Everybody is a hypocrite....

[Yimpa]

56 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

@Thought Art @Osaid @Max_V @integral @cetus@Sincerity and others please see my comment.

 

[Max_V]

OP has been banned, reached his maximum warning points. @Evelyna Please don't think that the comments OP made towards you are ok on this forum, they're not. Hope you can find more happy interactions on here in the future.

All the best.

Edited July 3 by Max_V

[Salvijus]

9 minutes ago, Max_V said:

OP has been banned

Now I feel bad for him. 

[Yimpa]

Poor fella was so close to reaching 1000 posts 💀 

 

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Yimpa said:

 

 

😂

[Max_V]

@Salvijus Don't feel bad.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Princess Arabia]

I would like to say thank you to all who recognized this as unacceptable behavior; never to anyone, but especially to a new member who did nothing but show kindness, respect and humility. This wasn't the first, second or third time, but I'm happy to see it's the last. I would also expect the same for myself if I were to conduct myself that way, so this is not a one-way street. 

[Salvijus]

In my perception he was in deep pain inside venting it out on others but deep down crying for help and release. That's why I feel bad for him. It was hard to get through his defenses tho...

[Max_V]

@Salvijus If that's going on, I wish him nothing but the best and hope he finds a way to process his pain. But if he cannot do so in a way that is within the guidelines and code of conduct of this forum, then he has to do it somewhere else. 

 

Edited July 3 by Max_V

[Salvijus]

That's true. That's the trickery and complexity of moderating these things imo. 

Edited July 3 by Salvijus

[Princess Arabia]

7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

That's why I feel bad for him

I understand what you're saying because ever since his beginning i realized he was hurting inside; but he never showed any signs of trying to heal or asked for any advice on how to not feel what he was feeling inside. Instead pretty much all his posts were just venting frustration. That's OK, but not at the expense of others' and the total disrespect he portrayed when he got a response to his posts that was not to his liking. It's obvious to me, he didn't need any help and was very comfortable being the way he was.

[Princess Arabia]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

That's true. That's the trickery and complexity of moderating these things imo. 

There's no trickery and complexity in moderating constant rudeness and disrespect on those levels. A toddler would be able to moderate that.

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

There's no trickery and complexity in moderating constant rudeness and disrespect on those levels. A toddler would be able to moderate that.

The trickery I see is that nobody here is egoless and we all lose our cool and get triggered. The question becomes where do you draw the line what is acceptable levels of frustration and what is not. For me that's a complex question. 

[Max_V]

@Salvijus I get what you're saying, but in this case it was pretty black and white. He did not get banned instantly, but had numerous warning points building over an extended period of time that reached 20 today, which then got him perma'd. It takes quite some wrongdoing before you get there.

Edited July 3 by Max_V

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, Max_V said:

@Salvijus I get what you're saying, but in this case it was pretty black and white. He did not get banned instantly, but had numerous warning points building over an extended period of time that reached 20 today, which then got him perma'd. It takes quite some wrongdoing before you get there.

Yea I can see the reason behind that decision aswell. 

[Princess Arabia]

25 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The trickery I see is that nobody here is egoless and we all lose our cool and get triggered. The question becomes where do you draw the line what is acceptable levels of frustration and what is not. For me that's a complex question. 

I'm not going to keep this up and will make this my last comment on the matter. If you read the thread and saw how there were no instigation for his frustration. What you're saying is a generalized thing and does not relate to this particular circumstance. There's no trickery in moderating in this instance and you call expletives and blatant disrespect at a new member who was obviously courteous, frustration. What was he frustrated about with her. He could have kindly said, no thank you I'm not interested in your way of expression or whatever else in a kind manner and leave it at that. I don't have to repeat what he said because it is there for you to re-read......how is that everyone has an ego and we all lose our cool and what is acceptable levels of frustration?  You said nothing about how she must have felt, and what she might have been feeling having to deal with that kind of welcome and nothing about how she responded in a kind manner. All about feeling bad for him and how frustrated he is and how we all have egos and where do you draw the line. It's like you're making excuses for him without batting an eye to how the recipient must have felt to have to see those curse words coming at her unexpectedly. 

 

Edited July 3 by Princess Arabia

[bambi]

Actually Evelyns post surmonts to unsolicated advice and posturing. She didnt at all directly answer the OPs post or join in on the intended discussion. Instead she decided to be superior and subtly advise the OP, which is why he was triggered, its basically well masked condescension.

