November 19th, 2009 / 6:15 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
Should I ban the commenter ‘Mather Schneider’? Is it worthwhile to have all venues open for commenting, or is sometimes enough enough? Is it possible to be so dense or ‘dense acting’ that you turn discussions in circles simply by continuing to stick snarky comments in every possible hole that you can fill? Is the argument good for a community, or is it sometimes just time to rub out the blah blah? Your thoughts are appreciated.
My honest response to this is that I don’t really notice a big difference between Mather’s snarkiness and the general tone of many posts/comments here at HTMLGIANT. It’s very likely that I’m not paying close enough attention, and would note the distinction were I, say, a contributor. But part of the tone that’s been established here is a pronounced “irreverence,” and it will always not only emphasize the natural snarky streak in the average commenter, but attract people whose interest is to “one-up” that baseline snarkiness. And that just comes with the territory.
I don’t think I’ve ever used the word “snark” so much in my life.
My honest response to this is that I don’t really notice a big difference between Mather’s snarkiness and the general tone of many posts/comments here at HTMLGIANT. It’s very likely that I’m not paying close enough attention, and would note the distinction were I, say, a contributor. But part of the tone that’s been established here is a pronounced “irreverence,” and it will always not only emphasize the natural snarky streak in the average commenter, but attract people whose interest is to “one-up” that baseline snarkiness. And that just comes with the territory.
I don’t think I’ve ever used the word “snark” so much in my life.
I struggle with irony every day.
He’s fine, I’d hate to have to rep Tucson on my own. Enough is never enough.
I struggle with irony every day.
He’s fine, I’d hate to have to rep Tucson on my own. Enough is never enough.
i honestly don’t know. part of me feels a deep sadness for the guy. like if you ban him he’ll have nothing to do but torture cats in his basement and weep himself to sleep at night. then again, if you ban him he’s likely to move on and spread disease elsewhere. i don’t know. i guess it comes down to whether or not you’re willing to have cat deaths on your conscience.
i honestly don’t know. part of me feels a deep sadness for the guy. like if you ban him he’ll have nothing to do but torture cats in his basement and weep himself to sleep at night. then again, if you ban him he’s likely to move on and spread disease elsewhere. i don’t know. i guess it comes down to whether or not you’re willing to have cat deaths on your conscience.
So many things do…
I cannot stand him. Gets on my nerves. Yet. . . I vote no. No ban. I prefer to see everyone (no matter how bland, obtuse, or annoying) take part in the lively madness of this place.
So many things do…
I cannot stand him. Gets on my nerves. Yet. . . I vote no. No ban. I prefer to see everyone (no matter how bland, obtuse, or annoying) take part in the lively madness of this place.
I think we should see if we can change his behavior with love. We love you, Mather. Please be nice.
I think we should see if we can change his behavior with love. We love you, Mather. Please be nice.
I like that idea. mather, you are my brother and I love you.
I like that idea. mather, you are my brother and I love you.
this is just like the end of care bears 2. that means that mather is dark heart–the angsty, red-eyed pre-teen with a predilection for misery.
this is just like the end of care bears 2. that means that mather is dark heart–the angsty, red-eyed pre-teen with a predilection for misery.
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fa/Dark_heart_human.jpg/200px-Dark_heart_human.jpg
just threw up in my mouf a lot
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fa/Dark_heart_human.jpg/200px-Dark_heart_human.jpg
just threw up in my mouf a lot
Don’t ban him. Trolls exist on the air of people’s responses. So just ignore him. Blank him, if you don’t like what he’s saying.
Mather who? Who? Mather? No, never heard of him.
Uh, no.
Don’t ban him. Trolls exist on the air of people’s responses. So just ignore him. Blank him, if you don’t like what he’s saying.
Mather who? Who? Mather? No, never heard of him.
Uh, no.
i hope that wasnt serious
a faschist htmlgiant stifling free speech
he’s just a man saying what he thinks
hes not raping anyone
*he might be, but not via htmlgiant*
it is irritating
but that doesnt mean you can gag him
i hope that wasnt serious
a faschist htmlgiant stifling free speech
he’s just a man saying what he thinks
hes not raping anyone
*he might be, but not via htmlgiant*
it is irritating
but that doesnt mean you can gag him
i think it’s all for the sake of discussion. got your book in the mail btw. thanks again.
i think it’s all for the sake of discussion. got your book in the mail btw. thanks again.
He would just come back as another identity with a different email address. They always do.
He would just come back as another identity with a different email address. They always do.
The entity known as Mather Schneider makes me crazy but in the pantheon of annoying asshole commenters, I don’t know that he’s the worst offender of my own sensibilities. His absurd behavior and obfuscations speak for themselves quite well. Banning him is likely not necessary.
