Enjoy.

[Ghostmaker]

As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start),

Translaion "I, also, think calling people out for lying is bad."

Believe whatever you like.

[GeekyBugle]

As much of an ass as Zak is (and you are an ass, Zak, don't even fuckin' start),

Translaion "I, also, think calling people out for lying is bad."

Believe whatever you like.

His reading comprehension (or lack off) strikes again, here you are, saying people should stick to innocent until proven guilty no matter how much anyone might dislike Zak, and he turns that into you saying exactly the opposite...

Which is why I put him on the ignore list and now I don't have to read his drivel unless someone else quotes him.

He's such a pretentious, condescending, smug, cunt that he will burn any good will and all bridges even with those that, disagreeing with him, were willing to deffend him, and so his "I'm alone against the world" mentality will become a self fulfilling profecy.

[Zak S]

His reading comprehension (or lack off) strikes again, here you are, saying people should stick to innocent until proven guilty no matter how much anyone might dislike Zak, and he turns that into you saying exactly the opposite...

He said I was an ass. He gave no reason other than he doesn't like when I call people out for lying.

Which is why I put him on the ignore list and now I don't have to read his drivel unless someone else quotes him.

If you want to ignore me, then you should start ignoring me.

[deadDMwalking]

He said I was an ass. He gave no reason other than he doesn't like when I call people out for lying.

I'm not Tubesock Army, or Geekybugle, or any number of other people that have called you an ass, but I did call you an ass and I don't feel that I've taken the appropriate amount of time to explain why you're an ass. 

Now, for normal people with normal intelligence speaking their native language it's usually enough to point out when someone is doing something anti-social and say 'what an asshole' and everyone around with functioning normal intelligence can agree with the sentiment. 

Saying an unpopular thing doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  Saying something rude also doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  But tone definitely matters - if you're extremely polite even when you're disagreeing with someone they probably WON'T call you an asshole.  So let's dive in - what, specifically, makes Zak S. an asshole - in fact - so much so that I'm willing to spend precious minutes of my life that I won't get back calling him one to his face? 

I think the first thing is reciprocity. This is closely related to hypocrisy, but it's different enough that I want to unpack it.  Essentially, this means holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.  For example, when someone tells you that the thing you said doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean, rather than admitting that your thought was anything less than perfectly formed you insist that they simply didn't understand it - you insist that they demand clarification after clarification.  However, when you disagree with someone, even if you fundamentally miss their position you will NOT ask for clarification and continue (for pages and pages) arguing against a position that nobody holds. 

Of course, it's not just limited to demanding clarification.  The same also applies regarding standards of evidence.  You have asked for 'direct quotes' but not every interaction is based entirely on a verbal/written medium, nor is everything that occurs online always available for reference.  Even in a court of law (as you should NO DOUBT BE FAMILIAR BY NOW) witnesses can detail what they've seen as well as the inferences they made.  If asked whether the man walking down the street with a shotgun APPEARED hostile, a reasonable person could conclude that the act of walking with a loaded weapon pointed at bystanders meets that definition - you don't HAVE to be able to read the person's mind or attribute a direct quote of hostile intent to make the inference.  Since you're NOT a dummy (even though you ARE an asshole) you can't pretend that people, usually with high accuracy, can evaluate the demeanor and positions of those they interact with.

In this regard, having different criteria for 'accuracy' also applies.  In a conversation about granting bonuses to a specific skill I provided an exemplar of the type of argument that a player would use that was consistent with the types of things you said.  Did I expect that you would automatically grant a bonus in that specific situation?  Not really - it's a bit on the sexual assault side, so there's good reason to say no (even though a forced kiss is well-documented in TV Tropes and informs the source material for many D&D games).  A normal person would have said something like 'I do like to say yes, but that specific example would be offensive to my players, so that's not one I would grant.  Instead I would suggest something that the character COULD do that would be more acceptable to get that same bonus'.  But later you said that a 'bajillion' things could grant that bonus.  That's of course a figurative phrase.  Can you literally think of a million or a billion things that could grant a bonus (obviously excluding a kiss)?  Of course not.  But by your very strict definition, failure to provide a bajillion examples makes you a liar. 

When you're condescending and rude, and you're called on it, and you double down and continue those behaviors, that makes you an asshole.  For myself, spending time with assholes is something I generally try to avoid.  I certainly never seek you out, Zak S.  But when you take the trouble to cross my path, coming to the places I hang out, and you ask why people think you're an asshole, I think you deserve an answer.  And because you make the lives of the people you interact with worse just by being you, I hope that me telling you that I think you're an asshole and I have reason for it makes your day just a little bit more unpleasant.  It would give me perverse pleasure knowing that you spent undue time stewing over people calling you mean names on the internet - not because I'm a troll but because of all the people I deal with regularly, you're the only one that I feel actually DESERVES it. 

