[FairfieldLife] Re: More about arguing -- the deja vu factor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: You all know how much I love to spot trends. :-) One trend I have noticed is that actual creativity (and, as a result, the amount of actual content in posts as opposed to the same old same old drivel) waxes and wanes. NOT just on FFL; this seems to be a larger phenomenon. That is, at the same time that FFL goes boring and no one seems to be able to come up with anything new to talk about, so do all of the other forums I read. But the fascinating thing for me is that when one of these Boring Periods happens and no one seems to have anything interesting to say, *posters tend to fill the silence with arguing*. It's as if arguing has become a form of misdirection used by those who are bored and have nothing to say, one that allows them to pretend that they have something to say. One way you can always tell when someone is arguing just because they're bored and don't have anything to say but feel compelled to say something anyway is what I call the déjà vu factor. That's when someone is so desperate to say something -- anything -- that they trot out and restarts an argument they've had dozens of times before. This happens a LOT on Fairfield Life. And it kinda makes me wonder about the intelligence of the people who engage in the *same* argument over and over -- week after week, month after month, year after year -- and with the *same* people. Are these people so stupid that they actually believe that they'll win the argument this time, and finally convince the other person that they're right? If that were true, it's pretty much one of the textbook definitions of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Says Rev. Barry Blowhard as he trots out another déjà vu post from his wayback drivel machine, Everyone is boring but me. Is he so desperate to say something -- anything -- he'll restart a sermon he's given dozens of times before? This happens a LOT on Fairfield Life. And it kinda makes me wonder about his intelligence when we hear the same old sermons over and over -- week after week, month after month, year after year -- to the *same* people. Is he so stupid that he actually believes that he will win us over this time, and finally convince us that he's right? If that were true, it's pretty much one of the textbook definitions of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It seems to me that with regard to several déjà vu arguments -- like the existence or non-existence of global warming, the idiocy or non-idiocy of Sarah Palin, the bestness or the ordinariness of TM, etc. -- everyone here already knows what they believe. What they believe on these subjects is never going to change. So why do they keep arguing about them, *as if* they could somehow change the other people's minds? I think it's because the people rerunning these same déjà vu arguments over and over and over are bored and can't think of anything else to say. It's just a theory. And one that is easily disproved. All that the chronic arguers who keep arguing the same déjà vu arguments over and over and over would have to do to disprove it is to post something creative and new. I'll wait...
[FairfieldLife] Re: More about arguing -- the deja vu factor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: You all know how much I love to spot trends. :-) One trend I have noticed is that actual creativity (and, as a result, the amount of actual content in posts as opposed to the same old same old drivel) waxes and wanes. NOT just on FFL; this seems to be a larger phenomenon. That is, at the same time that FFL goes boring and no one seems to be able to come up with anything new to talk about, so do all of the other forums I read. But the fascinating thing for me is that when one of these Boring Periods happens and no one seems to have anything interesting to say, *posters tend to fill the silence with arguing*. It's as if arguing has become a form of misdirection used by those who are bored and have nothing to say, one that allows them to pretend that they have something to say. One way you can always tell when someone is arguing just because they're bored and don't have anything to say but feel compelled to say something anyway is what I call the déjà vu factor. That's when someone is so desperate to say something -- anything -- that they trot out and restarts an argument they've had dozens of times before. This happens a LOT on Fairfield Life. And it kinda makes me wonder about the intelligence of the people who engage in the *same* argument over and over -- week after week, month after month, year after year -- and with the *same* people. Are these people so stupid that they actually believe that they'll win the argument this time, and finally convince the other person that they're right? If that were true, it's pretty much one of the textbook definitions of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Says Rev. Barry Blowhard as he trots out another déjà vu post from his wayback drivel machine, Everyone is boring but me. Is he so desperate to say something -- anything -- he'll restart a sermon he's given dozens of times before? This happens a LOT on Fairfield Life. And it kinda makes me wonder about his intelligence when we hear the same old sermons over and over -- week after week, month after month, year after year -- to the *same* people. Is he so stupid that he actually believes that he will win us over this time, and finally convince us that he's right? If that were true, it's pretty much one of the textbook definitions of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It seems to me that with regard to several déjà vu arguments -- like the existence or non-existence of global warming, the idiocy or non-idiocy of Sarah Palin, the bestness or the ordinariness of TM, etc. -- everyone here already knows what they believe. What they believe on these subjects is never going to change. So why do they keep arguing about them, *as if* they could somehow change the other people's minds? I think it's because the people rerunning these same déjà vu arguments over and over and over are bored and can't think of anything else to say. I think there are a few reasons for this - 1. people want to connect with other people, even if the only way to do so is to disagree (negative attention is better than being ignored for some people) 2. the internet/chat room format allows for this rehashing of strongly held views so easily, since you never see or look the other person in the eye. Would you behave the same way in person? I doubt it. 3. People are frustrated, especially when it comes to fairly serious issues - like whether the planet is is going to heat up and change life dramatically about 30 years from now, or whether someone like Sarah Palin might be the most powerful leader on the planet in 4 years. Those Are big issues, and more than disagreements, they are frightening. And since you can't discuss your fears with people in person, why not turn on the computer and behave in ways you cannot do in the flesh? 4. probably most people behaving in the way you suggest would benefit from turning off the computer for a few hours and taking a long walk and then doing some volunteer work in whatever area interests them, or simply helping a neighbor. Volunteer as a lunch aide at your local school, hold babies, pick up trash, take a yoga class, try tai chi, be a Big Brother or Sister, clean your house, bake some bread and take it to an elderly neighbor - anything but typing away for hours about the same ideas. It's just a theory. And one that is easily disproved. All that the chronic arguers who keep arguing the same déjà vu arguments over and over and over would have to do to disprove it is to post something creative and new. I'll wait...