The entity known as Mather Schneider makes me crazy but in the pantheon of annoying asshole commenters, I don’t know that he’s the worst offender of my own sensibilities. His absurd behavior and obfuscations speak for themselves quite well. Banning him is likely not necessary.
i just don’t like the words “snark” or “snarky.” ban those
i just don’t like the words “snark” or “snarky.” ban those
the mather blather is annoying, as he wants it to be. plus, he seems like one of those escaped mental patients who thinks everyone’s out to get him. but let’s treat him like a dog turd on the sidewalk and just step around him.
in a way, this whole post will just get him all hot and bothered. dickbag!
the mather blather is annoying, as he wants it to be. plus, he seems like one of those escaped mental patients who thinks everyone’s out to get him. but let’s treat him like a dog turd on the sidewalk and just step around him.
in a way, this whole post will just get him all hot and bothered. dickbag!
I’ll rep with you Amelia. I lived there for a while and visit often from this pit I now inhabit in the Valley of the Spun.
No, don’t ban him, Blake. Overexpose him, like you did to Tao Lin, and Mather Schneider will just disappear.
I’ll rep with you Amelia. I lived there for a while and visit often from this pit I now inhabit in the Valley of the Spun.
No, don’t ban him, Blake. Overexpose him, like you did to Tao Lin, and Mather Schneider will just disappear.
I also find him annoying sometimes, but would counsel against a ban.
I’m relatively silent, but don’t think it speaks well of the heteroglossia you’ve got going to start shutting voices out. Besides which, we all know that the only punishable offense is giving someone the Herp, and tattooing ‘Herp’ on their fore-skin.
On these very grounds, Mathers worth banning:
Increase, Cotton. Marshall, if it comes to that.
I also find him annoying sometimes, but would counsel against a ban.
I’m relatively silent, but don’t think it speaks well of the heteroglossia you’ve got going to start shutting voices out. Besides which, we all know that the only punishable offense is giving someone the Herp, and tattooing ‘Herp’ on their fore-skin.
On these very grounds, Mathers worth banning:
Increase, Cotton. Marshall, if it comes to that.
i agree.
i agree.
i think there is such a thing as enough is enough, but i don’t think mather represents it. actually, his (her) opinions are sound for the most part, which isn’t to say I agree with him (her), it’s more his (her) execution that is antagonistic. But every society needs an antagonist. it balances things, it gets questions out there, it keeps things honest. I feel the urge to play it sometimes when there’s a lack of it. I’m thankful for mather filling that role so I’m less inclined to. Sometimes jereme plays this role too. Thanks jereme.
Enough is enough would be like comment inundation to the point it affects being able to follow a conversation. Them.
i think there is such a thing as enough is enough, but i don’t think mather represents it. actually, his (her) opinions are sound for the most part, which isn’t to say I agree with him (her), it’s more his (her) execution that is antagonistic. But every society needs an antagonist. it balances things, it gets questions out there, it keeps things honest. I feel the urge to play it sometimes when there’s a lack of it. I’m thankful for mather filling that role so I’m less inclined to. Sometimes jereme plays this role too. Thanks jereme.
Enough is enough would be like comment inundation to the point it affects being able to follow a conversation. Them.
i guess what i wonder though is this: is there a difference if its a role thats affected or if its a role thats sincere? im much more intersted in interacting with a sincere antoginism than someone who assumes that role because its ‘needed for society’ or soemthing. it is frustrating if its hard to pin down, i guess is what im saying.
i guess what i wonder though is this: is there a difference if its a role thats affected or if its a role thats sincere? im much more intersted in interacting with a sincere antoginism than someone who assumes that role because its ‘needed for society’ or soemthing. it is frustrating if its hard to pin down, i guess is what im saying.
i think it is always sincere, and probably not as conscious of a thing I’m making it out to be. There are underlying reasons why people assume the role. When I feel a need to assume it, it’s because I feel there is a lack of honesty in the air (and there’s something in my head that says if someone is being nice, they are not being honest (a logical fallacy) but that probably goes back to my upbringing maybe, or something else, or maybe military experience), so if there is too much niceness, I need to see some meanness (honesty) going on so I can breathe a little. But the reason to assume the role I think is always sincere, it’s never just to ‘assume a role’
i think it is always sincere, and probably not as conscious of a thing I’m making it out to be. There are underlying reasons why people assume the role. When I feel a need to assume it, it’s because I feel there is a lack of honesty in the air (and there’s something in my head that says if someone is being nice, they are not being honest (a logical fallacy) but that probably goes back to my upbringing maybe, or something else, or maybe military experience), so if there is too much niceness, I need to see some meanness (honesty) going on so I can breathe a little. But the reason to assume the role I think is always sincere, it’s never just to ‘assume a role’
thanks darby. i think that makes sense a little more to me.
thanks darby. i think that makes sense a little more to me.
I am Mather Schneider!