You're an asshole. 

But you can always make the choice to stop. 

[GeekyBugle]

He said I was an ass. He gave no reason other than he doesn't like when I call people out for lying.

<sniped an excellent explanation>
It would give me perverse pleasure knowing that you spent undue time stewing over people calling you mean names on the internet - not because I'm a troll but because of all the people I deal with regularly, you're the only one that I feel actually DESERVES it. 

You're an asshole. 

But you can always make the choice to stop.

Calling X an asshole (not an ass, that's a different type of animal) is usually a matter of opinion. Notice how his lack of reading comprehension leads him to assert things that weren't said? What do we (in polite society) call someone who asserts falsehoods? A liar?

By my counting, including me he's turned against him 3 people in this very thread by doing everything you just explained and then some.

I'll repeat myself: He's a pretentious, condescending & smug cunt.

But he could always make the choice to stop being one. "An error repeated is a decision" Therefore I must conclude he's like that by choice.

[Zak S]

I think the first thing is reciprocity. This is closely related to hypocrisy, but it's different enough that I want to unpack it.  Essentially, this means holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.  For example, when someone tells you that the thing you said doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean, rather than admitting that your thought was anything less than perfectly formed you insist that they simply didn't understand it - you insist that they demand clarification after clarification.  However, when you disagree with someone, even if you fundamentally miss their position you will NOT ask for clarification and continue (for pages and pages) arguing against a position that nobody holds. 

That is a bad thing to do, but I didn't do that.

Simple example:

You lied about some bizarre thing involving you shoving your tongue down someone's throat.

I said you did.

That's that.

Then you claimed this was somehow an example of me lying.

Which is much more serious: you're accusing an adult and a stranger of dishonesty.

You have asked for 'direct quotes' but not every interaction is based entirely on a verbal/written medium, nor is everything that occurs online always available for reference. 

You are dishonest so you left out the obvious point: everything that y'all have ever seen me do is online. So your claims I did anything bad must to be based on that.

If you think you saw me at a Dodgers game and I did a bad thing so it's not recorded, you should simply say that.

But you didn't: you're talking about online stuff that's recorded and googlable and you don't have it because you're lying.

It is 100% disingenuous to pretend there's something wrong with asking for proof when accused of hypocrisy dishonesty, etc. in a recorded situation.

Did I expect that you would automatically grant a bonus in that specific situation?  Not really - it's a bit on the sexual assault side, so there's good reason to say no (even though a forced kiss is well-documented in TV Tropes and informs the source material for many D&D games).

Then you should've just admitted that and moved on instead of lying.

With that clarification you would be admitting good faith and we could keep talking.

But by your very strict definition, failure to provide a bajillion examples makes you a liar. 

No, simply saying a thing that's not true and knowing it makes you a liar.

When you're condescending and rude, and you're called on it, and you double down and continue those behaviors...

At this point you'd have to somehow make the argument that there's a reasonable standard of "condescending and rude" that somehow I fail and you (and lots of folks you pal around with) do not. It's child's play to point out all the violations of any basic standard of "polite and not condescending" yall have committed.

You can't make that argument at all.

certainly never seek you out, Zak S.

Then you didn't have to post in the thread.

I am only here to fact check things y'all said.

I hope that me telling you that I think you're an asshole and I have reason for it makes your day just a little bit more unpleasant.

Since your reasons are bad it's actually nice to (once again) be given the opportunity to demonstrate how thin they are to the lurkers and to all the poor legal aids on the opposition side who have to read through these threads looking for evidence of me doing anything actually bad.

[Zak S]

Calling X an asshole (not an ass, that's a different type of animal) is usually a matter of opinion.

Sure but it's 100% legitimate to ask why someone drew that conclusion.

Again, the kitchen-table test.

If you're in a real life situation and you all someone an asshole and can't explain why at all, you're the asshole.

[Tubesock Army]

No one owes you an explanation for why they don't like you. Sure, you are free to ask. But sometimes, the fact that you have to ask why at all is part of the problem - it can show a lack of self-awareness and a lack of empathy for others. Especially if you're not asking so that you can consider whether or how your behavior has affected others, but rather so that you can "debunk" the other person's position. People have the right not to like you, me, or anyone else, for whatever reason they choose. It's not your place to decide whether other people's feelings are valid or not. Your ridiculous sense of entitlement is one of the more irritating things about you.

