Not Good - Iran Escalation (flame war)

[Jon Letendre]

12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Jon,

You just essentially said the same thing I did.

btw - I didn't say you became polite.

 

Michael

But you seemed to offer up “he didn’t see it” in contradistinction to “Tony didn't have the ability to reason about it correctly.”

I do assert that Tony does not have the ability to reason about it correctly. Ellen is saying that all of us who are able to reason about it correctly can see that Tony is not.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

28 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

But you offered up “he didn’t see it” in contradistinction to “Tony didn't have the ability to reason about it correctly.”

Jon,

I clarified that in the same post:

43 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... if by ability, you mean capacity to reason with understood inputs...

If I misunderstood and you believe Tony is incapable of using reason on inputs (i.e., conceptual referents) he understands, in other words, he's a blithering idiot who's ability to use English is a fluke, I'll be happy to stand corrected.

 

One can't reason correctly about something one doesn't know because one can't see it. I should have added that to my first statement.

That is different than seeing something and knowing what it is, but not being able to reason about it.

(I'm talking about the root of the problem, not the effect of that root.)

Tony has a very good mind in other areas. I might be wrong, but I think you agree with that.

In other words, if (and once) he sees it, he will be able to reason about it correctly.

That's different than playing mind games or being a literal retard.

That was my meaning. And that's basically what I understood you to say.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

31 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I think I may be someone that some people should not use humor on, even not engage at all.

What could motivate them to adamently refuse that simple solution?

Jon,

I agree that if people know you react aggressively to personal quips aimed at you, they should not do that. They think they are playfully poking you in the ribs as an insider. But it's like trying wrestle with a dog that is quick to bite. 

As to their motivation, I won't speculate. But this is a forum open to the public. You can't control what other people post, just like they can't control what you post.

But there is a solution without going off into dominance hierarchies. Click on your name at the upper right and "Ignored Users" will be in the dropdown menu. Open it and use it. You won't react to what you don't see. People always stop engaging with those who do not engage with them. 

As to people who read the threads, OL readers are really really smart. They will not think good or bad about someone just because someone else said something. In my experience, the people who read this forum think independently and tend to have strong opinions that they have thought through on their own.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

34 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

I clarified that in the same post:

If I misunderstood and you believe Tony is incapable of using reason on inputs (i.e., conceptual referents) he understands, in other words, he's a blithering idiot who's ability to use English is a fluke, I'll be happy to stand corrected.

 

One can't reason correctly about something one doesn't know because one can't see it. I should have added that to my first statement.

That is different than seeing something and knowing what it is, but not being able to reason about it.

(I'm talking about the root of the problem, not the effect of that root.)

Tony has a very good mind in other areas. I might be wrong, but I think you agree with that.

In other words, if (and once) he sees it, he will be able to reason about it correctly.

That's different than playing mind games or being a literal retard.

That was my meaning. And that's basically what I understood you to say.

Michael

I am asserting that he does not have the ability to see it and that is why he did not and does not see it, and that is why he likely will never see it. Not that he is playing playing games, but it is likely quite similar to being a retard with regard to mentally processing spatial/mechanical situations.

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Your version of humor always includes humiliation of another. There are more forms of humor than that. But it's like explaining a joke. The more you explain it to someone who doesn't get it, the worse it gets.

(Imagine trying to explain a quip to Ayn Rand. From the reports I have read, that kind of effort never went well. You and her are very much alike on that point.)

Michael

I was discussing undeclared CIA sites when Peter said I hear voices in my head.

Which of those other forms of humor was he using?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

... quite similar to being a retard with regard to mechanical/spatial reasoning.

Jon,

Not to overextend this metaphor, but that, to me, is like color blindness while the retard doesn't have the ability to reason at all about anything at all.

Blind is a much better metaphor than retard when talking about someone who is likely reading this.

 

Hell, it's a better metaphor in general since it has easily defined limitations. I probably should have stayed with that.

 

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Not to overextend this metaphor, but that, to me, is like color blindness while the retard doesn't have the ability to reason at all about anything at all.

Blind is a much better metaphor than retard when talking about someone who is likely reading this.

 

Hell, it's a better metaphor in general since it has easily defined limitations. I probably should have stayed with that.

 

Michael

But color-blind people don’t go on discussion sites of the color-sighted and tell them about color, while this one, Tony, does.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

But color-blind people don’t go on discussion sites of the color-sighted and tell them about color, while this one, Tony, does.

Jon,

How do you know?

Have you never been to church?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

I was discussing undeclared CIA sites when Peter said I hear voices in my head.

Which of those other forms of humor was he using?

Jon,

You think I am going to explain the humor in that to you?