I am Mather Schneider!
another thing i just thought of: why does meanness always = truth/honesty but niceness = falsity? and is falsity a word? i know you said it was a logical falllacy, so im not pickign on you. just thinking aloud.
another thing i just thought of: why does meanness always = truth/honesty but niceness = falsity? and is falsity a word? i know you said it was a logical falllacy, so im not pickign on you. just thinking aloud.
i don’t think it always does. For me, to narrow it down further, I think it’s social grace = dishonesty. If you are doing something just to be socially graceful, then honesty has to get out of the way. there’s just an intuitive sense for me that it has to (but doesn’t always actually (fallacy)). Maybe I’ve spent a long time trying to get truth out of people who have very solid social graceful exteriors. This is maybe why we distrust politicians also, because we know that in order for them to keep their job, they have to care more about what people think about them than real honesty. Also, I took from the military the realization that I will suddenly trust a person much more when that person is willing to tell me I’m a shithead. When that same person gives me a compliment, I know it’s true because they’ve previously proven they don’t let social grace get in the way. For me, I’m always trying to look behind people’s nice walls, to see how much i trust them. Mather seems like a guy who won’t hesitate to tell me I’m a shithead, so if he tells me later he thinks I’m okay, I know I can believe him. it’s not that nice equals dishonesty or that mean equals dishonesty absolutely, more that they are clues for what to expect from people. But I (we) rely on these clues too much. It’s not healthy to assume dishonesty by default.
i don’t think it always does. For me, to narrow it down further, I think it’s social grace = dishonesty. If you are doing something just to be socially graceful, then honesty has to get out of the way. there’s just an intuitive sense for me that it has to (but doesn’t always actually (fallacy)). Maybe I’ve spent a long time trying to get truth out of people who have very solid social graceful exteriors. This is maybe why we distrust politicians also, because we know that in order for them to keep their job, they have to care more about what people think about them than real honesty. Also, I took from the military the realization that I will suddenly trust a person much more when that person is willing to tell me I’m a shithead. When that same person gives me a compliment, I know it’s true because they’ve previously proven they don’t let social grace get in the way. For me, I’m always trying to look behind people’s nice walls, to see how much i trust them. Mather seems like a guy who won’t hesitate to tell me I’m a shithead, so if he tells me later he thinks I’m okay, I know I can believe him. it’s not that nice equals dishonesty or that mean equals dishonesty absolutely, more that they are clues for what to expect from people. But I (we) rely on these clues too much. It’s not healthy to assume dishonesty by default.
this post made me feel really sad.
not because of the content but more because of the author.
i remember that author saying something like “everything is safe” about htmlg.
i am sure i’ll be second or third on the list to ban so if you start with the exclusions you might as well save every one precious time and ban me along with him.
then the majority will be happy which is very important.
this post made me feel really sad.
not because of the content but more because of the author.
i remember that author saying something like “everything is safe” about htmlg.
i am sure i’ll be second or third on the list to ban so if you start with the exclusions you might as well save every one precious time and ban me along with him.
then the majority will be happy which is very important.
oh right, i shouldnt have said ‘always’
ok i am thinking.
oh right, i shouldnt have said ‘always’
ok i am thinking.
ryan,
you are a smart guy and know the answer to your question.
meanness and honesty are not mutually exclusive. people do misconstrue honesty with being mean. it is part of our society. it really makes me sad.
but there is just plain unadulterated mean and it has nothing to do with honesty.
ryan,
you are a smart guy and know the answer to your question.
meanness and honesty are not mutually exclusive. people do misconstrue honesty with being mean. it is part of our society. it really makes me sad.
but there is just plain unadulterated mean and it has nothing to do with honesty.
thank you too darby.
I think about your question re: meanness, truth and falsity (which should be a word if it isn’t) a LOT. I too am not directing my musings at you darby.
Speaking for myself, it really bothers me that there’s a sentiment (generally speaking) that the truth is always something mean or that to express the truth requires cruelty. I am no saint or a a very perky person but when I say something nice about something or someone I mean it. My opinion may not represent a universal truth but it certainly represents a truth or my truth. I often feel it is more en vogue to shit on everything and act like you’ve proffered some profound truth. I really hate the sort of folk hero ethos some people wallow in when they proudly proclaim that their cynical observations are what everyone else is thinking. Really? Or is that what you tell yourself to justify bad behavior. Everyone has an inner asshole that should be nourished but there’s a time and a place for that. If I’m talking about writing, in particular, I’m really not going to give too much of my time to things I don’t like or believe in. That’s not the same as liking everything or always being nice or being a sycophant. It’s about being selective in how I exert my mental energy.
thank you too darby.
I think about your question re: meanness, truth and falsity (which should be a word if it isn’t) a LOT. I too am not directing my musings at you darby.
Speaking for myself, it really bothers me that there’s a sentiment (generally speaking) that the truth is always something mean or that to express the truth requires cruelty. I am no saint or a a very perky person but when I say something nice about something or someone I mean it. My opinion may not represent a universal truth but it certainly represents a truth or my truth. I often feel it is more en vogue to shit on everything and act like you’ve proffered some profound truth. I really hate the sort of folk hero ethos some people wallow in when they proudly proclaim that their cynical observations are what everyone else is thinking. Really? Or is that what you tell yourself to justify bad behavior. Everyone has an inner asshole that should be nourished but there’s a time and a place for that. If I’m talking about writing, in particular, I’m really not going to give too much of my time to things I don’t like or believe in. That’s not the same as liking everything or always being nice or being a sycophant. It’s about being selective in how I exert my mental energy.
no. personally, i wish you commented more.
no. personally, i wish you commented more.
me too.
it is one of those stupid words the media decided was “cool” and now overuses it, like every fucking chance they get overuse kind of shit.
me too.
it is one of those stupid words the media decided was “cool” and now overuses it, like every fucking chance they get overuse kind of shit.
i think the issue with Mather is not tone or content but frequency.
i think the issue with Mather is not tone or content but frequency.
i would also like to point out the people who wanting to ban a person are not the sort to say it in a public forum.
they are the sort that clicks and clucks behind one’s back.
i would also like to point out the people who wanting to ban a person are not the sort to say it in a public forum.
they are the sort that clicks and clucks behind one’s back.
second that
second that
Seriously? Ban a commenter? That seems about a million miles from what I thought was the ethos of HTMLG.
Seriously? Ban a commenter? That seems about a million miles from what I thought was the ethos of HTMLG.
some would disagree but thanks.
some would disagree but thanks.
nice is never honest.
nice is never honest.
I’m fairly new to HG and have only read a couple of really long comment trains, but in those I haven’t found Mather to stand out as excruciatingly annoying. In fact I kind of enjoyed the continuity his commentary provides. I think I was under the impression that he was one of the contributors at first.
I also enjoy the sound sentence structure employed by almost all here. But maybe that’s just a personal thing and I need to get on with it and move over to literary blogs since the grammar of sustainability and business blogs can be so abysmal.
I’m fairly new to HG and have only read a couple of really long comment trains, but in those I haven’t found Mather to stand out as excruciatingly annoying. In fact I kind of enjoyed the continuity his commentary provides. I think I was under the impression that he was one of the contributors at first.
I also enjoy the sound sentence structure employed by almost all here. But maybe that’s just a personal thing and I need to get on with it and move over to literary blogs since the grammar of sustainability and business blogs can be so abysmal.
[belch]
excuse me
[belch]
excuse me
i think where all this comes from is the difference between how we view ourselves and how others view us. the ‘cruel truth’ comes from these two viewpoints contradicting each other, often to the detriment of one person.
that’s the only reason truth would be cruel, or at least the only reason i can come up with.
to a large extent, i think that really is a true idea, that we have extremely distorted views of ourselves as compared to how others perceive us. of course that probably isn’t a concrete rule but more of a generality, there are those that are very good at controlling their outward persona. but very often the ‘harsh truth’ is really just a truth that contradicts your self image in a negative way.
objectively speaking, there is no such thing as a ‘harsh truth’. truth is truth is truth, divorced from any emotion.
meanness equals truth is an entirely human emotional thing. we’re a buncha babies.
also re: nice is never honest: i don’t believe that as a rule. nice can be honest. honestly jereme, i find your ‘mean’ comments are very often, if not always, funny. i feel that statement was both nice and honest.
i think where all this comes from is the difference between how we view ourselves and how others view us. the ‘cruel truth’ comes from these two viewpoints contradicting each other, often to the detriment of one person.
that’s the only reason truth would be cruel, or at least the only reason i can come up with.
to a large extent, i think that really is a true idea, that we have extremely distorted views of ourselves as compared to how others perceive us. of course that probably isn’t a concrete rule but more of a generality, there are those that are very good at controlling their outward persona. but very often the ‘harsh truth’ is really just a truth that contradicts your self image in a negative way.
objectively speaking, there is no such thing as a ‘harsh truth’. truth is truth is truth, divorced from any emotion.
meanness equals truth is an entirely human emotional thing. we’re a buncha babies.
also re: nice is never honest: i don’t believe that as a rule. nice can be honest. honestly jereme, i find your ‘mean’ comments are very often, if not always, funny. i feel that statement was both nice and honest.
i think most here is writers so ya kno
i’m funny today.
i think most here is writers so ya kno
i’m funny today.
there’s something that kind of bothers me about this…besides the fact that people seem to like to gang up on other people if they have differing opinions and aren’t considered “popular”.
how many people who were annoyed by him actually came out and said it on their own? i don’t recall any. how many people said it once it was mentioned in a post? quite a few. because now it’s “appropriate” and can be excused. it’s the same thing that was exhibited during mean week.
it’s sad.
there’s something that kind of bothers me about this…besides the fact that people seem to like to gang up on other people if they have differing opinions and aren’t considered “popular”.
