Sockpuppet Garbage

[Serapis Bey]

Kacy, I don't think we are in that much of a disagreement; I suspect we are simply emphasizing different things. Still, I have some clarifications to make.

1. The "you do NOT have the right to talk to me that way" response is not one I would have ever endorsed. It's not an alpha response, and it's also not an effective one[...] I can tell you that, in that situation, my knee-jerk response would probably have been something to the affect of smiling in agreement and nodding, saying "Alright motherfucker!", attempting to (hopefully) communicate some version "You got me this time, but I'll get you next time!" playful response.

Sure, that's fine. If you notice, I basically agree with you when I wrote that one of the two reasons I didn't say anything is because I didn't have a witty comeback at the ready. Albert's outburst was so out of the blue and it blindsided me -- I was momentarily speechless. But I would add that your "alright MF'er" response is also not ideal or properly calibrated. That's not how it's done in my group. When we fuck with each other, we stay calm. Your proposed response is a tad too "hot" IMO. Your response is all too easy. The trick is thinking on your feet and being creative with your reply.

Hopefully this lays rest to your apparent misconception about my view that one gains respect by stomping their foot and whining that they haven't received it.

But that's not what I said. If you notice, my hypothetical involved rationally and calmly stating that Albert "did not have the right to talk to me like that." No whining or stamping of feet encouraged. (Basically the sort of thing any limpwristed psychologist would call "assertive behavior" as against "aggressive behavior".) How is my hypothetical any different than your experience with Capt. Crunch:

That’s where the line was crossed. I very calmly said “Okay, you know how you’re feeling right now? I want you to know that it’s exactly how I felt when I was at your base two weeks ago sitting on a HMMWV, waiting for your guys to show up for an inspection. That’s how I felt when I was waiting for gear to arrive. That how I felt when (on and on and on)…” I politely and professionally began explaining to him that during our working relationship, I had given him no reason to believe I would fail to support, and that on the contrary, it was normally he who failed to operate as promised.

But the point of my anecdote was not to illustrate the proper way to respond to "disrespect" (I believe we more or less agree here), but to emphasize the question of when actual disrespect occurs. You say that if it's true that I have a tendency to drift off into Deep Thoughts, then Albert's response is not disprespect because he was saying something that is true. Apparently his characterization of it being "in outer space", or calling me a "fool", or doing so in front of the whole crew is immaterial to you because what he said is true. Ok then. So...if I tell the grieving father of a murdered child that he "was a big crybaby at the funeral", that is not disrepectful, but if I tell some random person that he or she is a big poopyhead, that's where the line is crossed?

I corrected myself with respect to MSK when I realized that WR went for the jugular with his "stewed" insinuation. WR's arrogant and abrasive behavior apart from that meant nothing to me.

Back to Capt. Crunch:

Had I done otherwise, I'd have been his bitch for the entire deployment.

Seems to me you were his bitch up until the point you laid your speech on him. When I think of Albert, I can tell you that it would never had gotten to that point. You mentioned several instances where Capt. Crunch was acting with total disregard for you. But you didn't say anything. You let it happen again and again. Albert would have barked at the first instance and nipped it in the bud. Since you didn't, you let it grow until a relatively tame comment from Crunch "crossed your line." This dynamic more closely resembles passive-aggression where one holds it in over and over, with increasing internal pressure, until one is forced to have a melodramatic "scene" with the other person.

Additionally, when comparing your response to my friend Albert, I have to note your emphasis on your feelings and how you felt when Crunch disregarded you in the past. Alpha dogs like Albert never talk about their feelings. They simply do what they have to in order to correct what they consider improper behavior.

I have to point out here that while I assume you've accurately relayed the words spoken in this anecdote, there's no real indication as to what his non-verbal communications were. In order to accurately assess the appropriateness of his statement and your response to it, I'd have to know the entirety of what he was attempting to communicate. It sounds like he was being playful, but I can't know that for sure given only the information you've provided here. If I'm wrong on that, then it changes my entire assessment.

It doesn't really change things, but if you didn't know Albert beforehand and were present, you would have thought he had hate in his heart. He is someone who has absolutely no tolerance for what he considers to be wrong. Always ready to correct what he percieves as stupidity in another person. He is constantly like a smouldering volcano ready to blow at any second. The rest of the crew have learned to accept his idiosyncracies, and even though he and I are friends, I have a better time hanging with the other 3 or 4 alpha dogs who like to play. Whenever one of us joshes with Albert, we compare it to those "Messing With Sasquatch" commercials.

I asserted respect for my position. It is a respect I have earned, and it is a respect that I will be afforded. I respected his rank (as I must) and he will respect my position (as he must). I realize that when you extract things such as rank form the equation, things aren’t quite so clear cut.

When you extract rank from the equation it changes everything. If all you were doing was enforcing your dominion over your people, how is that different than what occurs in a corporation where Department Head A bickers with Department Head B over what the other can and can't do? In either case, you have a higher authority to defer to, much like a bickering brother and sister having parents to settle the argument.

But the principle is the same.

The principle might be the same, but this underscores yet another reason I have disagreements with Objectivism and the emphasis on "principles." The issue you have been avoiding is what occurs in reality when you don't have an authority to settle things. What happens in a free environment where Person A feels he deserves X amount of respect, and Person B judges A to deserve Y amount of respect? Does your principle provide practical guidance here? Principles are over-simplifications for simple minds. Reality is much more messy.