I don't want to get bit.

 

I could explain it, too.

And even go into how the setup is perceived differently between you two and so on. And if you really want to go super-technical, I can get into how the background and detail patterns reflected fractally throughout the brain (including those used for humor) are based on the patterns of place neurons in the thalamus and grid neurons in the entorhinal cortex communicating and integrating their firings into knowledge (granted, based at root on studying rats, so there's that  ).

Essentially, you are on one grid and Peter is on another.

As it stands right now, if I tried to explain Peter's grid to you (and I see it quite clearly, just as I see yours), you will essentially tell me that's not a grid. Why? Because can't see a different grid from within a grid. You have to step outside and think in what's called a meta perspective to see it.

(Later...)

Ah... fuck it...

I can't resist.

 

Let me prove it to you:

Peter is the culture of the middle class masses as his default, especially for humor, and, when you tried to make a point about how his humor can land differently, you went off into Jonathan Haidt-land--probably without even knowing anything about Haidt--as if it were the same thing (see here to understand that reference, it's nothing bad, and if you study his books, he has quite a few other stories like that to ponder).

After reading that, I bet all you can see is that you made Peter feel like you do. And if I tried to explain this grid difference further, I am pretty sure you would be convinced I am missing the point.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

You think I am going to explain the humor in that to you?

I don't want to get bit.

 

I could explain it, too.

And even go into how the setup is perceived differently between you two and so on. And if you really want to go super-technical, I can get into how the background and detail patterns reflected fractally throughout the brain (including those used for humor) are based on the patterns of place neurons in the thalamus and grid neurons in the entorhinal cortex communicating and integrating their firings into knowledge (granted, based at root on studying rats, so there's that  ).

Essentially, you are on one grid and Peter is on another.

As it stands right now, if I tried to explain Peter's grid to you (and I see it quite clearly, just as I see yours), you will essentially tell me that's not a grid. Why? Because can't see a different grid from within a grid. You have to step outside and think in what's called a meta perspective to see it.

(Later...)

Ah... fuck it...

I can't resist.

 

Let me prove it to you:

Peter is the culture of the middle class masses as his default, especially for humor, and, when you tried to make a point about how his humor can land differently, you go off into Jonathan Haidt-land without even knowing anything about Haidt as if it were the same thing (see here to understand that reference, it's nothing bad, and if you study his books, he has quite a few other stories like that to ponder).

After reading that, I bet all you can see is that you made Peter feel like you do. And if I tried to explain this difference further, I am pretty sure you would be convinced I am missing the point.

Michael

I don't think we need to get into neuroscience.

You said "Your version of humor always includes humiliation of another. There are more forms of humor than that."

Is Peter's saying I hear voices in my head a form of humor that includes humiliation of another, or not?

[Ellen Stuttle]

6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

The voices comment was warm, light humor, Michael.

It is how this latest battle with Peter started.

I was making what I think are important posts about important world events when Peter said it was about the voices in my head. I didn’t like that, and neither do most people. It is not humor, as you can now attest.

 

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Horseshit.

I'm not defending Peter's comment as anything productive, but, even if interpreted in your manner, it is a tiny little thing. You made it a declaration of war.

And now you want to go around proving you are right.

There are bad guys out there for real--that is the important stuff--yet you want to spend all your time--and all our time--on this bullshit.

And then you tell me to get a life as "warm humor" in a super-clunky way to prove that only you know what humor is and that Peter's humor does not exist, but if it does, it's evil. And you're the virtuous one. So you will set the rules of how we act and teach everyone why.

This is all just pure bullshit.

Michael

 

I don't agree that what Jon was doing is bullshit.

I'm just now reading through it, and I'm having a good laugh at the skill of Jon's parody of Peter.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

I specifically recall Jon saying Tony didn't see it. Several times he said that.

Not that he didn't think Tony didn't have the ability to reason about it correctly.

That he didn't see it.

If by ability you mean the blind not being able to see, OK. (btw - That's the same problem with this humor issue.)

But if by ability, you mean capacity to reason with understood inputs, that is not what I got from Jon's criticism of Tony in the end. 

Michael

At one stage Jon thought that Tony would be able to get it if it was presented carefully, but I think he'd changed that evaluation by the end.

Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

15 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

 

I don't agree that what Jon was doing is bullshit.

I'm just now reading through it, and I'm having a good laugh at the skill of Jon's parody of Peter.

Ellen

Thank you, Ellen. It is so nice to be and feel understood. "Bullshit." Ha! And the man presumes to lecture me on the finer subtlies of humor! I couldn't get a pork chop in return from this crowd if you weren't here, Ellen!