how many people who were annoyed by him actually came out and said it on their own? i don’t recall any. how many people said it once it was mentioned in a post? quite a few. because now it’s “appropriate” and can be excused. it’s the same thing that was exhibited during mean week.
it’s sad.
why do i feel like gene morgan is going to ‘take his belt off’ any minute now
why do i feel like gene morgan is going to ‘take his belt off’ any minute now
i vote to replace ‘snarky’ with ‘meep‘
i vote to replace ‘snarky’ with ‘meep‘
jereme, i do really disagree with you on this: ‘nice is never honest.’ i think youre right in saying that there can be plain unadualterated mean (which is not honest); likewise, i think there can be plain unadulaterated niceness that is completely sincere and hopeful.
thank you for saying i am a smart guy. sometimes i wonder!
im still not satisfied with or know an answer to my question, though to be fair, my question wasnt completely thought out, because it assumed, as d. and you point out, that the two were mutually exclusive. it certainly isnt an either/or situation; theres aspectrum, i guess youd call it. i dont know if its a question that can be answered simply.
i think my confusion/dissatisfaction is a result of maybe my definition of nice; i think it differs than what we are discussing? i think its good that darby defined it as social grace. in that sense, yes, niceness can be dishonest. but i also, like, when i think of being nice in my head it is more of a pleasantness or delighted way of acting. if i think something is nice, or if i am being nice, i dont consciously think that im being socially graceful, though perhaps thats how i was brought up, but instead i think its just like a positive naive kind of interacting with someone else. i think in that case it can be honest.
jereme, i do really disagree with you on this: ‘nice is never honest.’ i think youre right in saying that there can be plain unadualterated mean (which is not honest); likewise, i think there can be plain unadulaterated niceness that is completely sincere and hopeful.
thank you for saying i am a smart guy. sometimes i wonder!
im still not satisfied with or know an answer to my question, though to be fair, my question wasnt completely thought out, because it assumed, as d. and you point out, that the two were mutually exclusive. it certainly isnt an either/or situation; theres aspectrum, i guess youd call it. i dont know if its a question that can be answered simply.
i think my confusion/dissatisfaction is a result of maybe my definition of nice; i think it differs than what we are discussing? i think its good that darby defined it as social grace. in that sense, yes, niceness can be dishonest. but i also, like, when i think of being nice in my head it is more of a pleasantness or delighted way of acting. if i think something is nice, or if i am being nice, i dont consciously think that im being socially graceful, though perhaps thats how i was brought up, but instead i think its just like a positive naive kind of interacting with someone else. i think in that case it can be honest.
there is a difference between talking shit and just babbling noise that contributes nothing
you fall in the first camp jereme. i have never once had the urge to ‘ban’ you as a result of your provocations.
mather’s comments seem to just shit on everything without even the interest of conversation. it is blank. not always, but more often.
i would also not ever actually ban anyone. but it is interesting to think and talk about.
everything is not to be taken literally, at face value.
jesus christ x 9.
there is a difference between talking shit and just babbling noise that contributes nothing
you fall in the first camp jereme. i have never once had the urge to ‘ban’ you as a result of your provocations.
mather’s comments seem to just shit on everything without even the interest of conversation. it is blank. not always, but more often.
i would also not ever actually ban anyone. but it is interesting to think and talk about.
everything is not to be taken literally, at face value.
jesus christ x 9.
this is called conversation.
this is called conversation.
i knew you wouldn’t ban anyone. i knew that you only mentioned it to have a conversation. the people who seriously thought you were considering banning someone made me laugh.
i knew you wouldn’t ban anyone. i knew that you only mentioned it to have a conversation. the people who seriously thought you were considering banning someone made me laugh.
That would be fun.
yes, i know. i am not opposing the conversation at all. i was just making observations. i was being “neutral-ish”, i think.
That would be fun.
yes, i know. i am not opposing the conversation at all. i was just making observations. i was being “neutral-ish”, i think.
haha, re-reading what i wrote, i didn’t seem “neutral-ish”. so scratch that. i’ll stick with the part that i was just making an observation, not trying to be mean to anyone in particular.
haha, re-reading what i wrote, i didn’t seem “neutral-ish”. so scratch that. i’ll stick with the part that i was just making an observation, not trying to be mean to anyone in particular.
