Pick-A-Dax

[TheLobes]

^ In the interest of fairness, I consider that kind of comment out of order, too. I can understand being annoyed at the substitution, but "feeling sick" for such an inoffensive character is kinda excessive from my perspective.

Dude... we're spending our saturdays on the internet, discussing a character change on a show that ended years ago, and wasnt even that successful. I think we passed 'excessive' a long time ago.

And, Im sorry, that really is how I feel, because I basically just regard her as filler. She didnt do anything, or fill any role with any character, she was just someone they had to stuff in there to fill the boob quota. To be fair though, a lot of season seven made me feel a bit off colour.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Not at all. Internal conflicts do not justify putting others down--even (one might say especially) under the pretense of "It was just a joke!"

I agree. Good things Jadzia never did that.

Really? You do not consider mockery and wisecracks at others' expense--on a constant basis--to be "putting others down?"

On a similar note...

Nerys has already answered that point....

If a person is manipulating others in their relationships--power-tripping in what is supposed to be an equal relationship, then yes, it belongs on the same continuum, though again, Jadzia and Dukat would be very far from each other because obviously Dukat crossed a BIG line when he got violent physically and violent verbally (he didn't just toy with people...he destroyed them from the inside out).

Saying that Jadiza and Dukat are similiar in one way doesn't mean they are similiar in all ways.

Which is still mindbogglingly stupid. So now using humour is power-tripping? Teasing a boy who fancies himself a supreme seducer is the on the same continuum of mass murder and military occupation of a planet?

First of all, read what Shran said, and don't ignore it:

Saying that Jadiza and Dukat are similiar in one way doesn't mean they are similiar in all ways.

Continuing...

I understand some people here had a bad time in school because they were picked on, but we are getting ridiculous here. The depth on people's insecurities here is horrifying.

Excuse me?

Claiming to never be wrong--well, it directly contradicts what you were saying about subjectivity, for one.

For another, I believe you were criticizing me for my allegedly having the exact same attitude.

Humour. It's a difficult concept, I know. Look it up in the dictionary some day, it may be of help.

Really? Let me put it this way: remember my satirical comment a few pages back about Jadzia fans being "ashamed" to be men? I was using a rediculous scenario to make a finer point. As I recall, the response was, "Well, if you didn't mean it, why did you say it?"

I fail to see your purpose in your use of "humor".

Incorrect. "Advancements" is a temporal assessments, not a hierarchical one. I am fully able to agree and support something without thinking everything else in "inferior".

So you say "backwards" and "old-fashioned" to not be value judgements? As if they are not objective

Yep. See? It was not so difficult to understand.

"I like vanilla ice cream because it's fluffy and sweet" is a perfectly acceptable comment. "I despise chocolate ice cream because it tastes like vomit and just seeing it makes me nauseous" raises a few more eyebrows, and begets the question of why such displease with a perfectly normal substance.

I am not going to call people who don't like chocolate prejudiced against chocolate. For all I know, it does make them nauseous. Perhaps they're allergic to cocoa.

Even if not--I've met people who don't like chocolate. I find it personally amusing--but never would it occur to me that there's something wrong with that person. It's just a matter of taste.

Wonderful. As I said, more power to you.

Do you realize this debate has nothing (or indeed very little) to do with Ezri and everything with attitudes towards women, right?

Do you realize that our side of the debate do not consider accusations of prejudicial attitudes towards women to be factual or relevent to problems with Jadzia's character?

Nope. Just factual.

Really? And yet you have also admitted that such judgements were subjective--and you said to me that claims of objectivity on my part were evidence of arrogance, and stubborness, and unwillingness to admit when one is wrong.

Once again, iguana, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Are your claims subjective or not?

Well, because it isn't.

And...why not?

I ask again: why do Ezri and Kira not count as "emancipated"?

Let's just say I disagree with everything you wrote and avoid yet another repetition of the same exact argument we just had in the previous ten pages.

So you're not even going to answer my questions as to what you mean by "sexual liberation" or "emancipation"--and why they count for Jadzia, but not for Ezri or Kira?

 

[Thestral]

"Morn Porn." .... and then

Both of them constantly tend to engage in humor which puts others down. The reason I attribute it to the same source is that it's the exact same manner of behavior.

Now--are they coming from different places? Remember, Jadzia possesed an immense lack of confidence which came out before and during her interation with Curzon in "Facets".

You're saying that any two people who manifest similar behaviors (which is only for the sake of argument - if you actually look closer K'ehleyr and Jadzia had some very different views especially re: the Klingon Empire) must be acting from the same motivation? That's a very simplistic view of human behavior.

Jadzia possessed an immense lack of confidence - about one particular personal relationship, not her place in the universe, and in contrast to all other areas. This isn't Cordelia Chase, this is Aeryn Sun about John Crichton.

