There were moments when you were super confrontational and certainly did act like you thought you knew better than the person you were engaging in discussion with. There were a couple of times when you made me feel uncomfortable because you suggested people who liked the ending were delusional. But we've all done that kind of thing at some point. I wouldn't say you were a bully --- just, passionate.
Re: Well...lozenger8September 13 2009, 22:43:59 UTC
Hmpf, you're doing it again. There are no hard and fast facts of the episode. Different people interpreted what we were given differently.
So many of us wanted Sam to go back to 1973. And he did. And that was wonderful for those of us who wanted that. Sam sacrificed himself in one world to save another --- and there was no death, we never saw one. For all we know, Sam jumped through a time portal. For all we know, he's a mess of blood and guts on the ground. None of us truly know what happened, not even Matthew Graham himself, because it wasn't explicit to the nth degree (deliberately not explicit to the nth degree!) and there were enough strange anomalies that you could do a quick rewrite with only having to handwave/ignore one element --- and you could do that either waySo it isn't delusion and you're not necessarily right. You came to a conclusion based on your interpretation of the 'facts' of the episode, and other people came to their own. In a show that was slowly (too slowly, I would argue, but still doing so) working towards
( ... )
I think any confrontational discussion defaults to asserting power at some level, and what affects the situation is more the personalities involved than the topic or the need to win the argument. In those situations it is often hard in the heat of the moment for people NOT to act like bullies at some point.
I agree with Loz, at times you were very confrontational which some people might see as "being a bully." But again, in agreement with Loz, I personally did not see it as bullying behavior so much as tempers getting heated up by a passionate advocacy of what you see as the correct interpretation.
(Frankly in those situations YMMV; there are people in the dS fandom I consider righteous bullies who are, on the whole, adored and appreciated by the majority of the fandom. But then my def. of a bully is someone who purposefully sets out to disempower their opponent, as opposed to winning an argument (or coming to a non-winning but reasonable compromise) through the merits of their case.)
There's also the thing that...hmpfSeptember 13 2009, 20:18:21 UTC
I do tend to argue like that, always, when I *do* argue. I.e. passionately, and kind of relentlessly. This is why I sometimes stay silent in RL situations (which then leads people to assume I'm doing so because I'm shy, when really it's because I'm doing my best to avoid dominating the discussion.
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
So many of us wanted Sam to go back to 1973. And he did. And that was wonderful for those of us who wanted that. Sam sacrificed himself in one world to save another --- and there was no death, we never saw one. For all we know, Sam jumped through a time portal. For all we know, he's a mess of blood and guts on the ground. None of us truly know what happened, not even Matthew Graham himself, because it wasn't explicit to the nth degree (deliberately not explicit to the nth degree!) and there were enough strange anomalies that you could do a quick rewrite with only having to handwave/ignore one element --- and you could do that either waySo it isn't delusion and you're not necessarily right. You came to a conclusion based on your interpretation of the 'facts' of the episode, and other people came to their own. In a show that was slowly (too slowly, I would argue, but still doing so) working towards ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I agree with Loz, at times you were very confrontational which some people might see as "being a bully." But again, in agreement with Loz, I personally did not see it as bullying behavior so much as tempers getting heated up by a passionate advocacy of what you see as the correct interpretation.
(Frankly in those situations YMMV; there are people in the dS fandom I consider righteous bullies who are, on the whole, adored and appreciated by the majority of the fandom. But then my def. of a bully is someone who purposefully sets out to disempower their opponent, as opposed to winning an argument (or coming to a non-winning but reasonable compromise) through the merits of their case.)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment