The Match Cut Presidential Dog and Pony Show

[Spinal]

Sassy, but accurate!

[Gittes]

Sassy NY Times

Speaking of the NY Times, this is now quoted in a previous reply of mine, but I'll also post it here: Russia and the U.S. Election: What We Know and Don’t Know.

[Irish]

Although I do have to say, I think I got the lucky side of that diagram.

Goddamn right you did. I demand a recount!

I don't understand why a handful of people seem to insist on climbing up his ass and making him feel unwelcome every time he posts for longer a few day stretch. Not trying to jump into the fray.

All due to my *flex* forceful posting style, baby

[Gittes]

I'm done

Goddamn right you did. I demand a recount!

All due to my *flex* forceful posting style, baby

Can you stop these nonchalant poses meant to disguise the bullshit of your remarks (about Duca/Teen Vogue)? It's embarrassing, among other things. You want to diminish the obnoxious behaviour that I called you out for, that's clear, but you've already tried to do this repeatedly (and poorly), so why not desist in your provocations? My remarks to amberlita and DaMU were substantive elaborations of my points and earnestly addressed their comments, whereas your latest response amounts to another ineffective and desperate attempt at correcting the narrative, saving face, and aggressively minimizing your own actions.

[Irish]

*flex*

[transmogrifier]

Can you stop these nonchalant poses meant to disguise the bullshit of your remarks?.

Um, his reply to me was a flippant response to a flippant response to a flippant response in diagram form... If he isn't allowed to toss of a jokey post in those circumstances, I think we all need to pack up and go home.

In other words, chill a bit. Go and watch a movie you love, take a walk outside... whatever you need to get the love back.

[transmogrifier]

Oh, Irony, thy name is Donald J. Trump.

Part of me thinks he did that because he's got a wicked sense of humor.

That's the absolute best you can hope for at this point...

[Gittes]

I guess it's not surprising that Irish, someone who appears to have precipitated the departure of at least one long-existent user (he's trying to add to that tally now, right?) from this forum, and IIRC, has seemingly rejected apologies/olive branches in other cases, would now unimaginatively rely on trolling in the present circumstance. Some of these responses to my criticisms strike me as solipsistic. This is what I meant when I wrote "evading the topic via over the top indifference and other distractions." Here, the fact that I described Irish's writing style as "forceful" (as in forcefully stated, overly assertive, opinions indelicately presented as fact) is used by him to assemble an unfunny distraction.

So, if there's actual confusion about whether or not certain of my comments have a basis in reality, or if anyone feels that specific comments can be dismissed via his poor joke responses, perhaps it will help if I substantiate my argument more. This should further specify what I mean by "forcefully stated," and give you some idea of what I mean when I vaguely refer to the "excesses" of his communicative style on this forum:

- example 1 (the tone).
- example 2 (not just this post, but the overall exchange, wherein a disagreement leads to an offered clarification/opening for amicable resolution, which is then rudely dismissed).
- example 3 (the condescendingly worded response to Morris).
- example 4 (this fourth one is relayed by another user; confirmed by yet another user further down the thread).
- example 5 (in some of these examples, the comments are especially odious — like this fifth one — and therefore, "forcefully stated" is an inadequate description).
- example 6 (the condescension of the terse, instructive tone he sometimes adopts).
- example 7 (this is less about something "forcefully stated" than "obnoxiously worded": I'm not sure why he needed to disrespectfully refer to Tom Holland — a human being with a name, and an established actor who has starred in Wolf Hall, The Impossible, and Captain America: Civil War — as "the kid").
- example 8 (another mean-spirited comment, this time directed at number8 — this is not the best way to respond, even if he was offended by something number8 said in the thread).
- example 9 (it's unclear to me what point he is making here, as I'm unfamiliar with the Lewis novel, but even though it's a jest, this strikes me as an uncouth post).
- example 10 (begins a response with an unnecessarily condescending term of address).

