Operation Distract, Hijack, Derail

[Nicodema]

[or Petty Personal Attacks Explained in a Nutshell]

It starts with a snide comment, a word of thinly-veiled contempt, a barely-disguised insinuation about someone's character or motives, or an accusation against them. We've all seen it. All of a sudden a thread is no longer about its subject, but becomes instead about the instigator insisting he has done no wrong and attempting to pin his own deplorable behavior upon the one he has targetted, while the targetted person cries foul and attempts to point out the reality of the matter.

And suddenly it is end of story, end of issue for the subject of that thread or even for the petty argument itself which ensued. Neither matters any longer, because the REAL objective -- to hijack and derail the thread itself -- has already been accomplished, unless and until people come forward to engage in rational, civil discussion on the actual, original subject of the thread.

Which most of the time they won't, having been chased off by the literary fisticuffs.

One of the thematic patterns I have been noticing of late is DISTRACTION. I believe these petty snipings and ensuing arguments are deliberately provoked and instigated merely as a ruse to hijack and derail a thread from its subject. Before crying "paranoid!" or "conspiracy theorist!" stop and consider the following. These same techniques are frequently used by certain television and radio personalities who make a pretense of being open-minded and hosting those who disagree with their views. Whenever their "opponent" guest says anything worth hearing, these ingracious "hosts" derail by either attacking the guest -- making foul insinuations about him and/or "pigeonholing" his statements for summary dismissal without objective analysis -- or simply shouting over him vociferously. Now note how the same tactics are emulated here to derail threads. Note also what sort of threads are typically the subject of such derailment. Finally, note which posters tend to instigate this sort of derailment procedure.

The pattern is hard to miss.

[Robert]

"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone...."

[Nicodema]

Now here is the dilemma as I see it:

Once the attack has been issued, the onus which ought to be upon the instigator's shoulders is immediately assumed to be upon the target's shoulders instead. To wit: responsibility to see to its end. (Remember when you were little and you protested to Mom or Dad, "but he started it!" and they answered, "well then you finish it!"?)

Yet here is the dilemma:

If the targetted individual chooses to respond, then he or she:

• provides feedback which urges the instigator to keep the argument going; yet
• is viewed by others as responsible for its continuation.

On the other hand, if the targetted individual chooses non-responsiveness, then

• he or she permits outright falsehood to go unchallenged;
• he or she accepts the abuse from the instigator by letting it go unanswered; thus
• he or she inadvertently contributes to the appearance that the abuse is warranted and the instigator is right or correct about his false personal charges or insinuations.

As neither of the two choices offers an acceptable solution, I hereby propose a radical notion, quite possibly THE most radical notion to ever occur to a human being in this day and age (or so it would seem from observing patterns of attitude and expressed thought gone loose in the world):

I propose simply this: that the instigator, rather than the target, be held entirely responsible for seeing to it that these petty personal attacks and arguments NEVER get started -- by refraining from starting the cursed things in the FIRST place!

As it is impossible to coerce another against his will, this of course requires free-willed cooperation on the part of would-be instigators not to instigate. Alas, no hope could be more absurd than that one.

So failing that, what is the next best thing? Since the objective is actually to distract, hijack and derail the thread itself, perhaps the next best thing would simply be to engage in objective, open-minded discussion of the subject itself, and not let the instigator achieve his real purpose in it all.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

Since the objective is actually to distract, hijack and derail the thread itself, perhaps the next best thing would simply be to engage in objective, open-minded discussion of the subject itself, and not let the instigator achieve his real purpose in it all.

---

One last point here:

One individual alone cannot accomplish this by himself or herself. There must be additional individuals involved for the matter to be termed a "discussion." Otherwise it becomes merely a "monologue."

And we all know how dull and tedious THOSE can be!

[Jeannieb43]

You make a good point, Nico.

There's a big difference between commenting on a topic and arguing that topic. One does not necessarily need to present an opposing viewpoint in order to contribute something of value.

[Nan]

So everyone who joins this campaign would ignore personal attacks and continue to discuss only the topic of the thread? Starving the personal attacks out ? Strong overtones of turning the other cheek and I guess we have precedent for that.

I am only tossing the ways my mind has responded to your posts Nico, I am interested to hear other points of view too.

[Nicodema]

Or else everyone else could respond with one reality-revealing post about the nature of the instigator's post and defense of the target, thus disarming the instigator, nipping it in the bud (he has no allies in his effort), allowing the target to "turn the other cheek" while not leaving him/her undefended (we have a precedent also for defending the unfairly attacked), and then getting on with the actual subject after the instigator is rebuffed universally.

I think that type of approach nicely combines both choices I outlined above to steer clear of their detrimental effects, and gets the subject restored without further derailment.