I first encountered you elsewhere, before the Mandy stuff. When I saw how you behaved, I quickly formed the opinion that you were, at best, a manipulative narcissist, and at worst, an abuser. When the Mandy stuff dropped, I wasn't surprised. And though I am reserving judgement on that issue for the courts, it really won't affect my opinion of you much, either way.

[SHARK]

He said I was an ass. He gave no reason other than he doesn't like when I call people out for lying.

I'm not Tubesock Army, or Geekybugle, or any number of other people that have called you an ass, but I did call you an ass and I don't feel that I've taken the appropriate amount of time to explain why you're an ass. 

Now, for normal people with normal intelligence speaking their native language it's usually enough to point out when someone is doing something anti-social and say 'what an asshole' and everyone around with functioning normal intelligence can agree with the sentiment. 

Saying an unpopular thing doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  Saying something rude also doesn't automatically make you an asshole.  But tone definitely matters - if you're extremely polite even when you're disagreeing with someone they probably WON'T call you an asshole.  So let's dive in - what, specifically, makes Zak S. an asshole - in fact - so much so that I'm willing to spend precious minutes of my life that I won't get back calling him one to his face? 

I think the first thing is reciprocity. This is closely related to hypocrisy, but it's different enough that I want to unpack it.  Essentially, this means holding everyone around you to a different standard than you hold yourself.  For example, when someone tells you that the thing you said doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean, rather than admitting that your thought was anything less than perfectly formed you insist that they simply didn't understand it - you insist that they demand clarification after clarification.  However, when you disagree with someone, even if you fundamentally miss their position you will NOT ask for clarification and continue (for pages and pages) arguing against a position that nobody holds. 

Of course, it's not just limited to demanding clarification.  The same also applies regarding standards of evidence.  You have asked for 'direct quotes' but not every interaction is based entirely on a verbal/written medium, nor is everything that occurs online always available for reference.  Even in a court of law (as you should NO DOUBT BE FAMILIAR BY NOW) witnesses can detail what they've seen as well as the inferences they made.  If asked whether the man walking down the street with a shotgun APPEARED hostile, a reasonable person could conclude that the act of walking with a loaded weapon pointed at bystanders meets that definition - you don't HAVE to be able to read the person's mind or attribute a direct quote of hostile intent to make the inference.  Since you're NOT a dummy (even though you ARE an asshole) you can't pretend that people, usually with high accuracy, can evaluate the demeanor and positions of those they interact with.

In this regard, having different criteria for 'accuracy' also applies.  In a conversation about granting bonuses to a specific skill I provided an exemplar of the type of argument that a player would use that was consistent with the types of things you said.  Did I expect that you would automatically grant a bonus in that specific situation?  Not really - it's a bit on the sexual assault side, so there's good reason to say no (even though a forced kiss is well-documented in TV Tropes and informs the source material for many D&D games).  A normal person would have said something like 'I do like to say yes, but that specific example would be offensive to my players, so that's not one I would grant.  Instead I would suggest something that the character COULD do that would be more acceptable to get that same bonus'.  But later you said that a 'bajillion' things could grant that bonus.  That's of course a figurative phrase.  Can you literally think of a million or a billion things that could grant a bonus (obviously excluding a kiss)?  Of course not.  But by your very strict definition, failure to provide a bajillion examples makes you a liar. 

When you're condescending and rude, and you're called on it, and you double down and continue those behaviors, that makes you an asshole.  For myself, spending time with assholes is something I generally try to avoid.  I certainly never seek you out, Zak S.  But when you take the trouble to cross my path, coming to the places I hang out, and you ask why people think you're an asshole, I think you deserve an answer.  And because you make the lives of the people you interact with worse just by being you, I hope that me telling you that I think you're an asshole and I have reason for it makes your day just a little bit more unpleasant.  It would give me perverse pleasure knowing that you spent undue time stewing over people calling you mean names on the internet - not because I'm a troll but because of all the people I deal with regularly, you're the only one that I feel actually DESERVES it. 

You're an asshole. 

But you can always make the choice to stop.

Greetings!

DeadDMwalking! You know, while you and I may often disagree, especially on politics, with this here thoughtful and strong post, well, deadDMwalking, it is inspiring and a thing of beauty. I appreciate your integrity, maturity, and laser-sharp commentary that you have made here.

ON POINT, deadDMwalking!

I hope you are well!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Zak S]

No one owes you an explanation for why they don't like you. Sure, you are free to ask. But sometimes, the fact that you have to ask why at all is part of the problem - it can show a lack of self-awareness and a lack of empathy for others.

You can think whatever you want but there's nothing really accomplished by saying in a public forum you don't like someone without saying why.

