A Diabolic Partner

My sense -- and I wasn't thinking of you particularly in any case -- is that many of the responses to Jig on this and other threads have been very personal. I think it is entirely fair game to critique her decision to create the threads. And fair to question the content that she puts into them. But I wouldn't have to look hard on this thread to find examples of posts that are pretty direct attacks on Jig herself.

It's also a question of tone: some of these posts have been pretty cuttingly sarcastic. I don't know that I think that is necessary or desirable.

/me shrugs

Then again, it's not as though Jig is the only one who gets savaged here. Maybe it's just the forum culture.

Sarcasm is one of those things where you either hate it or you don't. Often it gets the point across in a very direct way. Obviously I use myself sarcasm when I feel it is warranted. That can be when I detect a certain level of BS, when I am being played or I sense others are being played, when under attack myself or if I think someone is being unfair to another, amongst other reasons.
I would not say that I have read anything here that is that cutting or savage even though there has been plenty of sarcasm. Believe me, I have been in threads where I and others have been savaged and this has been mild so far.
If there has been a lot of personal attacks on Jig I must have missed them because most of what I have read is dealing with what she posts, not her personally. I have seen a lot of criticism but that is to be expected with the type of material Jig is posting. Tone is something that is very difficult to discern correctly from text. We tend to project our own feelings into what we read, that is something to be wary of. I know, I have done it myself and misread the intent of things.

In any forum there is a culture of jumping on off-topic flame-baiting, trolling and plain old BS'ing, I think that is the sum total of what we are seeing here, nothing more.

Miss Rhiadra.....I do believe that Miss Chippewa is familiar with sarcasm, and seems to be able to counter it fine with her own doses. She's welcome to correct that observation. If you're connecting sarcasm to hostility, rather than humor....well, that's a shame....tough way to go about things.

The more personal info you provide.....the more you set yourself up for a personal "observation." If one can't handle personal observations.....then they should not provide personal info.

The longer you go along without acknowledging some helpful tidbits.....the more forceful the tidbit givers become (in frustration). Even if you don't agree with a tidbit....simply acknowledging it was given, goes a long way, and will shut-up the tidbit giver.

I don't think you're giving Miss Chippewa enough credit....in fact you make her out to be weak and incapable of responding to the challenges. I don't see that....she responds fine. (in odd ways....but still fine)..... smiley face! humor!

Sweet of you to step up to the plate, and offer to aid a victim....but doesn't look like she needs it. She's welcome to correct that observation.

Was there a day or two when you couldn't log in? That may have been the suspension, if so. Over and done. Onward and upward Jig ol' gal.

Sarcasm Reading Chart:

"Have a Nice Day..." means F-Off

"Have a nice breakfast"....means "you aren't so bad, you got a few good shots in....see you again tomorrow."

I'm guilty of what you describe and I would apologize to her via PM if they were enabled. I'm done attacking her and I even tried to get her help last night on SLU when no one was up to answer her suspension questions.

Sorry, Jig. Next time your threads or posts bug me to the point of wanting to respond in an unkind manner, I will just put you on ignore.

There is another word for what you are decribing but it is NOT "sarcasm.

Did some coddlers convince you that you are a victim, Jig?

You're over-complicating things, or perhaps not understanding, or explaining yourself badly, *yet again* Mickey.

Pep ( Sarcasm has its own standard emoticon on these forums which implies that it is expected. )

But you always understand me, Pep...and that's all that counts. Thank you again, for clarifying what I mean.....very comforting that we've connected on that level.

Don't be absurd. All coddlers are required to check in with the Jig Police to see if we are allowed to have an opinion first.

Well, Mickey, as will not have escaped your attention, I have brought up the issue of civility and constructive discourse on this forum before. And will continue to do so.

That, frankly, was the main theme of my post, and the reason why I did not grapple directly with you or others whom I felt were being distinctly uncivil. I have every confidence that Jig can handle herself here, and in-world. I should also say that I myself have some reservations -- which I have stated elsewhere in this or the related threads -- about some of the things Jig has said.

As for your defence of sarcasm . . .

I think you are oversimplifying what is really a pretty complicated and sophisticated tool of language. Sarcasm involves both humour AND hostility. It is a rhetorical ploy used to belittle an opponent, in part by provoking in other auditors a laugh at the expense of the victim. And it can be more or less legitimate, depending on how it is used. I have seen many instances of it being used subtly and intelligently here, and others where it is used in place of rational argument -- presumably either because it was deemed a more effective way of quashing an opponent, or because the employer was unable to muster a reasoned response instead.

It is entirely up to Jig to determine if she has or has not been a victim. As I say, my main concern is with civil discourse.

But this does prompt a question. Why is "victim" such a dirty word in your lexicon, Mickey?

Exactly. And that is why I addressed the question to Jig.

Ray, for what little it is worth, I did notice how quickly and earnestly you -- and many others -- came to Jig's aid when she was clearly upset about the suspension. I think that doing so was very kind. I'd praise you more for it, but I'd be accused of condescension I'm sure.

Actually, Jig's very real distress notwithstanding, I've found the whole episode in at least one way a very reassuring affirmation of the degree to which the people here on this forum DO function as a supportive community. And I think that's pretty cool.

I do too.

I think compassion fatigue has set in for some though. Some of these things are cyclical and never ending.

For me was kind of a 'bottom line' kind of feeling. I'm used to her being cheeky and smug and a little arrogant and a little condescending, especially toward older and/or disabled. BUT I didn't like seeing her 'defeated', either, by what she appeared to perceive as a farewell note from LL. Was unsettling, to see her scared and worried. Yeah I feel bad for her, having received what she did from them, and trying to figure out exactly what happened, and removing all the things that are important to her inworld. So for me, those feelings overrode the annoyance I feel for some of her posts. Can always rally around and give someone a virtual hug. I can't think of anyone, actually, that I could not back off of a 'stance' if I deemed it necessary at the time, for the greater good.

I have a problem with you calling me uncivil. Just for the record. That is not my style. If you misread something I said, or read too much into it.....I don't have a lot of control over that.....that's your choice.

I spoke straightforward to someone who was speaking straightforward.

Yep!!

That's a good point, Melita. At that point it might be better to skip threads then? That's just me though. I wouldn't feel it necessary to belabor my point once I had made it. For me, tolerance-fatigue of the compassion-fatigued is setting in. I would skip the thread, but I remain concerned about Jig, so that isn't an option.

I'm sorry Mickey. I guess that's just ME "speaking straightforward."

Frankly, I really don't want to get into a back and forth here about this sort of thing: it would not be constructive. It was for that reason that I did not reference particular people or posts in my original comment on this subject.

Let's just say that we disagree, and move on?

I had the same take on your tone. I didn't find your sarcasm humorous after a point.

So you can label someone "uncivil"....but not provide reference.

Like Scylla, I'm not up for a weeing contest. In a broad stroke, I will refer to the breakfast stories. You made your point. Then, to my sensibilities, I found it started to become cruel.

*sigh*

I am referencing, as is Laurin in the post above, I believe, your unremitting and overlong parody of Jig's post describing her day. I think the initial post made a valid point. But after a while it was like watching someone wielding a sledgehammer. It was by NO definition "speaking straightforward," nor, after the initial post, was it in any way constructive OR civil.

Mickey, I really really don't want to get into another brawl about this. This is exactly the kind of crap that I think we should be avoiding at all costs here.