But I could be wrong -- I've not done any scientific testing of the matter. It involves getting others to cooperate/participate in that fashion, and that would have to be entirely up to them to be authentic in nature. If it is "rigged" it loses it's authenticity and it's "punch", though it might still be effective ...

I'm open to hearing other thoughts, ideas and suggestions for solutions as well. Apparently only certain parties can request at the outset that only civil and on-topic discourse follow their posts and be heard. Apparently I'm not in that august and arbitrary group. So I personally am invested as I personally need a solution. But I am not the only one who can benefit here. Others are also not included in that august and arbitrary group, and they could use a solution as well.

[Nan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

But I am not the only one who can benefit here.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You are right, we all benefit when the issues are discussed and the slanging matches avoided.

[NormF]

Well said, Nico. Your observation and your thoughts on it are correctly targeted and well aimed.

It looks to me as I survey this thread that you ladies could use a male voice of support. Or at least certainly, that my fellow gentlemen need to hear a male voice urging them to rise to this call too: Here it is; this is it. This should not be a gender specific topic, and I firmly believe that. Maybe it's just coincidence that it's happened this way thus far. But I sure hope it doesn't continue in this pattern.

Nan's suggestion that such interlopers be starved out of the thread sounds to me like an excellent implementation of the plan. Its doable, and it has a reasonable chance of being successful.

A closing comment: It should be acknowledged that even now an elephant is in this room and has been here from the beginning. I expect to hear from it, now that he's been acknowledged; but he will not get a response from me. We who are posting on this thread are now on record as not being blind, that's enough. This is as far as it goes ... especially including my part right here.

I will be back to this thread regularly, and I will contribute more to it, on-topic ... only.

Regards,

Norm

[jasd]

>>…a "monologue."

And we all know how dull and tedious THOSE can be!<<

Mea culpa. [/gulp, grinnin’]

Oy, mon mono-logue…!

‘Twas an ill wind blowing from the east that delivered me to this day; …for I am felled with a limber blade unhap’ly slipped beneath my mail and plates to prick my breath. Alas! …but nay, hold, ‘tis but a bodkin --its remedy a dram or two ;-)

And I…, who decries the 15-20 minute monologues delivered from Gd’s pulpit on His blessed day -- desiring it had length, as well as breadth.

…the once per week monologue that seemingly suffices the ones: Perchance,

it is explanation enough -- that the Bible and Theology board herein -- languishes. [/clueless]

[jasd]

>>There's a big difference between commenting on a topic and arguing that topic. One does not necessarily need to present an opposing viewpoint in order to contribute something of value.<< [ed.]

But is the opposing viewpoint proscribed? I hope not. I think that, culturally, the debate-as-form for the parsing of a subject is de rigueur; ergo, the Presidential debates… and other such. Other than that,

everything else devolves to the bull session, the glad hand, the backslapping-mutual-agreement society.

I pay an awfully outrageou$ amount every month to my local power company. There is enough current running through the wires of my house to frazz me tah jolly. Other than that, if that current does not meet resistance -- I can never enjoy the benefits of a lit light bulb (even to light a candle requires resistance -- for the most part). If it were not

my desire for understanding or to refute a point, I would not go to my books, the library, the internet, other exegetes, and so on -- learning in the process. Hopefully,

‘for understanding or to refute a point’ is equally valued -- that the same holds true for most others of this list.

I am the sort who prefers to post in a manner that does not maranatha, amen, ‘allelujah, verity y’all tah death -- with lickspittle in my beard, no less. Therefore,

I post adversarially. Anyone having cause to disagree

with what I put forward ought to refute -- otherwise, what I put forward is let stand.

I’m good with that

[jasd]

Well, tosspot! This thread’s

been run, helter-skelter, off the page! right off the page!

I see you, NormF... and I've bumped you

Considering, your obvious talent... Well,

tskity, tskity, tsk, tsk, tsk… oh my! one wonders at the pulpit in Xtiandom that -- so facilely engenders the deprecate, and alas also, its increase -- the imprecate. Stipulating

that deprecations and imprecations are implicitly evil, and for analogous purpose -- ascribing, likewise, ‘evil’ to an elephant, the question obtains…

which, is inherently the lesser of these evils? the elephant that bumps into the china cabinet? or the thrall of aspersion.

Rather than any of us initiating posts which directly seek to diminish another member of the list, I suggest that everyone would be better served to concentrate on issues and let Christ address the person; unless, of course,

one is taken with the idea of Domini canis gate-keeping (a punning treat of the Inquisitorial Dominican Order, no more

re: addendum, a redux:: methode and manner of contributing…

What is the above? simple response? dialectics? dialog? debate, argumentation? commentary? other?

Does it matter? Why? if something of value is contributed…

Hominis, homo, ecce!

I am Orc

That wreaths the accursed thing

Which, when lips unsheath

Stands ‘twixt thee and me… --apologies to Wm. Blake