Note 1: That is not a ranked top 10 that is ordered in terms of severity or anything like that; the order is completely random.
Note 2: There are two sides to every story. I'm sharing posts that I think are problematic — mostly straightforwardly problematic — but there might be other details (not necessarily extenuating or exonerating, but who knows?) worth considering for some of these (others, like #5, seem unambiguously shitty). If someone has contextual info worth sharing about these examples, or anything else I've pointed out, feel free to share it.
Note 3: I know Irish has a history of getting his judgment and/or personality needled by brief, drop-and-go posts. I don't think the best way to deal with this is to call the other person "dim" or attack their career, etc. I don't think Irish's offence at this needling is unwarranted nor should it be diminished, though. You'd have to go case by case. Even if the needling is sometimes meant as a joke, it's possible that the repetitive nature of these comments upset him and that his irritation (but not always the specifics of his reaction) was justified. I am not trying to contribute to that history of needling by making these posts. I wanted to bring an error (the Duca/Teen Vogue comments) to his attention. I am trying to be critical, substantive, and charitable (for the failures and missteps of my messages to you Irish — here or elsewhere — I apologize). Anyway, I mostly say all of this to note that, afaik — correct me if I'm wrong — the above examples are not tied to any pre-existing acrimony between users.

For other instances of the obnoxious, smacks-of-reverse-ageism thing that cropped up again in this thread via his ignorant remarks about Duca and Teen Vogue, search within this example and this one (I'm talking about specific sections of those two posts; for example, in the latter link, it's the sentence containing a reference to MTV News).

Those are a few examples of some of the occasionally problematic aspects of his communicative style on this forum. Irish has good qualities and, of course, many of his contributions have been valuable. His writing can evince a thoughtful, principled disposition. I just think the occasional excesses of his communicative habits sometimes lead toward unwelcome results and, most recently, the unpleasant comments about Duca and Teen Vogue.

I apologize if any specific indelicacies or harshness in my posts upset anyone. At the same time (and there's a distinction here), I do not regret making my justified criticism in the first place, nor do I regret choosing to defend it.

The fact that my loquacity is often easily encouraged by trolling — a fact I readily admitted; it's a symptom of my belief in my argument, and a reaction to distasteful replies — does not in itself discredit anything, and it certainly does not refute my fundamental criticism regarding his comments about Duca and Teen Vogue.

[Watashi]

Don't bother, Gittes. Don't feed him. If you try to tackle any of his asinine arguments, he just cowers and rolls up into a ball and post something completely unrelated to your argument. Funny, cause he tends to thrust himself on a intellectual pedestal and look down all the uneducated pleebs, yet he can only revert towards simpleton ad hominems when someone dares to challenge his crazy opinions (and yes Irish, they are opinions).

I shouldn't bait him with these posts, but these back-and-forths on these last few pages have just reminded me how tiring I find this forum now. His shrugged off insult towards Lauren Duca's professionalist career (someone who has work published on various noteworthy sites and doesn't spend time bickering on online forums) rubbed me the wrong way too and the fact he has yet to even address your initial qualms with this is just typical of him.

Oh well. He has me on ignore. He's not going to waste time replying to this. If he does , he'll probably call me a cunt again or threaten my work or education.

I got your back, Gittes. I enjoy your detailed responses. You're good people.

[Irish]

*flex*

[Skitch]

I guess the conversation of message boards will break down when, in this day and age...hang with me, and say it really, really s l o w...

...president elect..........DONALD TRUMP...........is meeting up with.....KANYE WEST....because reasons.


I feel like I'm perpetually in a never ending loop of that dark part of Willy Wonka's boat ride where he broke the seven seal and summoned the dark lord of the Nth dimension or whatever fruit loops was going on in that delicious slice of madness.

[Irish]

His shrugged off insult towards Lauren Duca's professionalist career (someone who has work published on various noteworthy sites and doesn't spend time bickering on online forums) rubbed me the wrong way too and the fact he has yet to even address your initial qualms with this is just typical of him.

If one of you isn't fucking or related to Duca, you're both batshit crazy.

This is what I said, exactly:

Lauren Duca is a twenty-nothing writing for Teen Vogue (?!).

That was followed by specific criticisms of her piece. If any of it was a slight, it wasn't an offensive one. And certainly not worth the level of vitriol that Gittes spewed afterwards.

I don't have a problem if someone contradicts my opinion. There are people here who do that all the time, and quite a few who do it well. They at least attempt to take me on good faith, and they don't make their arguments personal. But that's never something you've done, and it's not something Gittes is doing now. This is a thing because you guys made the conscious choice to make it a thing. Again. I didn't look for the conflict and I sure as hell didn't start it.

