Regina wrote:What's that called in forum-speak? Yup, tone-policing, I guess.
From my perspective, it's yet another non-sequitur. Forum speak, or no.
Regina wrote:Anyway, let's straighten that out:
I hope so - from my perspective your posts so far on this side conversation have done anything *but* straighten things out; they seem more intent on manufacturing obfuscations.
Regina wrote:"What's the expression? Something like - we despise what we see of ourselves in others - the visceral antipathy Scot has for Trump perhaps suggests there's an awful lot to see there."
This is a very thinly veiled personal attack on Scot Dutchy, which you chose to dress up as pseudo-psychology (which in itself is bit of a redundant expression).
Oh let me help you there.
No, it's not 'a thinly veiled personal attack' in the slightest. It's a blatant expression of complete contempt for someone who has been acting like a total fucking numpty across multiple threads. Perhaps you should look into that so you might find yourself in an informed position about the events preceding it and why that expression was more than warranted.
What 'pseudo-psychology' did you detect there? Assuming your detection of it is correct, then the issue you presumably have is with the expression I noted. I didn't make that expression up, I simply recalled it. Of course, if you are hostile to the notion of employing the principle of charity in your reading, then you could just as easily contrive fictions from any written words. It really does come down to what tickles you, I suppose.
Regina wrote: You are trying to argue that racism etc. are learned behaviours and therefore not character traits which we supposedly see in ourselves when we criticize others.
I clearly was not trying to argue anything of the sort. You introduced this strange non-sequitur, and I pointed out why it was irrelevant. I would have said the same thing if you'd have said 'oh well then that must mean blondes hate other blondes' or some other obtuse non-sequitur, but that wouldn't mean i was arguing that 'blonde is not a character trait' because that's trivially true and not an argument.
Regina wrote:This distinction is an interesting one to make, but is in fact irrelevant here as you did not specify (because you probably don't know) whether Scot despises "character traits" or "behaviours" in Trump.
I wasn't aware I was obliged to specify for you. Perhaps you could have tried asking me if you were looking to find out more information about my thoughts rather than deciding on my behalf what I meant?
Regina wrote:My guess is: both.
Ok, that's nice. My guess is 23.
Regina wrote:To sum it up, you pulled a claim out of the conversational sewer to attack Scot and that claim is simply unaldulterated bollocks.
To sum up: you decided to engage in the manner wholly typical of this subforum and exemplify why it's such a stain on this forum: with hostility, snarky, and a total disregard for discussing ideas instead of projecting the poorest reading you could muster without any interest whatsoever in exchanging ideas just to have a pop. Disappointing, but par for the course unfortunately.
Regina wrote: I'm sure you know that but never expected to get a reaction.
I was actually having a conversation, as you may note, with OlivierK, so actually my post *was* a reaction. Of course I didn't expect a response from you as you had not been involved prior to that, I didn't know you were reading, and frankly, I have to admit I'd kind of forgotten you existed. Had I recalled your existence, I wouldn't actually have expected such a strange and torturous response from you because, as far as I recall, I've never seen you engage with people in such a manner. Then again, I don't spend much time in this forum because of the kind of discourse it attracts.
Regina wrote: You were attacking Scot, after all. And no, he's no mate of mine.
And this is relevant because...?
Frankly, I don't really understand any of your responses. You seem to have an inner dialogue feeding you with more points you wish to discuss than which are actually present in anything I've written. Perhaps you could reach a little further and just have the entire conversation with yourself?
by 