That’s why Dan is no longer on my facebook page. Piss on my leg in my own house, and you’ll find yourself on the street. (I know you like to believe that his issues with me were of my own making – but I’d be interested in hearing you explain why Dan is the only person I’ve had such issues with. There are plenty of very vocal far-right-wingers on my friends list, some of which I’ve been involved in very spirited debates with, all of which have been very polite, courteous, and dare I say… respectful – none of which I’ve had to even mention issues of respect with. In fact, I wish there were more of them. If you can’t see that Dan – specifically Dan – was the problem, then you’re suffering some serious cognitive dissonance.)

I'm not saying Dan is guiltless. I can think of one particular episode where he was gratuitously insulting and poorly calibrated, and on that basis alone I would endorse your exclusion of him from any social situations. Much like WR crossed that line with MSK. As for the question of why he is the only right-winger you have had issues with -- well, to be frank, I have not been impressed with what I've seen of your "right wing" FB friends. For the the most part, they are mostly Tea Party, Fox News types with little sophistication and whom you easily best in debate. It's easy to feel your interlocutors are being "respectful" when you can wipe the floor with them. The only exception I recall is a libertarian who seems to be in a seeking mode, and is a bit more hesistant with his pronouncements. In addition, most of your participants are women and liberals (but I repeat myself), so of course the conversation takes on a more feminine tone.

Dan on the other hand is very intelligent and very knowledgable. He's the type of "right-winger" (he's libertarian, actually, but "right wing" from your liberal perspective, I suppose) who makes Progressives snap to attention and clench their sphincters. Sure, he's young and somewhat immature, and pushy and aggressive (he's Jewish after all ;) ), but underneath it all he's a mensch who is not immune to the impatience and frustration which befalls people who are more intelligent than most. It's when folks like that debate folks like you, where things are more or less evenly matched, that sparks fly and the things get interesting. At least from my perspective. But that is because I can be similarly aggressive, and I have a taste for that sort of thing. Not all people do.

Look, if you have lost the ability to understand why it's a good idea to talk to people on online forums as though they are human beings, that's going to be your own poison to drink. It came as no surprise to me when, the moment you started posting comments here (after I got here) that you began rubbing people the wrong way.

It should not have come as a surprise to you, but not because you are clued into something I am unaware of. My use of the words "troll" and "trollish" in relation to myself should have made that clear. Did you think I came here to make friends?

Unlike you, I do not consider online hugboxes like Facebook to be suitable fora for the discussion of contentious topics.

And what exactly is this "poison" I am drinking for treating online personae the way I do? I spend enough of my day restraining my opinions among my coworkers and friends for the sake of civility. The online Wild West we find in the internet is an opportunity to loosen my tie. In short, being a troll is fun. It's a GAS, Daddy-o!

Doesn't make sense not to live for fun
Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb

In closing, I would say that I don't think we disagree all that much. But a lot of what we have been discussing are the finer points of behavior among males in masculine environments, and the pack mentality therein. How much of this is really relevant to what happens among young, male and female fans of Rand who had to endure her peculiarities? It's a totally different dynamic. You had more of a student-teacher dynamic where the folks were seeking knowledge or value from an esteemed individual. But you seem to have an issue with what happened back then. You say that if Rand refused your proposal to work with her in spreading her ideas, and responded to your second inquiry with the explanation that it is rude to keep asking after having been ignored, that you would never spread her ideas again, or at least with her name attached. That doesn't strike me as "alpha" in any way. It sounds petty to me.

[Serapis Bey]

Holy shit... I never heard that story.

I remember when you guys were going to the SOAR meetings. I wish I'd have gone... don't remember exactly what was going on in my life at the time, but I'm sure it was chaotic and unstable.

I can understand why Tyler never told me the story. I'm a little surprised SB didn't.

The love of my life and I had broken up that day or the day before.

Remember that anecdote about Bobby Fisher surrounded by all the other chess players who were discussing events in the news concerning foreign relations and the possibility of nuclear war? He finally had enough and had to exclaim, "What the hell does any of this have to do with chess?" Yeah. It was like that.

My memory of the details are sketchy, but I can vouch for ND's account of what happened.

[Serapis Bey]

You're right, SB. I'm a liberal. I've tried to mask the truth from you, but you're just too damn perceptive.

And all this talk of respect... just a ruse I use to advance a victimhood advocacy position.

And that talk we had about your Jewish views... just a front for a victimhood position.

And that debate we had about which is better: The Whopper or the Big Mac.... I don't know how you did it, but you were able to discover my liberal motives in that one too.

I give up. You win. Can't pull the wool over your eyes.

And to think... you were the only person here perceptive enough to spot the insidious liberal nature of my comment. Imagine that. All these less-perceptive folks thought I was just talking about respect, but no, not you... you see right through the nonsense straight to the heart of my liberal progressive propaganda.

Heh. Well, I didn't want to take up all the space here hashing out our personal peccadilloes. I don't think I'm quite that important. Do you?

I was just throwing out some intellectual "meat" for the lurkers to chew on...drawing connections between our personal lives and issues which affect everyone. I believe Rand is lauded for similarly recognizing unseen links between heretofore disparate phenomena.