Snobbery in the Lounge?

Jovan: that's great you picked up on that; I was going to leave that for latter. I think those posts might be good grist for the mill.

From a Grayback to a Diamondback, just what are you trying to say?[huh]

HD & Doran please avoid the personal, at least until after I get some sleep. I'll referee.

Doran, once again you have raised some important issues to which I"ll respond tomorrow. And Doran, thank you for your gracious comments.

Now I must toddle off to bed. Bye

Doran said:

1.) If one complains about snobbery, that's fine; but there are other, quite symmetrical, things, to decry: such as slob-snobbery*, which I endure often. This is when someone sniffs and snipes at my suit, tie, and fedora. The usual claim is that I am being overdressed, or that I resemble Indiana Jones, or something equally dumb (see Dumbest Comments thread for examples).

Click to expand...

I get something similar to that, only I suppose people think I'm the slob. When I'm out doing my daily business, like grocery shopping, I usually walk, which is a half hour walk, so I'm sort of a jeans and tee-shirt with my hiking boots kind of gal. I quite often get upturned noses and rude, muttered comments from girls wearing micro-minis and what I call elf-shoes (you know, those spiked heels with the super long, pointed toes that end up curling up because they're so long). I suppose even some people on the Lounge might turn their noses up at my daily wear, but I like to reserve my classy gear for when I won't be so sweaty from walking up a hill for half an hour to get into the city.

surely said:

From a Grayback to a Diamondback, just what are you trying to say?[huh]

Click to expand...

I was poking HD a little for misuse of "canon" vs. "cannon", that's all.

surely said:

HD & Doran please avoid the personal, at least until after I get some sleep. I'll referee.


Now I must toddle off to bed. Bye

Click to expand...

Surely you will sleep well...for my posts have not been meant in the least way personal. I have not pointed a finger..not horizontally anyway.....

Diamondback said:

I was poking HD a little for misuse of "canon" vs. "cannon", that's all.

Click to expand...

DB
Uh..the change of canon to cannon was on purpose...but only for my amusement of course....

Jovan said:

:whistling

(I know this post will probably be removed too. That's okay. I just think it's funny how you're saying these things in a thread about snobbishness. )

Click to expand...

Why the paranoia about posts being removed?
Why is what MissNeecerie said wrong? I view it as MissN merely alerting us to the fact that there is another manical rambling thread and equally worthless to start down that road again. Nothing snobbish about that right?


As for "this post being remove too.." I think it time we give that whining tired old line a break. I notice there exists a minor group of disgruntled Loungers that think the moderators are somehow Draconian. These members jump into certain threads, contribute next to nothing in the thread except to dare the mods to remove their post to justify their skewed viewopoint.
This is the perfect example of Anti-Moderator Snobbery.

I am still waiting to read about these much hinted about snobs of the Lounge...
Very few Loungers know other members enough to make that call.

Feraud said:

Very few Loungers know other members enough to make that call.

Click to expand...

Define 'know,' Feraud ... Likely, you don't mean in the biblical sense , however ... how well do we need to 'know' anyone to determine whether their behavior is snobbish or not?

It seems to me, Feraud, what you're saying is that the nature of an online forum precludes us from truly knowing one another well enough to make that call. I simply don't buy it. As I said before, I think it's a fallacy to assert that we know anyone particularly well - even ourselves - just because we interact with them face-to-face instead of via an online forum. We are never going to know another person well enough to understand their intentions, POV, background, neuroses, insecurities, general health, state of relationships (both personal and professional) and any other variable that might factor into a given response/behavior before we can accurately determine whether said response/behavior qualifies as 'snobbish.' Not to mention all the variables that color our own perception of any given behavior. We aren't in anyone else's head.

Frankly, what it all boils down to is communication - and a willingness to pursue an open discourse about a given behavior - that will allow us to negotiate, define, and appropriately deal with any behavior we initially find distasteful, inappropriate, snobbish ... pick your word.

The Dame said:

Define 'know,' Feraud ... Likely, you don't mean in the biblical sense , however ... how well do we need to 'know' anyone to determine whether their behavior is snobbish or not?

