Types in Verbal Combat

[munenori2]

[quote=strrrng;411508]FiNe = labeling people assholes for differences in communication.[quote]

lmao! Dude that's actually kind of funny! Read my motivations more plz. k thx.

This demonstrates the emptiness of debating this with you, and reinforces how the conflicting relationship affects things.

Yep, pretty much. I don't even think it's necessarily a conflicting relationship, but I agree there sure as shit is a lot of conflict.

[strrrng]

lmao! Dude that's actually kind of funny! Read my motivations more plz. k thx.

No one is reading into your motivations - stop projecting your own Fi attitude, lol. The reason I made that comment about FiNe labeling people as assholes was to make a pun on your previous comment, "FiNe = not liking assholes," which you actually quoted me saying (obviously in some Fi attempt to portray my motivations as you presumed them to be, lol), because it seemed like a stupid exaggeration aimed solely at solidifying your "righteousness" in this debate. Obviously the Ti fell short on you.

[strrrng]

Ah, now I'm left with two choices. Walk away and prove that I can't deal with aggression. Continue arguing and prove that I put too much energy into it.

Fuck that bullshit.

Nick, you're proving my point in this thread. What I had intended to be input of a rational nature, you turned into a personal issue. When I addressed that point, again directly, you accuse me of cherry-picking the argument and that nothing I discuss with you will be taken into consideration because you've already cast your judgment on me. Then, when I acknowledge that and simply state my case so that both sides can be seen, you launch into attacks again and then claim that I'm being paranoid by calling your dirty tactics into question.

Yeah, I'm the one on their high horse, Nick. I'm not proving your point. You have no point. And how were my arguments not rational? You didn't address my or merk's points worth a shit, instead evading them with TiNe rationalizations. And the reason I said you were cherry-picking was because you brought up general examples that were unverifiable, as if that was some great proof of you being assertive, lol. State your case so both sides can be seen? Wtf are you reading? I'm so tired of this air of objectivity, lol.

And you are so right. I am totally afraid of intensity. Like, when someone says something mean to me I'm afraid to respond because I might lose. They might make me look silly. Because everyone knows that the only way to be confident in the world is through aggression. Get over yourself, Nick. Take a walk in reality and realize that there's more interactions and self-respect than playground pushing and shoving. Wake up and realize that "being intense" in an argument does not make you better at arguing and that responding to people's aggression in a similar manner to their own doesn't produce an intellectual debate. You can intensely argue a point without aggression and without emotional manipulation. Perhaps you need to learn how to distinguish the two. READ MY FUCKING PREVIOUS POST. I SAID that one can be aggressive/confrontational without having it be emotionally charged. And I didn't suggest those motivations for you, I merely observed your behavior. And go ahead, put words in my mouth, I never said aggression was the best tool. IN FACT, I specified briefly how there is a certain art to aggression, suggesting it was more than just some act or stupid behavioral tool. Nice try though. I didn't say intensity made one better at arguing, nor did I say responding intensely fostered a productive debate. AGAIN VERO, read my earlier posts, where I AGREED that it was good to aim for neutrality and that it's pointless to get caught up in emotional bickering. and lmao @ ur last two sentences. I stated this very clearly a few posts ago. The fact that you're responding so defensively only demonstrates how you cannot distinguish between normal aggression and emotional intensity, as my post harbored no emotional charge, yet you interpreted it that way. Way to contradict yourself, Ms. Logic!

As a general rule, I don't feel the need to continue in a debate that has fallen to emotional tactics. I've had my fair share of that in the past. When I'm having fun and arguing for shits and giggles, then sometimes I'll even do it just to get my hands dirty again. But when someone disturbs an interesting discussion (or what could be an interesting discussion) with that kind of nonsense then I lose respect for them. lol @ you rationalizing it as emotional tactics when you have nothing left to say. And read my posts. They were thorough and logical. Don't try to blame me cause you have no counter-argument. Alpha NT copouts galore *CLAPS*

As to my interactions with Merky, the only reason I gave it attention was because you brought it up. Wow, surprise surprise, matters get attention when people clinch an argument on them. So yes, I was describing my manner of dealing with things to you in this thread, and thus giving it more of my energy. Merky didn't need to give it his attention because he was not involved in the debate and thus his actions regarding me were totally irrelevant. He is obviously my psychological superior for having no investment in this conversation. Nope, instead he just gave you extra firing power to try and undermine my argument in this discussion and once again stepping in to attack me. As usual. Yeah, lol, keep rationalizing.