[FairfieldLife] Re: More about arguing -- the deja vu factor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 waybac...@... wrote: I think there are a few reasons for this - 1. people want to connect with other people, even if the only way to do so is to disagree (negative attention is better than being ignored for some people) I think you're correct about this. On another level, the *illusion* of connecting with other people is probably even more important for those who mainly sit alone in front of a computer and rarely connect with real, live people. ? 2. the internet/chat room format allows for this rehashing of strongly held views so easily, since you never see or look the other person in the eye. Would you behave the same way in person? I doubt it. This is also true. There have been any number of studies on flaming, a phenomenon that is common on the Internet but rarely exists in real life. Besides, can you imagine how boring your friends would consider you if you kept repeating the same old things and trying to suck them into the same old arguments every time you saw them in real life? Maybe we can hope that Raunchy can find something other than women as victims to talk about in real life, and isn't as monotopical about it there as she is on FFL. We can *hope* that, anyway. :-) 3. People are frustrated, especially when it comes to fairly serious issues - like whether the planet is is going to heat up and change life dramatically about 30 years from now, or whether someone like Sarah Palin might be the most powerful leader on the planet in 4 years. Those Are big issues, and more than disagreements, they are frightening. And since you can't discuss your fears with people in person, why not turn on the computer and behave in ways you cannot do in the flesh? Excellent point. Add to this that arguing is a way of pretending that you are somehow *in control* of all these things you're afraid of. You can spout theories and pretend that they would work. It's a little like kids whistling while walking past a graveyard at night, to pretend they're not afraid. 4. probably most people behaving in the way you suggest would benefit from turning off the computer for a few hours and taking a long walk and then doing some volunteer work in whatever area interests them, or simply helping a neighbor. Absolutely. Volunteer as a lunch aide at your local school, hold babies, pick up trash, take a yoga class, try tai chi, be a Big Brother or Sister, clean your house, bake some bread and take it to an elderly neighbor - anything but typing away for hours about the same ideas. Again, we're back to the olde standard said by almost every spiritual teacher in history: What you focus on you become. Argue women as victims almost every day and *of course* you started thinking like a victim.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More about arguing -- the deja vu factor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Right now it is probably because it is the holidays. This year it may well be a very boring time of the year because people are finding they don't have any money to spend for it. I think that is making people uptight and hence you'll see more arguing going on. I think you're right about this. I just sometimes wish that the people acting out their frustrations via argumentation would do something more productive with it, like learn and practice the most effective method of meditation on the planet or something. :-) Most of the other groups I'm on are topic centric and if there is any arguing it is over that topic. And that can go on all the time. Then there are the political forums I'm on where the idea IS to argue. Tell me about it. On another forum I finally had to block posts coming from a friend of mine from Santa Fe. He's a gun nut and a rabid Libertarian, and he seemingly can't get through a single day without firing off 5 to 10 polemics about something. And he does it in such a way that he always invites arguments, and gets them. I finally figured out that his threads constituted half the messages I saw, and that I was never interested in any of the things being argued about. Hide him and his threads, and it's a whole new forum, one that I actually enjoy again. I guess one could make a case for arguing being a form of entertainment. If the one making this case doesn't have a life, that is. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More about arguing -- the deja vu factor
TurquoiseB wrote: I guess one could make a case for arguing being a form of entertainment. If the one making this case doesn't have a life, that is. :-) Don't forget we've got some bullheaded people here who can't seem to discuss issues. It's either their way or the highway. On some other groups discussion actually occurs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More about arguing -- the deja vu factor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: I guess one could make a case for arguing being a form of entertainment. If the one making this case doesn't have a life, that is. :-) Don't forget we've got some bullheaded people here who can't seem to discuss issues. It's either their way or the highway. That's what I was trying to get at in post #235258. The very *concept* of compulsive arguing mystifies me. It's like shouting to the world, I HAVE AN EGO. :-) On some other groups discussion actually occurs. Yup. On other forums I participate in, discussion often takes the form of sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, but *rarely* descending to the level of ad hominem. Furthermore, on those forums people are *creative*, and both willing and able to take a subject and then springboard off of it into completely new territory. And in such a way that people want to follow, and see where this non-sequitur might lead. That's my idea of discussion. On FFL -- due I think to the overinfluence of one compulsive arguer -- the idea of discussion has degenerated to Call the other person names and claim that in doing so you 'won.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: More about arguing -- the deja vu factor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip The very *concept* of compulsive arguing mystifies me. It's like shouting to the world, I HAVE AN EGO. :-) Some might think claiming that one is above all argument shouts I HAVE AN EGO to the world. Or more like I AM AN EGO. On some other groups discussion actually occurs. Yup. On other forums I participate in, discussion often takes the form of sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, but *rarely* descending to the level of ad hominem. Furthermore, on those forums people are *creative*, and both willing and able to take a subject and then springboard off of it into completely new territory. And in such a way that people want to follow, and see where this non-sequitur might lead. Both these things--sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing; and springboarding off a topic--take place here often. How odd that Barry hasn't noticed. As for ad hominem, well, he isn't exactly the person to be criticizing that, now, is he? Good GRIEF. That's my idea of discussion. On FFL -- due I think to the overinfluence of one compulsive arguer -- the idea of discussion has degenerated to Call the other person names and claim that in doing so you 'won.' Actually, the only two people here who do that routinely are Barry's pals do.rkflex and azgray. Oh, and Barry himself, of course.