You're just wasting everyone's time when you do that.

I quickly formed the opinion that you were, at best, a manipulative narcissist, and at worst, an abuser.

Yes and you were (objectively, clinically) incorrect to think that and finding out why you decided that will help you when and if you get therapy for that.

[Zak S]

....ON POINT, deadDMwalking!...

Plussing a post that's already been answered is weird because it means you don't really have any rational take on the problems point out with the post.

You don't have to make sense but when you don't someone needs to point it out so I am.

[deadDMwalking]

....ON POINT, deadDMwalking!...

Plussing a post that's already been answered is weird because it means you don't really have any rational take on the problems point out with the post.

You don't have to make sense but when you don't someone needs to point it out so I am.

Responding to a post is not the same as rebutting it.  No where in your response did you say that you treat people with reciprocity - effectively you did a combination of saying that I was wrong to come to the conclusions that I did and that I am the one lying.  Well, Karen, that's the thing - people who are assholes always feel that they're justified in the moment, but the reason people come to a consensus opinion is that some actions only become unreasonable as it impacts everyone else around them.  For example, ordering 150 venti white chocolate mochas (hot) from Starbucks is something that you absolutely can do.  But if you do it during the morning rush in the drive-thru and refuse to move from the window until your order is complete, people will call you an asshole.  Please understand, that is not saying that anyone did anything ILLEGAL, but it still makes you an asshole.  So why?  That brings us to the next point - consideration. 

This is closely related to reciprocity - if you talk about treating people the way you want to be treated you probably are hitting both consideration and reciprocity.  But a lot of wise people say rather than treating people the way YOU want to be treated, you should treat people the way THEY want to be treated.  That's consideration in a nutshell. 

As far as how you show a lack of consideration, it shows primarily when you try to tell people that they're wrong to hold an opinion. As someone that has managed people, I understand that rather than addressing ATTITUDE, it's best to focus on BEHAVIOR.  Telling Shark that it's weird he agreed with a post that I wrote after it had been 'answered' shows a lack of consideration.  Essentially, you're implying that his ability to come to reasonable positions based on data is suspect.  Telling people how they think or SHOULD THINK is a level of hubris that rises to the level of 'asshole' almost automatically. 

And let's be clear - there are a lot of people that hold opinions that I think are crazy, stupid, and wrong.  I do spend time trying to provide evidence and cogent arguments in support of my positions - I want to convince people to accept my positions.  But I don't try to pretend that they're automatically idiots for holding a position different than my own.  Not only do they have other evidence that I have to review and engage with, they may value my evidence differently. 

It's clear that you value your own words - you pretend that they're the final word on any subject - but not everyone else feels that way, nor should they.  There are people that will dismiss you because of your occupation, the quality of your artistic work, the cut of your hair - and that can feel unfair - but just because those people exist doesn't mean that everyone else is dismissing you shallow reasons.  Some people engage with you and your ideas, give them a fair chance, and still come to the conclusion that you're an asshole.  What's STRIKING is how many people like your artistic output and STILL think you're an asshole.  People are weird in that they'll go to great lengths to defend terrible people that produce works that they like - when even fans won't defend your behavior that should be a sign that you're well beyond what normal people accept as 'normal behavior'. 

So for myself, I still think you're an asshole.  I hope you keep talking and responding, because the more you do, I think the more clear you make that for everyone else reading along.  That means less work for me trying to review conversations across dozens of pages that are impossible to easily quote and risk losing vital context. 

[Zak S]

Responding to a post is not the same as rebutting it.

It is in this case because I demonstrated your ideas are not valid.

No where in your response did you say that you treat people with reciprocity - effectively you did a combination of saying that I was wrong to come to the conclusions that I did and that I am the one lying. 

Those are more important things to me and to any reasonable person.

I didn't bother to chase down your logic about reciprocity, it is much less important than pointing out to readers that you obviously lied and came to false conclusions.

you try to tell people that they're wrong to hold an opinion

Since I haven't done that it's a moot point.

-I have pointed out factual errors
-I have pointed out that a given individuals opinion is not based on anything that has any particular good reason to be communicated to others

Like when a antisemite bicycles past a synagogue and yells "You guys suck!" it's legit to point out that public expression of opinion is based in how they're bad. It helps the public behave in an appropriate way toward the antisemite.

[DocJones]

Only an asshole would demand proof that they are an asshole.

[Zak S]

Only an asshole would demand proof that they are an asshole.

Perhaps but I didn't do that, I asked a super-normal thing:

"What made you decide this person was an asshole?"

People ask that all the time, for lots of reasons--including as a way of evaluating whether the person talking is reasonable enough for their judgment to matter.