And now, surprise! I'm emotionally invested because you turned it into a personal attack. Bravo sir. Exactly why I dislike emotional tactics in a discussion. Now excuse me while I cower in the corner in anticipation of your response. I never have had a personal stake in this. You simply cannot understand that I respond with intensity without being emotionally attached.

1

[strrrng]

I hate discussing with Fe/Ti types. They rarely care about the discussion; they are generally more concerned about "winning" it. It's fairly classical when it comes to SEIs and ILEs. You can even notice how the SEIs here introduced the "+1" expression, etc.

I specially hate when they throw what they think is a "devastating" argument and won't allow you to even reply to it, starting to scream and such. I bet it usually happens when such an argument creates a Fe connection and they don't want you to break it; even if they don't really ever cared to check whenever the argument was that great in the first place.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GET A FUCKING BRAIN

They "scream"? Where? They introduced the +1 expression? Where? When? How? Please don't hesitate to elaborate. Please don't hesitate to prove to us those facts with logical evidence. Or else you've just got a buttload of "emotional bias", dude.

I know, right? You're too cool to be alpha, lol.

[Steve]

You tend to lace your comments with lots of slighting, condescending lols and "oh really?" type statements, (Oh, you're saying this stupid thing, lol?) as if to let the other person know that you know what they're up to (i.e., Fe reading-between-the-lines). The added lols help add a layer of condescension to the comments, as though you're merely humoring a child who's said something foolish, and letting everyone know how amusing you find it. These are clear Fe games.

Hmmmm, let's see, in the last two pages alone...

No, I'm not trying to be offensive or offset you at all. Stop being such an alpha NT, lol.

1

And lol @ ur rationalization about how you reacted to merk. I don't particularly care about the details; every time I have observed the comical interaction, he has seemed in control.

2

You are expending a lot energy defending yourself, lol, so it's obvious who's "losing" here.

3

The wasting energy I was referring to was Vero's behavior in this thread. And I doubt Merk had malicious intent, lol, he just likes to gauge people.

4

If she actually had control of the situation, she wouldn't have written paragraphs rationalizing how she stood up to merk, lol.

5

No one is reading into your motivations - stop projecting your own Fi attitude, lol. The reason I made that comment about FiNe labeling people as assholes was to make a pun on your previous comment, "FiNe = not liking assholes," which you actually quoted me saying (obviously in some Fi attempt to portray my motivations as you presumed them to be, lol)

7 (cause we have two in there)

And the reason I said you were cherry-picking was because you brought up general examples that were unverifiable, as if that was some great proof of you being assertive, lol. State your case so both sides can be seen? Wtf are you reading? I'm so tired of this air of objectivity, lol.

hmm, two almost back to back, i guess we're up to 9 now

lol @ you rationalizing it as emotional tactics when you have nothing left to say.

10

Yeah, lol, keep rationalizing.

And that brings our magic total to 11

[strrrng]

Steve, shut the hell up. So what if you've demonstrated that I slight people on whim? GREAT JOB!!! YOU JUST PROVED I'M IEI. Now what? Do you have an argument to prove I'm wrong? hmm...no. Do you have anything logical to say, other than quoting my posts in some desperate attempt to jump on the majority's bandwagon here and get a big pat on the back for exposing mean old (Ni)cki? hmm...I don't thinkkk sooo

But at least this time you used some concrete evidence instead of relying on your omniscient vibes, universally accepted as they may be, and utterly ignored in reality as they are.

Dolphin, didn't you already handle this, lol?

GAWD...why. are. people. so. goddam. averse. to. a. little. fucking. conflict. silly, silly

/edit: I don't know why I made this post, since Steve most definitely won't respond. Typical ENTp tactics - ignore direct confrontation, wait for a support group, then sneak in some slippery little jab and go back to hiding. *****CHEERS******

[Steve]

Steve, shut the hell up. So what if you've demonstrated that I slight people on whim? GREAT JOB!!! YOU JUST PROVED I'M IEI. Now what? Do you have an argument to prove I'm wrong? hmm...no. Do you have anything logical to say, other than quoting my posts in some desperate attempt to jump on the majority's bandwagon here and get a big pat on the back for exposing mean old (Ni)cki? hmm...I don't thinkkk sooo

But at least this time you used some concrete evidence instead of relying on your omniscient vibes, universally accepted as they may be, and utterly ignored in reality as they are.