[Jon Letendre]

25 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

At one stage Jon thought that Tony would be able to get it if it was presented carefully, but I think he'd changed that evaluation by the end.

Ellen

Maybe if a well-made handheld or tabletop-sized example was in his hands.

It became impossible because he decided we had to be dead wrong and he got "a sense of humor" about that.

[Jon Letendre]

On 6/21/2019 at 1:55 PM, Peter said:

Concocting a conspiracy/story about American Collusion as in "the CIA had a hand in this, by golly" is petty thinking. I am not saying all small sites with info cannot be truthful, but  . . .

I hope OL can be a place where ideas can be expressed and DEBATED without character assassination, and the argument from intimidation. I hope participants will learn to rationally discuss ideas and refutations of those ideas without behaving like Trailer Park Trash. I have asked Michael to uphold the expressed bylaws of OL and I hope he will. I usually block one person but I see their post headings if I don't sign in and look at Activity, and I sometimes decide to respond. That rarely works out well. It should always work out well, on a David Kelly inspired site. Peter

So, when you made light humor saying I hear voices in my head, that was an example of you DEBATING my Iran idea, without character assassination, do I have that right, Peter?

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Thank you, Ellen. It is so nice to be and feel understood. "Bullshit." Ha! And the man presumes to lecture me on the finer subtlies of humor! I couldn't get a pork chop in return from this crowd if you weren't here, Ellen!

Well, I think you deserve a lot more than a pork chop.

Just to let you know:  I might not be able to be responding to anything further for a couple days.  I have a dental operation scheduled for early tomorrow.  Oh, such fun.

Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

 

SPY EXECUTED 

Iran executes ‘CIA spy in airforce’ just days after shooting down US drone

 

• Jacob Dirnhuber

• 22 Jun 2019, 16:24
• Updated: 22 Jun 2019, 22:08
• IRAN has executed a former Ministry of Defence employee after intelligence officials reportedly caught him spying for the CIA.

The CIA had a spy in Iran's Air Force and the Iranians executed him just days after the "Iranian" shooting of a US drone.

That sure is "petty" of The Sun. The Sun must be a "small site," and I feel they need a lecture in civility, too. Poor chums have lost their way.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9352702/iran-spy-executed-cia-drone/

[Jon Letendre]

5 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Well, I think you deserve a lot more than a pork chop.

Just to let you know:  I might not be able to be responding to anything further for a couple days.  I have a dental operation scheduled for early tomorrow.  Oh, such fun.

Ellen

oh, sounds great. Hang in there. Take care.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Is Peter's saying I hear voices in my head a form of humor that includes humiliation of another, or not?

Jon,

Not.

I don't believe Peter's intent was humiliation at all. (I do believe he disagreed with you though. But that's not the issue here.)

I put it in this category.

A Marine and an Army grunt are on a mission. It's dark and they are going across a farm. 

All of a sudden, a bunch of turkeys appear and start sounding off. The Army grunt draws his gun and almost fires it.

The Marine says, "Be careful. We don't want to shoot any turkeys."

The grunt replies, "You Marines always know how to look after your ladies."

 

That kind of humor. Friendly chiding, especially about what they encounter. And if they ever disagree, it gets a bit rougher. But it's still playful chiding.

Speaking of which, if you had been the Marine, would you have shot the grunt?

And what if the grunt's name was Peter?

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I don't agree that what Jon was doing is bullshit.

Ellen,

That's what we're here for.

My axiomatic corollary:

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Individual humans disagree.

And there's this.

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I'm just now reading through it, and I'm having a good laugh at the skill of Jon's parody of Peter.

So, in your opinion, Jon wasn't trying to humiliate Peter with his parodies?

He was merely palling around with banter?

Come on. You know you liked it because you don't think much of Peter--for a long time, at that. If someone had been parodying Jon in an equivalent manner, I bet you would not have liked it. You tend to agree with Jon about the import of Peter's banter as it is.

 

Put-downs only are the essence of the Randian sense of humor. I remember a Rand quote off the top of my head. When teaching writing, she said, "Humor is always destructive." I'm pretty sure that's an exact quote. If not, it's the gist and a correct gist at that. (I should look this up.) Then she went on to say that one should only laugh at the morally inferior. Most of all, one should never laugh at oneself.

I, for one, could not live well if I couldn't laugh at my own fuck-ups at times since I do that a lot.

 

(The principle is the only way to learn a new skill is by screwing it up. If you never screw it up, you do not need to learn it. You already know it. I try to make my screw-ups in rehearsal, though. Not at showtime.  )

btw - Good luck on your dentist appointment. I hope you have little to no pain and recover quickly.

