suppression of alternative view points.
Since the topics are arbitrary and she gives no reason for why she disappears certain comments or commentators but not others, just “she has limits”, well, what makes me believe that anything I refuse to self censor, ala Alex Jones, won’t trigger her “limits”?
She has no philosophical grounding for what she arbitrarily approves or disapproves. If she did, it would at least make logical sense. If you violate the rules, then the community doesn’t allow it.
But the “rule” here in this case is “whatever I think is right is right, or might makes right”. That’s not so much a community rule as dictatorial/totalitarian Left hand philosophy. Might makes right. Hierarchical, do as I say, not as I do.
It’s a kind of over reaction. If someone came in my house and thought it was his house, I don’t shoot him for it. I don’t say “well, it is my property and he is trespassing, so because he didn’t get out when I told him it was my house but started arguing with me, I shot his limbs and head off”.
Yeah, that “sounds reasonable”, doesn’t it, Neo. This isn’t far fetched either. Police officers have come home drunk and shot people, but they actually went into somebody else’s apartment open door.
Yammer is being “oppressed” again by our patient and gracious hostess. Sad.
Ymarsakar,
Thou doth protest too much. Neo is good people and she hosts an interesting site, as evidenced by your, and my presence here now.
Ymarsakar:
Actually, I’ve written several comments addressed to you (and others) describing why I delete certain comments. I’ve even written posts about it. You are either ignoring what I wrote or forgetting.
A short short summary:
Sometimes for length.
Sometimes for too many comments (especially long ones) in one thread.
Sometimes for insults.
Sometimes for off-topic – in fact, that’s one of your big offenses.
Sometime for certain topics that a particular commenter has posted on over and over and over again, something I have researched and looked into and don’t want to provide a forum for. Among those things are anti-Semitism, flat earth theory, aliens (of the outer space kind), religious proselytizing, comments I consider too bigoted or too violent, or a lot of repetition in general.
That’s not meant to be an exhaustive list, and I don’t owe anyone an explanation, but I’ve often given it.
Ymarsakar:
And your analogy is incorrect and extreme.
You are free to post your ideas at length online at other forums, including a blog you set up for yourself. No one here is doing violence to you and no one has any intention of doing so.
My analogy is correct, and it has to do with rules for discussions made by a host for people visiting that person’s residence. If I invite someone to a dinner party at my house I don’t have to invite them back.
That said, I am indeed tolerating a GREAT deal of speech I dislike and with which I disagree. You’ve been here for the duration, and you should understand the rules by now. You don’t have to agree with them, but those are the rules and those are my reasons.
Wait.
Wha’???
No aliens?!?
Bu… bu… but.
I see I’ve been laboring under a serious misapprehension here. For years. I thought we mostly discussed aliens.
I mean… sure… we refer to them by the code word Democrat, but still.
I’m gonna have to seriously rethink this.
Hmm.