Dolphin, didn't you already handle this, lol?

GAWD...why. are. people. so. goddam. averse. to. a. little. fucking. conflict. silly, silly

whereas you seem to take such criticism very personally, reacting in an emotional torrent, as if you're worried about some kind of exposure which might result in a public loss of face.

.

[munenori2]

GAWD...why. are. people. so. goddam. averse. to. a. little. fucking. conflict. silly, silly

Who's averse to conflict? More like allergic to stupidity.

[xyz]

Wow. This thread is exhausting.

[Wynch]

See, again, that's what I find so interesting about all of this, Nick. When I'm emotionally charged, it's bad. When I rationalize, it's bad. So....what? The only way for me to properly enter a discussion is to sit there filing my nails in a blazé fashion and word everything I say in a manner that demands an aggressive response? Because by the looks of your posts that seems to be the only approach. Otherwise I'm sitting on my high horse by not falling into those tacks or I'm using alpha NT cop-outs.

As Steve just pointed out, I'm not the only one who's noticed the kind of manipulative tactics you use in your "dicussion" style, Nick. Though I think that's only one part of it. In general you tend to word things in the most condescending manner possible to try and create an intellectual superiority over whomever you're discussing with.

Famous tactics include asking questions:

Don't you consider his attempt pathetic? If so, how come you don't mock him?

That prove to be rhetorical after someone chooses to respond:

I have paid attention on various occasions. Not that I cared to observe it, but I distinctly remember the portion of the chat last night where merky told you how he hated you and pondered why that was so, and you basically sat there, saying nothing, with a flat expression. I have paid attention on various occasions. Not that I cared to observe it, but I distinctly remember the portion of the chat last night where merky told you how he hated you and pondered why that was so, and you basically sat there, saying nothing, with a flat expression. If you want to deny this, go ahead. I don't care about convincing you that Se (or w/e it is) offsets you; I know what I saw, and cherry picked examples that are unverifiable don't help your case. And I have yet to see you mock him...

But by answering your question they allow you the opening to attack them directly by undermining them in a place that you recognize as a weakness:

Maybe your Fi polr makes you overly-paranoid about others' motives, and you're weak Se makes you vulnerable to direct attacks from Se types

...again:

...let alone control the situation in those circumstances. Lastly, if all of what you say is true - that you have struck back directly and mocked him - why does he continue the behavior and why does it still seem to have an effect? Oh well, maybe I'm misinterpreting (even though I have no bias about it) and you're really making him look like an idiot.

and again

yup.

Vero, justifying how assertive you have been doesn't exactly make you out to be in control of the situation. Rather, it makes it seem as though you are trying to convince yourself that you are in control.

and again

Judging from this thread, I'd say you are. Merk has made one post which addressed the issues concisely. You have made multiple posts which, for the most part, consist of rambling rationalizations and justifications. Again, he's not expending energy - or extra energy at least.

Which is funny. Because none of it has anything to do with the original point:

But in an argument...that's an argument. There's no need for emotionality; that simply undermines the premise of the debate. If you can be louder or more insulting it doesn't prove your point. Perhaps something important to consider is the affects of sub-type. For instance, you might compare Steve or myself in argument compared to someone like Riddy. Steve and I, Ti-subs, tend to remain uninvested in our arguments on an emotional level outside of emphasizing our intent. We'll argue the point to death, and we may lose patience with people who are totally unreceptive, but we never resort to direct attacks on the individual. Compare that to Riddy, an object-sub, who seems to get caught up in the argument a lot faster, and is a lot quicker to follow along when the argument degenerates to insulting and personal attacks.

Something to consider?

But by using his tactics, he appears on the surface to be fulfilling his argument:

I think this comparison is hasty and, on the whole, incorrect. I disagree that you and Steve are emotionally uninvested in your arguments - quite the opposite actually. You may not run around like a mentally unstable beta NF, insulting everyone in sight, but you do react emotionally and seem to be offset (both of you) if someone contradicts you with the slightest undertone of aggression.