You guys want to pretend and play around and white-knight for Duca, but really this is more about taking me down a notch because, on a personal level, I bug the shit out of you. Okay, fine. You don't like me. I got it. But I think everyone -- especially me -- could do without the repeated levels of histrionic bullshit. You can't really expect me to take you seriously, or treat you with any respect, after the way you've behaved towards me. Especially you, Watashi.

I don't know what Gittes hopes to prove. If a smelly homeless guy approaches me on the street, waving his arms and shouting, I don't stop and engage him. I don't take the crazy seriously. I keep walking.

[Watashi]

If one of you isn't fucking or related to Duca, you're both batshit crazy.

Haha what. No less crazy than flexing your digital muscles anytime amberlita posts here. You say I like to follow you around in threads, but your infatuation with her and how she can halfway stomach your backwards logic is as obvious as my contempt towards you.

This is what I said, exactly:

I know what you said, Irish. "twenty-nothing" is the offensive part. You have disregarded her entire article because of her inexperience. The insults reeks of when Armond White said that there are no good critics under 30. You wave her off as some liberal-minded millennial looking for clicks rather than what her writing represents. This is the first article I've read of hers, it's nothing to get puffed up about.

[Watashi]

Oh God. What have I done. Ugh. I don't want to get back into this mess. I should have just said "wtf Irish" and left.

[number8]

Been thinking of printing myself a T-shirt that says "Gender identities are more important than rustbelt jobs."

[Gittes]

Oh God. What have I done. Ugh. I don't want to get back into this mess. I should have just said "wtf Irish" and left.

It's clear he'll just keep deflecting, minimizing, mischaracterizing my criticism as something it isn't, diminishing/mischaracterizing his own error, etc. There's also the possibility of more inaccurate, self-aggrandizing remarks as well desperate reliances on one studied pose or another to disguise his mistake. His approaches to the criticism are lazy, among other things (I guess we can't expect him to earnestly address his remarks with anything resembling compunction, given that he's avoided earnestly acknowledging his unpleasant error and, in other dismissive remarks, has doubled down on that error). I appreciate that you valued my point, Watashi; you were right earlier when you suggested that it's best not to expend any more energy on this, especially given the coarse cluelessness he's determined to keep on displaying in "response" to my criticism.

[amberlita]

Yikes my last post had a lot of redundancy and typos. I know it doesn't matter, but sorry. I was in between meetings and in a rush.

Please pardon another notch in that "large stretch." I want to address your words with compunction. I realize you're not trying to get involved in the discussion I started, so you can of course feel free to move on past this comment. I just wanted to say that I'm sorry for compromising your experience of this thread (that's not snark; I'm being sincere). Admittedly, I don't completely understand why any given thread cannot include objections to the content being posted. However, I do apologize that these particular diversions from the discussion became so longwinded. I'm sorry this was irksome for some of you. I don't regret believing — and still believing — that my point warranted some of the space in this thread, but it's dispiriting to read posts like the one you just made, so I do owe you an apology. I wish this had ended up being a briefer exchange. Instead, deflections on one side led to more detail on the other.

I'm glad you opted to comment on this situation without making a diminishing joke (while I don't think it's necessarily helpful, I can understand why some folks opted for that approach). I put thought and care into my original post and hoped it would elicit something less grossly dismissive from Irish. His deflections and his "I really don't give a shit, bro" responses struck me as incongruent and absurd, and my inclination at that point — to the irritation of some, to the bemusement of others, but hopefully there's something like understanding mixed in there — was to defend my point and provide more detail. I also aimed to be substantive in my replies. I don't appreciate that you reduced everything involved here to "the same old crap," but, at the same time, I understand your overall frustration.

I'm an easy mark for trolls (not saying that's what Irish acts like all the time) because I'm argumentative and, when I believe in a point and it's poorly challenged, I often think it's worthwhile to supply more detail and explanation, rather than just opting out of the discussion entirely. I have allergies to condescension, too. As to the reasons why Irish receives negative attention: if you're earnestly wondering, I think I made it clear why it happened in this instance, and others have offered thoughts about why it has happened in other situations. There are many examples of his skirmishes with many folks on this forum (nearly everyone?), and those can probably be examined to yield an understanding of how his occasionally combustible temperament and, at times, uncharitably forceful writing style might be key factors in some of those blowups. Does that mean he has never received unfair responses on this forum? No. You have to consider the context of each situation. In this case, his communicative style provided us with a mean-spirited quip about Duca and Teen Vogue.