Click to expand...

I would say you need to know someone really well to make that call! It practically cannot be done online.

The Dame said:

It seems to me, Feraud, what you're saying is that the nature of an online forum precludes us from truly knowing one another well enough to make that call.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I mean.
Online facades are incredibly easy to create and perpetuate.
Face to face communication (while potentially flawed due to information mistakenly or intentionally given or assumed) gives a much truer sense of who and what a person is. With a little experience anyone can spot a charlatan when they meet one.
In real life phony personalities rarely hold up.
Did you ever hear the expression "trust your gut"? That is the best instinct anyone can use when meeting anyone face to face. Judging someone based on clothing, money, impressive stories, where they live, is foolish.
Trusting your gut online is tougher. It is too easy for people to be phony, arrogant, rude, hip, etc. online because there is little accountability and repercussion. Making such judgements is not as clear cut as the information is less and potentially misleading.

surely said:

Every opinion is an equal data point in say a scientific study, even outliers. But my opinions on some topics are certainly more impt to me then yours but on other topics yours may be.
In a sense that is what this Lounge is all about: exposing ones opinions or tastes to others for both support & constructive criticism.

This should stop the silly 'not everybody's opinion are equal' argument.

Click to expand...

This is the last post I will make to this thread.

But I would like to point out that if you follow and believe what you have stated above, then there is absolutely no reason for you to say things to me like

surely said:

And if you would prefer to discuss vintage things please due. I notice that you are not a bartender here so I guess you don't have to be looking at this thread.

Click to expand...

and

surely said:

Watch out every one, the officious party poopers are back: maybe that's the smells origin.[huh]

Click to expand...

Both of which -dismiss- my opinion as not valid simply because I don't agree about this thread's usefulness.

Either you count 'every data point' and accept them as valid if not in agreement....or you don't, but don't claim that this is any useful study or discourse on things when you summarily and rudely dismiss anyone who does not play your game or agree with the idea that discussing this serves a purpose.

Feraud said:

I would say you need to know someone really well to make that call! It practically cannot be done online.

Click to expand...

We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Feraud said:

It is too easy for people to be phony, arrogant, rude, hip, etc. online because there is little accountability and repercussion. Making such judgements is not as clear cut as the information is less and potentially misleading.

Click to expand...

If we had to have all the pertinent information at our disposal before making a judgment call regarding behavior, we'd be in serious trouble indeed. And it is precisely because it is too easy for people to be rude online that we need to call them on it when we see it. If they don't think they are, they can say so and explain their POV.

For the sake of argument, let's take your line of reasoning just a little further and use a more extreme example. If I follow your reasoning correctly, I can only accurately judge someone's behavior if I know them personally and interact with them face-to-face because that greatly reduces the likelihood my gut will get it wrong if I call them on their questionable behavior. If that were true, then I also wouldn't be able to judge anyone's behavior immoral, unethical or illegal unless I knew them personally and interacted with them face-to-face. I don't see our legal system making much headway following that line of reasoning. I see our society descending into chaos because no one will judge anyone's behavior in any way - and then there will be no right, no wrong, no moral or immoral, ethical or unethical behaviors. Only behaviors. If we're unwilling to define the bad, we'll lose the good as well. Light does not exist without dark.

The Dame said:

I don't see our legal system making much headway following that line of reasoning.

Click to expand...

Very simply put our legal system judges an accused with a jury of peers, base on transgressions against stated laws, and with as much pertinent evidence as possible. There is no faceless entity judging the accused in closed quarters against unspoken charges.
Rather, such judgements are made online in the virtual world through rumor and innuendo. Note the cases of online harassment based on hidden identities and the quagmire of trying to prosecute such cowards.
Your analogy of the justice system is wrong.

Agree to disagree is probably a good idea.