<3 4 ya
<3 4 ya
you’re mah homie yooo.
oh yeah, i laugh whenever i remember that our kitty is named after you.
we both like to exclaim, “fucking blake!” when he does asshole things. hehehehe.
you’re mah homie yooo.
oh yeah, i laugh whenever i remember that our kitty is named after you.
we both like to exclaim, “fucking blake!” when he does asshole things. hehehehe.
yeah i agree with what you are saying.
but this reminded me of the same conversation we had internally last year re:language.
what is okay to say and not say.
my point is once limits are created, they will continue to encroach until nothing is left.
so if you start with some one like mather it will eventually lead to me and then to jimmy because he offended too many people with a post and etc.
the subject of mather seems boring to me. i don’t know. this post validates his behavior (in his mind i’m sure).
i have had two interactions with him and have had no problem making him look stupid.
yeah i agree with what you are saying.
but this reminded me of the same conversation we had internally last year re:language.
what is okay to say and not say.
my point is once limits are created, they will continue to encroach until nothing is left.
so if you start with some one like mather it will eventually lead to me and then to jimmy because he offended too many people with a post and etc.
the subject of mather seems boring to me. i don’t know. this post validates his behavior (in his mind i’m sure).
i have had two interactions with him and have had no problem making him look stupid.
ugh that fucking cat. such an attention whore for his mommy but the fucker won’t even come and sit on my lap.
ugh that fucking cat. such an attention whore for his mommy but the fucker won’t even come and sit on my lap.
i know. he’s on the arm of the couch trying to find a way to sit on my lap even though the computer is already on my lap. motherfucker!
i know. he’s on the arm of the couch trying to find a way to sit on my lap even though the computer is already on my lap. motherfucker!
you guys can disagree with me but you’re wrong.
that was a joke.
i will elaborate on my statement but i hate explaining shit. only because it’s you ryan. my partner in goat crime.
what i mean by “nice is never honest” is just that. being nice is a guise. you are wanting to appease some one’s ego or you fear an awkward situation by stating the truth or etc.
truth however can be complimentary but it is still truth. the best way i can explain is by showing examples i think.
holding a door for a woman to pass through because it is the socially accepted practice is being nice. the act is being performed not out of honesty but out of conformity.
holding a door open for a stranger because out of personal belief (consideration for my fellow human being) is honest and not done out of “niceness”.
smiling at a passing stranger out of social obligation or fear (the please don’t rape me smile often exhibited by women) is being nice.
smiling out of happiness or attraction when greeting a companion or family member is truthful. nice does not come in to play.
commenting on an author’s blog to say “this was good” or “good job!” or etc. is obligatory and meaningless. this niceness is so overused it is hard to discern when a genuine compliment is given.
writing an author a short email to express your enjoyment of their work is honest. once again nice is not the motivation. you felt compelled to express your opinion and it is an honest act.
and i won’t bore you with any more repetition.
nice, in my mind, has a very negative connotation. i get upset when some one responds to something i said or did with “thank you for being nice” or “you are nice”. no, i am not fucking nice. i am honest. when i tell you i like your writing it is because i like your writing. when i tell you i think you are interesting it is because i do think that. if i inform you of your “great tits” it is because i believe you have some awesome titties and i want to put them in my mouth. the term nice completely devalues the subject. “you are nice” is a tacit way of saying “i don’t believe you are being honest”.
there is such a “nice” saturation in our society that it becomes almost impossible to tell when some one is being truthful. all of this falls in line with my personal philosophy of words are meaningless, actions (and the motivation behind those actions) are concrete
keep in mind i also believe there are no altruistic goals present, past or future.
that belief makes me a little sad but i can find no evidence of the opposite being true. i would love for some one to convince me otherwise. i really would.
you guys can disagree with me but you’re wrong.
that was a joke.
i will elaborate on my statement but i hate explaining shit. only because it’s you ryan. my partner in goat crime.
what i mean by “nice is never honest” is just that. being nice is a guise. you are wanting to appease some one’s ego or you fear an awkward situation by stating the truth or etc.
truth however can be complimentary but it is still truth. the best way i can explain is by showing examples i think.
holding a door for a woman to pass through because it is the socially accepted practice is being nice. the act is being performed not out of honesty but out of conformity.
holding a door open for a stranger because out of personal belief (consideration for my fellow human being) is honest and not done out of “niceness”.
smiling at a passing stranger out of social obligation or fear (the please don’t rape me smile often exhibited by women) is being nice.
smiling out of happiness or attraction when greeting a companion or family member is truthful. nice does not come in to play.
commenting on an author’s blog to say “this was good” or “good job!” or etc. is obligatory and meaningless. this niceness is so overused it is hard to discern when a genuine compliment is given.
writing an author a short email to express your enjoyment of their work is honest. once again nice is not the motivation. you felt compelled to express your opinion and it is an honest act.
and i won’t bore you with any more repetition.
nice, in my mind, has a very negative connotation. i get upset when some one responds to something i said or did with “thank you for being nice” or “you are nice”. no, i am not fucking nice. i am honest. when i tell you i like your writing it is because i like your writing. when i tell you i think you are interesting it is because i do think that. if i inform you of your “great tits” it is because i believe you have some awesome titties and i want to put them in my mouth. the term nice completely devalues the subject. “you are nice” is a tacit way of saying “i don’t believe you are being honest”.