So despite the fact that I remained emotionally uninvested with the initial argument and reacted as I explained:

I [try to] redirect [the] discussion in a more acceptable and neutral direction since this person is obviously not taking to my arguments as expected. I want it to stay on the matter of content, not presentation, and when that's not what happens I'm forced to re-evaluate how to deal with the changing circumstances to the best of my ability. I'm not looking for a pissing match when I argue, I'm looking for a rational discussion between two people.

The argument becomes an attack:

Wait a minute here. Are we talking about an argument or an attack? If someone attacks me I pick apart their attack and then strike back.

And I react:

Post #42

The End.

[strrrng]

Vero, I applaud your extreme propensity to blindly weave together things into a convoluted Ti system to reassure yourself.

bravo to the ENTps who think they're perceptive because they observe surface patterns that have no bearing on shit.

Call me out on my manipulativeness all you want, it won't change anything. The only reason you're even still arguing (all of you) is because you have a support group.

So, I'll continue to have fun on this merry-go-round, while you sillies are taking it seriously.

Can't you see that your petty feelings only make me giggle, and ur supposed logical arguments have no substantial effect whatsoever, except on your compatriots?

Once again: fail. Maybe next time.

[strrrng]

Nick. You know what you remind me of?

Those guys who think that by yelling louder, over everyone else, that that means he's right.

Shut the fuck up.

Oh. That's direct. hmm...

lol @ you.

I'm not right...not at all. Why am I right, Loki? hmm...I'm confused.

funnyfunnysillysilly

wow, I thought arguing with Gilly was pointless. At least he knew how to engage in this sort of thing.

I'm losing my entertainment...more fun plz

[xyz]

Oh. That's direct. hmm...

lol @ you.

I'm not right...not at all. Why am I right, Loki? hmm...I'm confused.

funnyfunnysillysilly

wow, I thought arguing with Gilly was pointless. At least he knew how to engage in this sort of thing.

I'm losing my entertainment...more fun plz

You're not even making any sense anymore. I think you're really just floppin around now because Vero, AND Steve, brought up real evidence of you not really arguing with any effectiveness, using character attacks and destroying other people's reputation (by being condescending). And they proved it with the posts you made in this thread alone.

I'm not saying any of us are taking any of this seriously. I'm saying, you just verbal vomit.

[Wynch]

Vero, I applaud your extreme propensity to blindly weave together things into a convoluted Ti system to reassure yourself.

bravo to the ENTps who think they're perceptive because they observe surface patterns that have no bearing on shit.

Call me out on my manipulativeness all you want, it won't change anything. The only reason you're even still arguing (all of you) is because you have a support group.

So, I'll continue to have fun on this merry-go-round, while you sillies are taking it seriously.

Can't you see that your petty feelings only make me giggle, and ur supposed logical arguments have no substantial effect whatsoever, except on your compatriots?

Once again: fail. Maybe next time.

Well I certainly feel like a failure now that I know you're so uninvested in this argument. Too bad my compatriots are on the side of logic when they could be clowning around on a merry-go-round.

[strrrng]

You're not even making any sense anymore. I think you're really just floppin around now because Vero, AND Steve, brought up real evidence of you not really arguing with any effectiveness, using character attacks and destroying other people's reputation (by being condescending). And they proved it with the posts you made in this thread alone.

I'm not saying any of us are taking any of this seriously. I'm saying, you just verbal vomit.

I'm not making sense? Sorry, Loki.

Like I said, you dull fuck, I don't care if they proved that I have a slighting, manipulative personality. That doesn't change the fact that they (or you for that matter...tsk tsk...boxers aren't supposed to be pussies, Loki, cmon) don't engage directly, but rather, spin little ego-based Ti webs, using external sources to support their positions. *APPLAUSE*

Steve and Vero (and whoever the fuck else) can feel secure or w/e with their "logical" citings of "evidence" of how sillywilly I am - it doesn't matter.

Take a step back and try to evaluate exactly where this argument is at in the grander scheme, not just in terms of ostensible logic. I know it's hard.

[aestrivex]

The only reason you're even still arguing (all of you) is because you have a support group.

you should talk.

[aestrivex]

Don't worry, niffweed. You have my support <333

no, i don't. stop fucking around with me. i don't need to deal with this.