You did put a lot of thought and care into your original post. But you also put subtle digs. As someone who has dissected Irish's posting style quite a bit in this thread, you must claim to be someone who understands that style very well, and the response you posted is emblematic in my opinion of how these forays get started. There's good content, but you know exactly how to push his buttons. So you dressed up some insults on him (the dig about his obsession with his forum reputation is obvious to me a euphamistic attempt to call him a loser) and when he responds badly it's all "Irish won't respond to my argument". And then the people who don't like him smell blood in the water and come to run wing-man for you. I'm not defending Irish or his posting style. It doesn't always rub me the right way but more importantly I'm sure he doesn't want or need me to do that. I'm just trying to point out that perhaps his Problem he seems to pose to many of you may have as much to do with your own way of processing disagreement and posting style as his own, evidenced by the fact that a number of people here are able to engage with him without it devolving into a forum scrap. I'm sure none of what I said will really matter and that's fine. But I rarely pass up an opportunity to complain about minor nuisances in my life (like having to wade through these inane spats to get to the stuff I find genuinely interesting to read).


To the recent topic of the thread: this election has taught me exactly why so many people who voted for Trump had a dystopian outlook on the last 8 years. My Facebook feed has been filled with rampant negativity and while I agree with their stance on most of these issues, I'm sick of the tone. If it lasts the next 4 years, which I suspect it will, doesn't matter what the actual state of the country is at that point. The diagnosis will have been made and liberals will be declaring how the country has turned to shit.

That all seems obvious in hindsight. Happens every time one party loses and needs power back the next election. But I dunno...just had some clarity on it of late.

[amberlita]

Haha what. No less crazy than flexing your digital muscles anytime amberlita posts here. You say I like to follow you around in threads, but your infatuation with her and how she can halfway stomach your backwards logic is as obvious as my contempt towards you.

In fairness, I think a hard look at the trends would deduce the opposite conclusion.

[Irish]

If anybody needs me, I'll be over here in the corner, flexing in a completely non-performative way

*flex*

[Ezee E]

Do you post anywhere else these days, Watashi?

[Gittes]

This is a response to amberlita's recent post. Since she read through my previous post and took the time to offer a response, I'd like to reply. Be aware that this necessarily means referring to the argument with Irish, which amberlita's post also addresses. She raised points that I think it would be useful to talk about and clarify, as this might improve everyone's (well, those who are interested) understanding of the situation. If some of the folks here no longer have any interest in the argument, that's fine — I'd prefer to move on, as well — but I'm inclined to think a reply is warranted here.

Bolding and hiding to compensate for length:

[

Show Spoiler

First of all, thanks for your thoughts.

like having to wade through these inane spats to get to the stuff I find genuinely interesting to read

I wish the overall argument that ensued had been briefer, but in my view, my criticism, and many of the points I've raised in this discussion, are not "inane."

a number of people here are able to engage with him without it devolving into a forum scrap.

If others prefer not to criticize Irish for whatever reason, that is their prerogative. As I mentioned, I also can't afford to frequently douse myself in temporary misery, so I can't call out everything that is objectionable to me. I thought this instance was irritating and egregious, and I had the clarity on hand to address it, so I did. I'm assuming that sweepingly blaming the "forum scraps" on the folks who have have opposed Irish in past arguments — not saying you're doing this — seems too facile a summary (given, for instance, the examples I've linked to here and in my other post, among other complicating factors).

I'm not arguing that your point here is without merit, though. However, I'm hesitant to assume that all of his skirmishes — in which his writing style abuts against various dispositions — should be connected to this idea that folks are inexplicably failing to politely endure what may have been, depending on the situation, his unfair or problematic communication.

