Oh sure you are Econo....No, I'm not engaging in a "false equivalence"
Your words both preceding this claim and following it clearly demonstrate that....
By making this claim you're engaging in an old rhetorical device, whereby a person attempts to pre-empt or inoculate themselves against a legitimate criticism by simply stating that they are not doing the thing for which they know they could be criticized.
It's much like when a person will state, "I'm not defending X...." When the very next thing that follows of course, is a vigorous defense of "X"....
(It's also similar to when a person, after making a criticism or attack will say "there's no need to respond to this" in an attempt to prevent a response, and thus have their criticism/attack stand as the final word.)
But to be honest, drawing false equivalences is only the secondary damage that the sort of (albeit well intended) sanctimonious shine and rationalizing excuses that you frequently bring into these discussions cause.
(BTW, I find it kind of amusing in an ironic way that even though I did not mention you by name, you somehow saw yourself and took offense at my characterization... I guess a "passive aggressive" approach isn't quite so innocuous when you see yourself as the target , eh?
)No, the primary damage that the sanctimonious shine and rationalizing excuses cause in these discussions (as I pointed out in a "spirited" exchange with another poster on this topic a little while back) is the way in which these well meaning interjections provide justification and encouragement to the primary agent of toxic behavior to continue that pattern of toxic behavior, rather than to recognize the error of their ways....
And I think if one looks at posts over the past several days, one sees incontrovertible proof of this effect....
Look, if anyone bothers to read what I have posted about this over these months (well, years now actually) you wont find me as a poster who jumps on everything LoCa says, or tried to engage her in fights, or hurl insults, or always finds her at fault.
Far from it. When some folks first started saying that she wasn't responding in the mediation, I was the one saying give her a chance. (You can go back and take a look.) When PMSP put up her first post, I was one of those who criticized her for it at the time. I was the one who pointed out that not using what had gone on prior to her suspension as a basis for judging everything said after it should apply to LoCa too. Most recently, I wrote a lengthy post about why I thought her behavior didn't rise to the level of meriting a second suspension. (Though I have to say that because of the course this has been taking over the past several days since I wrote that, my position on it has been evolving....more on that later)
There are numerous other examples I could point to that show that I really have tried quite hard to extend a lot of patience and understanding to LoCa, and have not in any way been a part of any "lynch mob". (BTW, I want to point out that unless I've missed it, you have not accused me of this. But others here have, so I thought I would mention it.) Throughout all of this, my personal relations and interactions with LoCa have remained quite cordial.
However, I have also been quite critical of her behavior, (and what I believe are the reasons for it) and tirelessly encouraged her to cut it out, because it seems to me that any fair reading of what has gone on here shows that behavior of hers to be the driving force behind this growing clusterfuck.
I've been trying to talk her down out of the tower; not providing her with justifications to reload and keep firing....
Gee, can I interpret that to mean that you won't have a response?"the only winning move is not to play."
