I'm an ANTZ, you're an ANTZ, kiss me!
- Thread starter Steam Turbine
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don't know Jay's situation. I do know in her response to him IN THIS THREAD she used divisive language. This divisive language by a person representing an organization can feel directed at an already alienated person even when it isn't. Couple that with that person feels alienated to begin with due to people screaming about CASAA? Yeah, it can further alienation.
I am by no means a person who is in support of the politically correct crap out there. I do, however, see divisive actions as harmful. I don't know how many times I've heard extremist political pundits who have a valid point but in presentation create division. Thus those already on the other side and those feeling alienated won't hear it. That is not a matter of being politically correct.
It also isn't calling anything hate speech. I too am turned off by that phrase which isn't the same divisive language. No, that phrase is made up to say "I can't argue your point so you are promoting hate". However divisive language can lead a person to use that phrase.
You are confusing a person restricting free speech with someone pointing out "you get more flies with honey". You are free to alienate people and make your own struggle more difficult. I'm not a fan of you exercising that freedom since it makes things more difficult on me and everyone who agrees with your stance, but I won't tell you it is something you can't do. I will counsel you that it isn't wise.
I take it you are one of those who offended Jay? Link me up so I can see if he took too much to heart if you wish. It won't change the fact that many on this board practice alienating techniques. If I wasn't a stronger minded person (or just to lazy to get mad if you prefer) I would have a disdain for this board and CASAA. I wonder how many have been pushed away.
Last edited:
The bossy-pants anti-smoker ex I mentioned in the Pet Peeves thread is the one who actually first suggested e-cigs to me, because he knew I was still smoking cigarettes and likely would be, until they killed me. So not all anti-smokers are ANTZ, as Kristin so rightly pointed out. Most of them just find the smell disgusting, so they hate cigarettes. Now, vaping is not quite as odorless as a lot of folks would like to make out, but it's certainly nowhere even close to being as smelly and disgusting as the smell of cigarette smoke, and the vapor isn't harmful to others (that we know of, so far), also unlike cigarette smoke. When I told my ex I was finally trying to make the switch to e-cigs, he was like, 'well duh, it's about time!"
Andria
Yes. Who is the best first line defense against and anti-cigarette person to an all out zealot? Us.
As usual this discussion has taken a Stalinist/Maoist "Purge the Anti-revolutionaries" tone.
:Facepalm:
:Facepalm:
I don't believe I'm being inaccurate in saying that your position has evolved. I'll move forward as it's apparent that you're willing to do so as well. I think it's perfectly clear how I feel about cannibalism. So, we're on the same page.
Well said, sir.
Don't you think all of our positions should evolve?
I do. Mine have a great deal. Frankly, I hope they never stop evolving.
Roaring gently with a improving sore throat via Tapatalk...
If CASAA doesn't want it's Reps excusing canabalsim, it shouldn't have Reps that excuse canabalism. If it doesn't mind aiding the vaping community in forming a cultural ouroboros, that's CASAA's perogative.
Last edited:
Good post, as always. I particularly liked this distinction you made. I think this is the "root" of the issue and is misrepresented by some on ECF.
Last edited:
Yes. It's the very distinction I hear the elementary school kids argue about as they run to and from the library next door. Plus, it must be nice to be able to change positions after the fact and expect the new reasoning to be applied ex-post-facto. I think the bottom line is, marginilizng people is justified - unless you're trying to marginalize the people who marganilize people.
Yes. It's the very distinction I hear the elementary school kids argue about as they run to and from the library next door. Plus, it must be nice to be able to change positions after the fact and expect the new reasoning to be applied ex-post-facto. I think the bottom line is, marginilizng people is justified - unless you're trying to marginalize the people who marganilize people.
George Orwell would give you an "A" for your "double-speak".
And any honorable politician would give you an "A" for deflection...George Orwell would give you an "A" for your "double-speak".
Thanks for the productive contribution?
Last edited:
Unless I missed something as I skimmed back through this thread, she has only posted twice. In the first post she did not quote anyone and seemed to just post the fact that she was the one that coined the term ANTZ and that only the BOD can post anything official for CASAA. She ended saying that people should not judge CASAA's work by the negative posts of a few members. Nothing divisive there.
In her second post. She states that she is on his side as far as incorrect use of the term, calls him things like intelligent and smart. The only thing I can see as remotely divisive is her saying that he is ignoring the work of CASAA and is causing a conflict over what some members said.
Did I missing something? Where is all the divisive language? I do not plan on going back and reading every exchange between them both since he joined and I admit I do not know what happened in the past. I just think they should both get over it and move along.