Again, I know this isn't your point — you're wisely noting that there might be missteps on both sides, or that Irish may not always be to blame for the "scraps." Valid point. I'm just taking this opportunity to share my own thoughts. Of course, sometimes reactions are warranted. You'd have to go case by case. Peace is always better, but some of his posts — the condescending, carelessly worded, or combustible ones — don't always lend themselves to peace, so I can imagine why some people get offended or miffed (this is not to say that there is no situation in which Irish's actions can be defended, or that there haven't been excesses on both sides before, or that Irish has never received unfair treatment, etc.).

I'm not defending Irish or his posting style.

Understood and, insofar as his problematic posts are concerned, appreciated (I'm carefully wording this because, of course, I don't believe all of Irish's contributions to this forum are without value).

You did put a lot of thought and care into your original post. But you also put subtle digs. […] you dressed up some insults on him (the dig about his obsession with his forum reputation is obvious to me a euphamistic attempt to call him a loser) and when he responds badly it's all "Irish won't respond to my argument".

Given what you're saying here, I'd like to address this (your "call him a loser" claim). I will accept that as a potential implication of my post: I'm sorry for that, Irish. It was not my intention. Also, Irish, I'll go ahead and apologize for any unfairness or missteps made in this thread or any other thread that irritated or offended you. I'm also sorry for any aspects of my posts that upset or irritated anyone.

While I do not think that euphemistic reading being shared here is necessarily "obvious," I won't deny its validity as a potential interpretation (more on this in my third paragraph). I'm not going to arrogantly state that there's no room for improvement in my posts, or that they are magically free of indelicacies or harshness. However — and there's a distinction here — as I said before, I do not regret making my justified criticism in the first place, nor do I regret choosing to defend it. The term of address — "twenty-nothing" — was unambiguously insulting, and Teen Vogue's attempt at offering its readership different, thoughtful content shouldn't have been met with ipso facto condescension.

Moreover, I also think any perceived weaknesses in my transmission should first be viewed in the context of the discussion and the way it flowed. For instance, Irish carelessly dropped absurd stuff like "I don't give a shit, bro" (a gross harbinger of the dismissive responses to come) and that's when I thought it necessary to more accurately describe his original remarks as "stupid" (this inadvertently supplied him with his next distraction). I will not dismiss the possibility that I could have, or should have, softened aspects of my posts (the "speculative reading" of his comments, for instance). However, I also don't believe that anything in my posts actually precluded Irish from acknowledging the severity of a patently clear error. I mean, you can do both (complain about my transmission and thoughtfully acknowledge your own error). After some of his recent posts in this thread, I suspect the resistance to acknowledging the error has a lot to do with pride. Said error was still given careful, considered treatment within my first post; the silliness of the remarks he made in his post, which I quoted (I also could have quoted more; check his post), ought to have spoken volumes. Yet his first response was immediately disappointing, and then there were all the others that followed. Feel free to criticize any awkwardness in the execution of my posts — that's only fair — but I don't think it makes sense to use such complaints as a means of evading a legitimate criticism. I think he latched onto things, like rightfully calling his remark "stupid," in order to deflect the criticism at hand. This, to me, was transparent.

Again, I want to stress that my intention was never to sublimate a "loser" accusation into that sentence about a "message board career." I apologize if people detected such implications and if they seemed pronounced. That was not my intention. I do not think Irish is a loser, stupid, worthless, etc. I never intended to indicate he was a "loser," or anything like that, in any of my posts. The "??" I used was because I actually still don't quite get why Irish once wanted to delete everything he had written on here (I didn't look far enough into the context). The idea of mass deletion in and of itself is not inherently silly, nor can I say Irish's reasons (which I don't know anything about) were silly. As I said before, his overall contributions to this forum are not negligible. There's no shame in caring about your forum posts. I mean, I fastidiously edit almost everything I write because I'm so anxiously concerned about getting my meaning just right (and I still end up failing sometimes). The "message board career" was meant to suggest a careful or ardent attachment to one's online contributions, and it's therefore a term that also applies to myself and my attachment to my posts and my concerns about my own writing style. But it was not meant to say that such an attachment is inherently bad or risible. I used that term to raise the idea that he'd privilege the usual tenor of his specific contributions — the forcefully stated, merciless style he uses sometimes — at the expense of a more critical examination of his own posts. I explained why I think he's fussily concerned with his posts (again: I am, too, in my own way), and how, in his case, that has negatively manifested when he, say, lashes out at users that interrupt what I suspect is his desired flow of infallibility.