The Dame
Great posts... I wholeheartedly agree.
IMO...Also,it's not so difficult to decide that someone is acting like a snob. If the behavior seems consistant...it may not be so unfair or unreasonable to dare suggest that the conduct they are exhibiting is coming across as snobbish. They may not appear that way in every instance...subject...or even in real(beyond the keyboard)life.....but display enough criteria from behind the screen,at times,to earn that title. In fact....that concealment might promote actions here that usually might not be allowed or expressed under normal circumstances. Are they a snob? Well...in the Lounge they may be acting like one. Actions seems to be "key" to lead to being called out on them.

Diamondback said:

I was poking HD a little for misuse of "canon" vs. "cannon", that's all.

Click to expand...

Cool, I totally missed that.:eusa_doh:

HoosierDaddy said:

Surely you will sleep well...for my posts have not been meant in the least way personal. I have not pointed a finger..not horizontally anyway.....

Click to expand...

tsk tsk tsk[bad]

Feraud said:

Very simply put our legal system judges an accused with a jury of peers, base on transgressions against stated laws, and with as much pertinent evidence as possible.

Click to expand...

The term 'peers' is open to interpretation and arguably impossible to achieve ... But what are laws if not behaviors judged inherently detrimental to society? When said laws were made, did the lawmakers know each and every one of the people the laws were going to apply to/to govern before judging them necessary? And the presence of a jury does not guarantee an appropriate/true/just verdict. All-white juries in Mississippi frequently acquitted Klan members of murder charges - so much so that the government was forced to go after the acquitted killers based on civil rights violations in order to see some modicum of justice served. Simply put, we all know dog poop when we step in it - we don't have to know the dog who pooped or to have seen the dog pooping to know it's dog poop.

Feraud said:

There is no faceless entity judging the accused in closed quarters against unspoken charges.

Click to expand...

Granted, in this country, the jury is not hidden away and the accused have a right to see and know who is accusing them and of what. But, again, the presence of a jury in and of itself is no safeguard against false judgments. Albeit small, one could argue that mob mentatlity affords individual jury members a degree of anonymity when reaching a verdict.

Feraud said:

Rather, such judgements are made online in the virtual world through rumor and innuendo. Note the cases of online harassment based on hidden identities and the quagmire of trying to prosecute such cowards.

Click to expand...

Rumor and innuendo existed long before the internet. People's reputations are damaged all the time at school, at work, in social circles without the internet - it's called gossip and it can be just as anonymous and just as malicious as anything we see on the net today. The method of dissemination makes it nearly impossible to track down and punish those who maliciously start a rumor. Such judgments are made every day, no matter what. My solution to the problem is to make judgments of my own, not to suspend my judgment and allow others to tell me what is or isn't (insert adjective) behavior. If we have any hope of meeting the challenge and curbing its destructive tendencies, we have to be willing to exercise our judgment, even if we don't know the perpetrators personally. I don't have to know those cheerleaders who filmed themselves beating up another girl to judge their behavior as abhorrent as well as criminal. I don't have to know them to condemn them.

Feraud said:

Your analogy of the justice system is wrong.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't, because we (imperfect, biased, small-minded) humans created it. It is still vulnerable to errors in judgment because we as individuals are vulnerable to errors in judgment. But being vulnerable to errors in judgment does not mean we should suspend our judgment; instead, we need to be willing to re-examine our judgment and correct it when it is found to be in error.

BTW, I would also add that the term 'justice system' is an oxymoron and a misnomer. Better to say legal system ...

HoosierDaddy said:

Actions seems to be "key" to lead to being called out on them.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!!

HoosierDaddy said:

I have not pointed a finger..not horizontally anyway.....

Click to expand...

lol lol lol :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

*stern librarian's voice* Kindly use all your fingers when waving, HD!

I see we woke the egghead contingent again. I'll have to light up a cigar again and watch the battle of defining terms and enjoy my scotch. Carry on, it amuses me to no end.

jamespowers said:

I see we woke the egghead contingent again.

Click to expand...

Hey, now, I tried to keep it from getting too far into the ozone ... dog poop isn't a traditional egghead term, I'll have you know ...

The Dame said:

Hey, now, I tried to keep it from getting too far into the ozone ... dog poop isn't a traditional egghead term, I'll have you know ...

Click to expand...

Sure, sure. I can still see the ivory tower from here.