In my experience, all dentists are evil. So be careful.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

57 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Well, I think you deserve a lot more than a pork chop.

Ellen,

To be clear, I think so, too.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

The CIA had a spy in Iran's Air Force and the Iranians executed him just days after the "Iranian" shooting of a US drone.

Jon,

Thank you for getting this thread back to Iran.

To add to the news:

AP sources: US struck Iranian military computers this week

I hope that's true.

This news story is from the AP and here are the AP's sources, printed right there in the article.

Quote

Two officials told The Associated Press that the strikes were conducted with approval from Trump. A third official confirmed the broad outlines of the strike. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the operation.

Two officials and a third official--all unauthorized to speak.

I wish they would stop this crap.

If it's true, though, that's better than bullets and bombs.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

43 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Not.

I don't believe Peter's intent was humiliation at all. (I do believe he disagreed with you though. But that's not the issue here.)

I put it in this category.

A Marine and an Army grunt are on a mission. It's dark and they are going across a farm. 

All of a sudden, a bunch of turkeys appear and start sounding off. The Army grunt draws his gun.

The Marine says, "Be careful. We don't want to shoot any turkeys."

The grunt replies, "You Marines always know how to look after your ladies."

 

That kind of humor. Friendly chiding, especially about what they encounter. And if they ever disagree, it gets a bit rougher. But it's still playful chiding.

Speaking of which, if you had been the Marine, would you have shot the grunt?

And what if the grunt's name was Peter?

 

Michael

Oh, like like a Marine and an Army grunt. I did that earlier. I will repost it.

And then let's go from there, ok, Peter? A total re-do. You could amp it up or down in response to my re-do. If you ramp down, and show respect, it will go probably go down and then go away, and then the real debate you claim to want may ensue. If you ramp up, like the first time, then it will probably boil over, like it did the first time. You could also leave it there and don't respond to my do-over. Imagine the trouble it would have saved us all if that had been your choice the first time!

 

To set the scene, when our spat started I had just said that if there were to be strikes, they would be against CIA targets (and one day, two? days later the Iranians "struck" a CIA agent.)

You said something about me hearing voices in my head.

Shamefully, I retaliated.

The do-over of my shameful retaliatory response is humorous and without any cuss words ...

 

===> Who talked you out of the unavoidable truth that the CIA has always had undeclared sites in every country? Was it your sister, while the two of you were making sweet, sweet love?

 

[Jon Letendre]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

Do you see dead people?

   43 minutes ago,  Michael Stuart Kelly said: 

A Marine and an Army grunt are on a mission. It's dark and they are going across a farm. 

All of a sudden, a bunch of turkeys appear and start sounding off. The Army grunt draws his gun.

The Marine says, "Be careful. We don't want to shoot any turkeys."

The grunt replies, "You Marines always know how to look after your ladies."

 

That kind of humor. Friendly chiding, especially about what they encounter. And if they ever disagree, it gets a bit rougher. But it's still playful chiding.

Speaking of which, if you had been the Marine, would you have shot the grunt?

And what if the grunt's name was Peter?

 

Michael

Oh, like like a Marine and an Army grunt. I did that earlier. I will repost it.

And then let's go from there, ok, Peter? A total re-do. You could amp it up or down in response to my re-do. If you ramp down, and show respect, it will go probably go down and then go away, and then the real debate you claim to want may ensue. If you ramp up, like the first time, then it will probably boil over, like it did the first time, I will end up using too much humor again, the best humor, the cuss words. You could also leave it there and don't respond to my do-over. Imagine the trouble it would have saved us all if that had been your choice the first time!

 

To set the scene, when our spat started I had just said that if there were to be strikes, they would be against CIA targets (and one day, two? days later the Iranians "struck" a CIA agent.)

You made some light humor about me hearing voices in my head.

Shamefully, I retaliated, unhumorously.

The do-over of my original shameful unhumorous retaliatory response is humorous and without any cuss words ...

 

===> Who talked you out of the unavoidable truth that the CIA has always had undeclared sites in every country? Was it your sister, while the two of you were making sweet, sweet love?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

26 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Was it your sister, while the two of you were making sweet, sweet love?

Jon,

And you say we don't need to include neuroscience.

Heh.

That's the only way I think you will see it, if that should ever happen.

Incest is not the way this kind of humor works.

Ever.

(The same with sex with corpses and things like that. This kind of humor never goes there. The animal thing works, though. Probably because no deep personal values are involved and the imagined situation is so ridiculous, nobody takes it seriously.)

That's why your comment isn't humor. It's a taunt, a call to fight.

I don't think you will ever get this different grid thing.

But it exists. You don't see it, but it exists.

Michael