In other words, I was anticipating a rebuttal wherein Irish aggressively dismissed my claims. I anticipated this because past events have made me believe that he would do so, that he's fussy about his message board reputation, and that he wants to maintain a sustained version of his occasionally declamatory, intransigent, online voice. I had reason to suspect that he prefers to think of himself as unerring and that this would color his response to me, as it seems to have coloured his responses to others in specific situations in the past. So, I expected he would value these aspects of his writing more than the idea of deigning to admit an error. The "message board career" comment was also meant to invoke how, over the years and in different ways, Irish has intermittently but problematically leaned into his style. None of this is meant to suggest a "loser," a mean-spirited and inapplicable term I can't recall using even in other contexts, but rather the hazards of his elected approach. Again, my use of words like "career" and "fussy" referred to his seemingly intense valuing of his own style style/posts, which is not inherently bad or even that unusual. At the same time, I was predicting he'd go too far by choosing to honour the idea that his style was unassailable — by deflecting, dismissing — instead of acknowledging his error. I was expecting a privileging of the ego over reason and decency (this is not to say this is what Irish always does, but that for some reason — perhaps wrongheadedly — I preemptively expected it to crop up here, in this situation)

Condescension and intense, no quarter, uncharitable barrages of opinion-as-fact amounts to a poor way to even semi-regularly communicate with people. My vehemence here (or in a few other situations with other users, wherein something offended me) is not comparable to the excesses of Irish's style, which encompasses not just this one argument but, in different ways, many posts over the years (here's other, more recent examples — here and here [the latter being, as with the blow-up in response to [ETM], a rather poor response to jests/needling from another user]). Distinctions matter: My own heated words were about the latest consequence of his occasionally heedless writing style — the ignorant remarks about Duca and Teen Vogue — which I carefully outlined. I earnestly defended my view in this thread; he did not effectively address the criticisms. By making the "message board career" comment at the top of my post, I was hoping to preemptively steer him away from that sort of behaviour, but perhaps that was an ill-advised move. Otherwise, I think my post was mostly carefully worded, and the criticism concerning his odious comment about Duca and Teen Vogue more than warranted a reasonable response. Again, in this situation, the way he latched onto imperfections, ostensible or otherwise, and used these to dismiss a clear point came across to me — and still does — as a deflection. The fact that he later returned to this thread, and repeatedly doubled down on the very thing I was criticizing him about, revealed that he was ardently interested in amplifying — not just evading — the repellant qualities of his remarks about Duca and Teen Vogue.

]

[ledfloyd]

But yeah -- my understanding was that you don't go with a story unless you have two independent confirmations, and preferable one or both of them is "on the record." This CIA thing was a anonymous leak, and it was a leak that had political shades to it.

I think they Washington Post didn't have the story, and publishing it on the heels of the PropOrNot thing was irresponsible.

You generally don't. But good luck reporting on intelligence agencies with on the record sources. There are certain areas where the press's options are to use anonymous sources or not report the story at all. Reporters have to decide whether not reporting the story at all is doing a disservice to the public. You would still want at least two independent trusted sources. Maybe in this case the Post shouldn't have gone with it (I personally don't have a problem with it, subsequent reporting by the NY Times seems to back their story up. Though you're right, "hack the election" is a shitty phrase. They hacked the DNC and released information in an attempt to affect the outcome of the election), but there are cases where I think anonymous sourcing is absolutely necessary. Much (most?) of Watergate was reported with anonymous sourcing.

I just balk at the characterization of, in my opinion, the two best papers in the country as grimy because of jittering meters and one regrettable story on PropOrNot.

[Watashi]

Do you post anywhere else these days, Watashi?

Forum-wise? No. I'm mostly posting Disney stuff on Facebook and sometimes tweeting at critics on Twitter.

[Spinal]

*flex*

*flex*

Gilly ......................


[

Show Spoiler

*flex*

]

[Idioteque Stalker]

The problem is Irish wants to talk about things and Gittes wants to talk about Irish. Irish does not want to talk about Gittes and Gittes doesn't want to talk about things. Please stop pretending like there's a dialogue going on. I like you both.