there is such a “nice” saturation in our society that it becomes almost impossible to tell when some one is being truthful. all of this falls in line with my personal philosophy of words are meaningless, actions (and the motivation behind those actions) are concrete
keep in mind i also believe there are no altruistic goals present, past or future.
that belief makes me a little sad but i can find no evidence of the opposite being true. i would love for some one to convince me otherwise. i really would.
blake, you make my favorite posts.
blake, you make my favorite posts.
i wasn’t aware belch’s could be used in a passive aggressive manner but i stand corrected.
i wasn’t aware belch’s could be used in a passive aggressive manner but i stand corrected.
skeet skeet, jackie, skeet skeet
skeet skeet, jackie, skeet skeet
it’s older than you and i, buddy
& an apostrophe does not denote the plural
yeah, i’m being petty – just have so much hate
it’s older than you and i, buddy
& an apostrophe does not denote the plural
yeah, i’m being petty – just have so much hate
i like when you explain shit. it helps me to better understand your comments/tone and so on. it is not boring.
‘holding a door open for a stranger because out of personal belief (consideration for my fellow human being) is honest and not done out of “niceness”.’
maybe i should say ‘kind’ instead of ‘nice’ to describe what im talking about?
that is the ‘nice’ i am talking about. i am using the term in one way and you are using it in another way. i think that is the source of our disagreement. i define nice in that considersation sense; the thought for others, which you call honesty, i think is can be described with the word ‘nice.’ it is the intention behind the act. i am satisfied with this converastion. thank you. i feel like i have completed something here.
i like when you explain shit. it helps me to better understand your comments/tone and so on. it is not boring.
‘holding a door open for a stranger because out of personal belief (consideration for my fellow human being) is honest and not done out of “niceness”.’
maybe i should say ‘kind’ instead of ‘nice’ to describe what im talking about?
that is the ‘nice’ i am talking about. i am using the term in one way and you are using it in another way. i think that is the source of our disagreement. i define nice in that considersation sense; the thought for others, which you call honesty, i think is can be described with the word ‘nice.’ it is the intention behind the act. i am satisfied with this converastion. thank you. i feel like i have completed something here.
ban the fucker
ban the fucker
yes ryan. i alluded to it up above. action and the motivation behind the action.
it is all a question of heart.
yes ryan. i alluded to it up above. action and the motivation behind the action.
it is all a question of heart.
As long as we’re being petty… it’s “older than you and me” not “older than you and i”. But you knew that. Okay, I’m just funning witcha.
(Or am I wrong? Am I wrong? Not sure. Think not.)
PS- Maybe “belchy” should replace “snarky”.
PPS- Me, I have no hate.
As long as we’re being petty… it’s “older than you and me” not “older than you and i”. But you knew that. Okay, I’m just funning witcha.
(Or am I wrong? Am I wrong? Not sure. Think not.)
PS- Maybe “belchy” should replace “snarky”.
PPS- Me, I have no hate.
At a certain point replies don’t stack in logical (readable) order. Y’alls may need to add another tier(s) of replies? Can you do that? Do you know what I mean?
At a certain point replies don’t stack in logical (readable) order. Y’alls may need to add another tier(s) of replies? Can you do that? Do you know what I mean?
actually, mimi – it’s a point of contention among linguists, because ‘than’ can be seen as a preposition or a conjunction, and so… it’s complicated.
i use ‘i’ because i hear a ‘to be’ verb implied at the end of the clause, as in: ‘it’s older than you and i are’ – which sounds ridiculous, of course, which is why we don’t say that.
this is a decent explanation of the problem: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/than-I-versus-than-me.aspx
actually, mimi – it’s a point of contention among linguists, because ‘than’ can be seen as a preposition or a conjunction, and so… it’s complicated.
i use ‘i’ because i hear a ‘to be’ verb implied at the end of the clause, as in: ‘it’s older than you and i are’ – which sounds ridiculous, of course, which is why we don’t say that.
this is a decent explanation of the problem: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/than-I-versus-than-me.aspx
actually mimi, i think reynard is correct? ‘than’ is a conjunction that is comparing two things, right? so reynard is comapring its age to the age of j and r, so the nouns in that second phrase need to be subjective case not objective so as to take the understood verb.
‘it is older than you and i (are).’ versus ‘it is older than you and me (are).’
i think this is right, anyhow. can anyone confirm this? ive been googling but can find anything easily.
actually mimi, i think reynard is correct? ‘than’ is a conjunction that is comparing two things, right? so reynard is comapring its age to the age of j and r, so the nouns in that second phrase need to be subjective case not objective so as to take the understood verb.
