Followup to the Awful Thread of Awfulness

I'm back.

My conclusion: no retractions, no apologies. I do have some comments.

If you think my whole point is simply wrong

Then you might be right. I never claimed otherwise. This forum isn't a bully-pulpit and I made no claims of laying down a bunch of beliefs for anyone. I was pretty clear about that, actually.

If this applies to you, then I think it's dishonest to call for further arguments or proof. It's basically just setting traps for me to fall into. I'm not inclined to do that. I am satisfied with the diversity and consistency of my observations over time. You don't have to believe me about that, or you can consider me the victim of circular bias. I don't really care, because my goal in posting any of this was not to convince the skeptical, but to present my outlook.

"That's not science!" That's correct, it's not. Never said it was. I'm showing you the bats in my belfry. Science is about arriving at the most rigorous possible principles that operate out there. This topic - what the bats are doing in my belfry - is not science, nor was it from the beginning, nor can demanding that I present it as such mean anything.

Can I be convinced otherwise? Sure, I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm reasonable enough to consider other explanations. But not by anyone claiming "You can't convince me, so you're wrong!" You'll have to find some other way.

If you think I might be right, but was wrong or mean in saying anything about it

Then you may feel secure in your judgment, and perhaps revel in your status as a better human being. Everyone can judge me as they see fit. I've been called a lot worse than "wrong" or "mean" in my time, and can live with that.

Special case: people who feel implicated by my points, as in "Hey, I wrote or worked on those games," and you think I'm calling you a bad person, well, I'm not. I do think that if you agree at all with my point, then you might reflect on your own role, as you see fit. If you don't agree at all with my point, then well, what difference does getting mad at me make? We can just not agree, and that doesn't bother me, and I don't see why it should bother you.

Telling me how wrong or mean I am, on the other hand, has gone about as far as I'm willing to care about, in this forum anyway. Most of what I've seen here is simply emotional spillage or posturing.

Anyone who wants to address what they see as a personal attack can do it on the individual level, treating me as a person instead of a demon. John did that. Follow his example. I'll listen to what you have to say, and address it.

If you think I might be right, but was utterly dumb in thinking "brain damage" means what I thought it meant

Then you're definitely right. Believe it or not, this was presented as a term of sympathy and brotherhood, as in, "we're all in this ward together." It's too bad it seems to have become a term of vicious insult to the current generation (as my generation, to our shame, used "retard"), without my knowledge.

If you're inclined to accept that I had no idea what "brain damage" meant in colloquial rather than literal terms, then I suggest focusing on the martial arts analogy instead. If you're not inclined to accept that, and are mad at me for insulting everyone and utilizing a terrible term that only bad people use, then I can only say, enjoy your anger and/or disapproval. Everyone needs a hobby, so I suppose I can be yours, for as long as you care to stay mad and disapproving, or can continue to get attention for it.

If you are interested in what I'm saying, but are not sure you get what I mean

Then ask questions. However, since a few people are seeing this whole thing as an excuse to act-out, in all sorts of internet locales, then your questions are almost certain to be swamped by their noise, or looted for vilification elsewhere. Individual email's probably best.

One last point

A lot of people have hurled lists of names at me: "Bob, Mike, Jim, Roy, and I all agree that you're wrong!!" That sort of thing. You know that one? Pretty common in office politics - "All of us think X, so you ought to consider X!"

However, the "all of us here" argument doesn't work. As usual, it represents the self-reinforcing emotions of three or four people who've got themselves into a lather and decided that they represent the world, so they bring "everyone here" as a verbal hammer to hit the offending individual with.

I don't especially respect this game. I have a pretty full house of people who've agreed with me, explicitly. If you're read the thread and various blogs, then you know who they are. I'm not the odd man out, not by a long shot.

Your "everyone here" dog simply won't hunt, because it's not "everyone here," even if the four of you all write each other 100 emails agreeing with each other to power-up for your assault.

What now?

Far as I'm concerned, this was an Adept Press topic from the start, and taking it elsewhere was a rotten thing to do, on a number of people's parts. I post here to discuss things here, not to see it sprayed all over the internet as a crazed exercise in meme mutation. I do not think I am such an important person that my posts or ideas are that newsworthy. You disagree? Than this is your opportunity to take me right off that pedestal.

I've said what I need to say, as a public topic. I still need to comb the thread for direct questions and will answer any that I think need answering, here in this thread. Which, by the way, keep your fingers off. No replies here.

I've also called for individual continuance for anyone who suits some of the points above, such as folks who want to provide alternate ideas, or folks who consider me to have injured them personally, or folks who want to ask questions about what I mean. All of that is welcome.

Otherwise, g'night & good luck.

Best,
Ron