[munenori2]

No one is reading into your motivations - stop projecting your own Fi attitude, lol. The reason I made that comment about FiNe labeling people as assholes was to make a punon your previous comment, "FiNe = not liking assholes," which you actually quoted me saying (obviously in some Fi attempt to portray my motivations as you presumed them to be, lol), because it seemed like a stupid exaggeration aimed solely at solidifying your "righteousness" in this debate. Obviously the Ti fell short on you.

You do realize you reduced my objection to the way merky behaves in the chats to merely being an INFj, which I reworded to reflect the total lack of attention you were paying to the reasoning I would think that, then you claimed that reason was because his style of communication was different from mine, to which I lmao and point out that you are reading my motivations without ever asking me about a single thing and making no argument whatsoever than that constant rejoinder that it all boils down to me being INFj. Now you are compounding that same shit again here. Please tell me where the fuck any Ti can be found in what you've said. I guess tautologies are logical, but you're really not saying much of anything at all.

My actual reasoning for not liking what merky does in the chats is that frankly it tends to divert/disrupt a lot of awesome stuff going on. Not always, but enough that sometimes it seems like it shuts people up or prevents them from going about their normal business. It has shitfuck to do with communication style and everything to do with having an enjoyable enough atmosphere. If one person is screwing it up for a number of people to the point that it stops being fun except for the person *ahem* gauging people, then I say why the hell should anyone put up with that? But please analyze me with your razor sharp Ti HA and omniscient Ni base, in an objectively and emotionally detached way of course.

[strrrng]

You do realize you reduced my objection to the way merky behaves in the chats to merely being an INFj, which I reworded to reflect the total lack of attention you were paying to the reasoning I would think that, then you claimed that reason was because his style of communication was different from mine, to which I lmao and point out that you are reading my motivations without ever asking me about a single thing and making no argument whatsoever than that constant rejoinder that it all boils down to me being INFj. Now you are compounding that same shit again here. Please tell me where the fuck any Ti can be found in what you've said. I guess tautologies are logical, but you're really not saying much of anything at all.

I brought up you being an INFj because I thought it was significant. Nowhere did I claim or imply that it was the sole, all-encompassing reason for your dislike of him. Weak Ti on your part. And I brought up differences in communication styles because it is incredibly significant. I can't count the number of times I've observed opposing quadra members COMPLETELY misinterpret each others' motivations based on the way they speak.

My actual reasoning for not liking what merky does in the chats is that frankly it tends to divert/disrupt a lot of awesome stuff going on. Not always, but enough that sometimes it seems like it shuts people up or prevents them from going about their normal business. It has shitfuck to do with communication style and everything to do with having an enjoyable enough atmosphere. If one person is screwing it up for a number of people to the point that it stops being fun except for the person *ahem* gauging people, then I say why the hell should anyone put up with that? But please analyze me with your razor sharp Ti HA and omniscient Ni base, in an objectively and emotionally detached way of course.

You realize what is awesome to you and and someone else could be completely different and neither person's opinion is more valid, right (and please don't say something about "oh, so you think intense, insulting atmospheres are awesome? --that's beside the point)? I'm not saying merk has never been a dick and shut people down, but for you to claim that as the guiding reason, as if it is consistently true, is silly, because I doubt everyone views him like that. I've observed merk; people seem to misinterpret him. Boohoo if he's too mean to someone. Tell them to grow a spine and shut the fuck up.

[munenori2]

I brought up you being an INFj because I thought it was significant. Nowhere did I claim or imply that it was the sole, all-encompassing reason for your dislike of him. Weak Ti on your part. And I brought up differences in communication styles because it is incredibly significant. I can't count the number of times I've observed opposing quadra members COMPLETELY misinterpret each others' motivations based on the way they speak.

You make an amazing amount of Ti points that you never bring to light. And you also seem to use this as an excuse to disregard what other people say. Sounds like code for bullshit. If only I had more Ti you would make perfect sense!

You realize what is awesome to you and and someone else could be completely different and neither person's opinion is more valid, right (and please don't say something about "oh, so you think intense, insulting atmospheres are awesome? --that's beside the point)? I'm not saying merk has never been a dick and shut people down, but for you to claim that as the guiding reason, as if it is consistently true, is silly, because I doubt everyone views him like that. I've observed merk; people seem to misinterpret him. Boohoo if he's too mean to someone. Tell them to grow a spine and shut the fuck up.

lol, yeah, we're seriously never going to agree on this.