‘it is older than you and i (are).’ versus ‘it is older than you and me (are).’
i think this is right, anyhow. can anyone confirm this? ive been googling but can find anything easily.
wow. reynard and i are complete dorks.
wow. reynard and i are complete dorks.
i can’t believe we both started our comments with ‘actually’ – we R n3rdz
i can’t believe we both started our comments with ‘actually’ – we R n3rdz
how is this even possible? are we the same person? or wait… am i?
i’m taking the GRE tomorrow, i don’t have time for this.
how is this even possible? are we the same person? or wait… am i?
i’m taking the GRE tomorrow, i don’t have time for this.
im laughing. ok, i need to look at papers. good luck yo
im laughing. ok, i need to look at papers. good luck yo
Rey & Ry –
OK. Cool.
Thanks for schoolin’ me.
And, hey, who rearranged the replies? They be stackin’ up all logical ‘n’ such.
Cool.
Rey & Ry –
OK. Cool.
Thanks for schoolin’ me.
And, hey, who rearranged the replies? They be stackin’ up all logical ‘n’ such.
Cool.
somtimes it takes a while for the replies to stack up. i dunno why it happens.
somtimes it takes a while for the replies to stack up. i dunno why it happens.
i think of mather schneider as “the blog whisperer”
i think of mather schneider as “the blog whisperer”
dammit jereme, after reading ‘nice is never honest’ i so much wanted to say ‘suck my balls’, but after reading your explanation i was like ‘shit, he was just presenting a zen koan’ and now i want to meditate or something with you.
regarding ‘nice’, ‘altruism’, etc., definition is everything. definition is creation and in many instances existence. so you would first need to stipulate whether altruism is exclusively ‘other’, namely, that the self can not be involved in anyway whatsoever, such that there is no feeling of fulfillment or reward or even motivation, as in saving a loved one from harm even at the expense of oneself. and if that is the case, i would say be default that altruism as thus defined is necessarily and logically impossible, given that in all instances and actions the self is in inextricably involved by the very fact of doing something.
personally nietzsche cleared up the matter some when he distinguished between two types of selfishness, that which springs from absence or want, and that which springs from abundance or overflowingness, reminiscent of eastern ‘no-need’ or non-attachement, which themselves can be debated to no end often enough. and again it comes down to a somewhat scalpel dissection of semantics, but either way neither can not be settled until the premises are laid out ‘like a patient etherized upon a table.’
dammit jereme, after reading ‘nice is never honest’ i so much wanted to say ‘suck my balls’, but after reading your explanation i was like ‘shit, he was just presenting a zen koan’ and now i want to meditate or something with you.
regarding ‘nice’, ‘altruism’, etc., definition is everything. definition is creation and in many instances existence. so you would first need to stipulate whether altruism is exclusively ‘other’, namely, that the self can not be involved in anyway whatsoever, such that there is no feeling of fulfillment or reward or even motivation, as in saving a loved one from harm even at the expense of oneself. and if that is the case, i would say be default that altruism as thus defined is necessarily and logically impossible, given that in all instances and actions the self is in inextricably involved by the very fact of doing something.
personally nietzsche cleared up the matter some when he distinguished between two types of selfishness, that which springs from absence or want, and that which springs from abundance or overflowingness, reminiscent of eastern ‘no-need’ or non-attachement, which themselves can be debated to no end often enough. and again it comes down to a somewhat scalpel dissection of semantics, but either way neither can not be settled until the premises are laid out ‘like a patient etherized upon a table.’
I might get a little harsh but really I am just trying to have some fun. I play too rough sometimes I guess. You guys should take a lesson from Jereme and simply put me in my place when I mouth off. That guy is too smart for me. Thanks to all who defended me here. It supports my feeling that this is the most open-minded and tolerant blog on the net. By the way, darby, I am a “he”.
I might get a little harsh but really I am just trying to have some fun. I play too rough sometimes I guess. You guys should take a lesson from Jereme and simply put me in my place when I mouth off. That guy is too smart for me. Thanks to all who defended me here. It supports my feeling that this is the most open-minded and tolerant blog on the net. By the way, darby, I am a “he”.
Sometimes I feel like I am the anti-Mather here at HoTMaLe GIANT and that I am going to be banned for being a dumb (but kind-hearted and earnest) blonde “she” reader-but-not-writer.
I never wanted them to ban you.
Blake once wrote that he likes a sloppy house, and I agree whole-heartedly.
Plus, I love cute puppy pics.
http://www.dailypuppy.com/puppies/ollie-the-border-terrier_2006-07-20
Sometimes I feel like I am the anti-Mather here at HoTMaLe GIANT and that I am going to be banned for being a dumb (but kind-hearted and earnest) blonde “she” reader-but-not-writer.
I never wanted them to ban you.
Blake once wrote that he likes a sloppy house, and I agree whole-heartedly.
Plus, I love cute puppy pics.
http://www.dailypuppy.com/puppies/ollie-the-border-terrier_2006-07-20
If you were giving a lecture, would you tolerate this behavior?
Throw the bum out, he’s spoiling the event for everyone.
If you were giving a lecture, would you tolerate this behavior?
Throw the bum out, he’s spoiling the event for everyone.