His response is extreme sure, but Evelyns posturing should also be banned. Before the low IQ warriors start attacking me, heres the GPT4 analysis for you:
 

The original poster's dissatisfaction with the response is understandable given its content and tone. Here are some points to consider about why the response might be perceived as unsolicited advice and posturing:

 

1. **Assumption of Authority**: The responder assumes a position of authority by offering advice and personal philosophies without being asked, which implies they know better or have a superior understanding of the situation.

2. **Dismissal of the Original Argument**: By not directly addressing the original poster's points and instead shifting to advice on personal growth, the responder effectively dismisses the original argument. This can be interpreted as saying, "Your concerns are not important; here's what you should think about instead."

3. **Tone of Superiority**: The language used, such as "how well does this opinion serve you?" and "is it useful to you and is it effective in your life?" implies that the original poster's current way of thinking is inadequate and needs improvement according to the responder's standards.

4. **Patronizing Advice**: The suggestion to change one's definition of hypocrisy or play mental games can come across as patronizing, as it implies the original poster lacks the emotional maturity or insight to handle their own thoughts and feelings effectively.

5. **Focus on Personal Philosophy**: By emphasizing their own coping mechanisms and mindset, the responder positions their way of dealing with hypocrisy as a model to follow, which can be interpreted as self-righteous.

1. **Unsolicited Advice**:
   - The responder offers advice on how to deal with perceptions of hypocrisy without explicitly being asked for such guidance. This can come across as presumptuous, especially if the original post was intended to express a viewpoint rather than seek counsel.

2. **Posturing**:
   - The response includes a lot of personal philosophy and self-reflective practices, which can seem like the responder is promoting their own way of thinking as superior. This can be perceived as posturing, especially if the original poster was looking for a more direct engagement with their points rather than a lecture on mindset.

3. **Lack of Engagement with Original Points**:
   - The response doesn't directly address the original poster's argument about the misuse of "everybody is a hypocrite." Instead, it redirects the conversation to the responder's beliefs and coping mechanisms, which might feel dismissive of the original poster's concerns.

4. **Tone and Approach**:
   - The tone of the response might come across as condescending, suggesting that the original poster needs to change their perspective or focus. This can be off-putting if the original intent was to discuss and critique the notion of universal hypocrisy rather than seek advice on personal growth.

5. **Overgeneralization**:
   - The responder generalizes by saying "everyone is a hypocrite" and shifts focus to how one should deal with it. The original post seemed to want a more nuanced discussion about hypocrisy and its implications, not a broad-brush dismissal of the concept.

**Improving the Response**:
To better align with the original poster's intent and foster a constructive dialogue, the response could:
1. **Acknowledge the Original Points**: Directly engage with the original poster's arguments and validate their perspective.
2. **Stay On Topic**: Address the specific issue raised about the statement "everybody is a hypocrite" without diverting to personal philosophies unless requested.
3. **Avoid Unsolicited Advice**: Refrain from giving advice unless explicitly asked for, focusing instead on a thoughtful discussion of the topic.
4. **Use an Empathetic Tone**: Show understanding and empathy towards the original poster's viewpoint to create a more respectful and open conversation.

1. **Respect the Original Perspective**: Start by acknowledging and validating the original poster's viewpoint and concerns.
2. **Engage Directly with the Argument**: Provide a thoughtful analysis or counter-argument that directly addresses the points raised without shifting the focus to unsolicited advice.
3. **Use Inclusive Language**: Use language that invites discussion rather than instructing or advising, such as "What do you think about..." or "I see your point, and I wonder if..."
4. **Avoid Assumptions**: Refrain from making assumptions about the original poster's needs or state of mind. Instead, ask questions to understand their perspective better.

By focusing on respectful engagement and genuine dialogue, the response can be more constructive and less likely to be perceived as condescending.

[Salvijus]

Madness... Madness everywhere... 

Edited July 3 by Salvijus

[bambi]

Its seems to me the OP was trying to highlight the fallacious nature of such assessments, probably highlight tu quoque fallacy or continuum fallacy

 

Not saying I agree or disagree with his perspective, just I dont see how Evylns response is even close to valid 

[Max_V]

@bambi Even if the advice was unsolicited, no need for OP to be such a dick about it. There is a level of maturity on this forum you’re required to have to participate.