I do not get offended. I am of the mindset that if you are weak minded enough to allow someone else to control your emotions with mere words....then you deserve to be offended. I only get angry when being angry can be used as a tool to accomplish a goal. Otherwise I don't even get angry. See my sig quote.
I quoted her. I bolded the part that has potential of divisiveness. I even acknowledged it wasn't strong, but present.
Why would I care if you were offended? I think you read that wrong.
There are times when people deserve to be offended. Usually it isn't simply because they are easily offended.
The sig is lame. The gift is being able to make anger productive.
Enjoy a life of making things more difficult on yourself.
Making anger productive, using it as a motivator or as a tactic to accomplish goals is precisely what I mean. Life with out needless is remarkably easy on myself.
There indeed is the rub. I think that some self examination is in order by those who would engage in addressing someone in this way. Saying someone "sounds" like a particular kind of zealot because someone supports a singular, isolated point of view that happens to be also supported by zealots is not helpful to anyone. For example, I may oppose abortion on moral grounds, but support the right of a woman to control what happens with her body. Am I an anti abortion zealot, the kind I see picketing Planned Parenthood every day, or am I another kind of zealot, a supporter of killing babies because I support a woman's rights? When I voice my opinion on something and find that I am told that I sound like either group, it tells me I had best keep my opinions to myself. You have just lost a supporter and any ideas, energy, or effort that person would have brought to the fight that you care so much about. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the acronym dropped from use, as a bad idea.
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I do not engage in discussions in the political or legislative areas of this board because my previous experience there was akin to the above example. Of course the other part of it, that has nothing to do with acronyms, is that there are some members who live in those areas who make it more than a hobby to do battle with those whose ideas do not align with their view of the world, no matter what the topic. So, much like the person who wants to avoid being victimized by criminals, I don't go into bad neighborhoods. It's unfortunate, but I don't have the time or energy to try and fix that neighborhood, and I really don't feel like being mugged today thank you.
My loyalty doesn't come easy. If you want it, I make you earn it. Utilizing paranoia, a sense of injustice, and fear of an unknown future to attack a fellow enthusiast repeatedly as being an enemy is not a way to earn my loyalty. Maybe I'm too sensitive. But I'd rather not feed that beast. They can count me as they do many others, as a warm body. I am a member. Solely out of hopes to end the CASAA proselytizing by the very people who choose an approach of isolation and harassment that I am vehemently against. I don't know what else people want. Should I lie and say this whole experience has been nothing but rainbows and gum drops?
1 thread - 1 day. Not ridiculous yet?
{MODERATED}
And the day isn't over yet. I've been here since October. This isn't new. Welcome to ECF!
{MODERATED}
And the day isn't over yet. I've been here since October. This isn't new. Welcome to ECF!
Last edited by a moderator:
Take an honest look at the culture of our society. People point fingers and label each other incessantly.
It's almost reflexive with many to stereotype and marginalize any thought/action/behavior that is alien to them, and ostracize those that refuse to conform with the herd.
There are pet peeves to go around for everyone. I find the term "stinky" to be pedantic and absurd. I mean really, it sounds like something an infant leaves in their diaper (Timmy made a stinky!). But, as ridiculous as it sounds... Because it is widely accepted by the herd, it will continue despite protestations.
As one that has spent countless hours debating controversial topics, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people utterly refuse to be moved even by an undeniably compelling argument. Venting is fun, but the best you can hope for is short term results.
Sadly, it rarely leads to behavioral changes. Even if the point is valid.
BTW, I say this as someone that believes vaping should be unresticted, short of movie theaters and confined/poorly ventilated areas.
I won't stoop to calling people that disagree with me names, even though I will question the basis of their position and their underlying logic with great zeal.
It's almost reflexive with many to stereotype and marginalize any thought/action/behavior that is alien to them, and ostracize those that refuse to conform with the herd.
There are pet peeves to go around for everyone. I find the term "stinky" to be pedantic and absurd. I mean really, it sounds like something an infant leaves in their diaper (Timmy made a stinky!). But, as ridiculous as it sounds... Because it is widely accepted by the herd, it will continue despite protestations.
As one that has spent countless hours debating controversial topics, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people utterly refuse to be moved even by an undeniably compelling argument. Venting is fun, but the best you can hope for is short term results.
Sadly, it rarely leads to behavioral changes. Even if the point is valid.
BTW, I say this as someone that believes vaping should be unresticted, short of movie theaters and confined/poorly ventilated areas.
I won't stoop to calling people that disagree with me names, even though I will question the basis of their position and their underlying logic with great zeal.
I'm not seeing respect in here.
I'm not seeing attack the post, but not the poster.
This stops now please.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ecf-forum-rules/51178-forum-rules.html
- Status
Similar threads