Oh, I would consider accusations of desires to prefer women to be "suppressed by Victorian-era standards" as hostile and vitriolic.

Hostility and vitriol have to do with tone, not content. There's non-hostile ways to call somebody a Nazi; there's hostile ways to tell somebody you love them. Reading hostility into content says more about the listener/reader than the speaker/writer (for example, I would consider being called a Nazi a hostile thing no matter how kindly it was delivered - but that's because I fucking despise Nazis).

And I am arguing that his use of "old-fashioned" and "backwards" completely contradict that assertion.

I refer you to iguana himself since he can explain it better. The closest analogy I can draw (with apologies for its clumsiness) is that his perspective and yours might be a case of Values Dissonance (with double apologies for the picture on that site). No apologies for sending you into an hours-long bender at TV Tropes.

Because preference is preference--why someone would prefer A to B concerns both A and B.

You're missing the point. Nothing in this thread has been about why you like Ezri or Kira. It's not the liking or the reasons why that's at discussion here. It's the specific reasons why you dislike Jadzia that're at issue.

"Emancipation"? That's an odd thing to say. How is Jadzia "emancipated" while Ezri--or Kira--are not?

You curiously seem to assume that we argue they're not.

Amusing idea...but in all seriousness, I refer you to the fact that iguana did not seem willing to accept our liking of Ezri and Kira as an effective refutation of the claim that we don't care for the "emancipation" of woman--which, again, we haven't defined here, as of yet.

That would be because it's been about not who you do like, but the specific reasons given for disliking Jadzia.

If a person is manipulating others in their relationships--power-tripping in what is supposed to be an equal relationship, then yes, it belongs on the same continuum, though again, Jadzia and Dukat would be very far from each other...

No. They're not even on the same continuum and I can't believe you're arguing they are.

An interesting comparison. As far as I can remember Jadzia wasn't a mass murderer and didn't completely subjugate an entire planet and its people. I musta missed that episode.

Oh, you did? Shame, it was pretty fantastic. Although I do think bleaching her skin and dying her spots red might've been a bit over the top.

And lord knows there hasn't been anything excessive so far in this thread.

So what you're saying is... more Morn Porn?

 

[Rush Limborg]

^ In the interest of fairness, I consider that kind of comment out of order, too. I can understand being annoyed at the substitution, but "feeling sick" for such an inoffensive character is kinda excessive from my perspective.

Dude... we're spending our saturdays on the internet, discussing a character change on a show that ended years ago, and wasnt even that successful. I think we passed 'excessive' a long time ago.

And, Im sorry, that really is how I feel, because I basically just regard her as filler. She didnt do anything, or fill any role with any character, she was just someone they had to stuff in there to fill the boob quota. To be fair though, a lot of season seven made me feel a bit off colour.

Okay...

She got Sisko to snap out of his desire to smash the Orb.

She cured Garak of his claustraphobic attacks--allowing him to break Cardassian codes and help the Allies in their fight.

She saved all of DS9 from a Vulcan psychopath.

She rescued Worf.

She motivated Worf to stand up to Gowron and save the Empire--seeing things she noted Jadzia and Curzon were probably unable to see.

She got Worf to get over Jadzia's death.

As Jake noted, her presence instilled in Sisko a new sense of hope. Same goes for Bashir.


I wouldn't exactly call that "useless".

 

[Rush Limborg]

Both of them constantly tend to engage in humor which puts others down. The reason I attribute it to the same source is that it's the exact same manner of behavior.

Now--are they coming from different places? Remember, Jadzia possesed an immense lack of confidence which came out before and during her interation with Curzon in "Facets".

You're saying that any two people who manifest similar behaviors (which is only for the sake of argument - if you actually look closer K'ehleyr and Jadzia had some very different views especially re: the Klingon Empire) must be acting from the same motivation? That's a very simplistic view of human behavior.

Jadzia possessed an immense lack of confidence - about one particular personal relationship, not her place in the universe, and in contrast to all other areas. This isn't Cordelia Chase, this is Aeryn Sun about John Crichton.

It wasn't just with Curzon. Recall, when Joran (in Sisko) taunted her, calling her useless, incompetent, worthless, etc.--Jadzia looked very moved--indeed, she was this close to obeying him.

The thing is, underneath all the bravado and "irreverence", Jadzia was insecure about whether the talents she displayed were really hers--or if it all came from the symbiont. She wasn't really sure if she was really that useful--that she brought anything to the table herself. Thus, when she heard that Curzon's reasons for letting her have the symbiont involved "pity", it nearly confirmed it in her mind--until Sisko convinced her to stand up to him.

Later on, when she rants to Sisko about Sirella's disrespect towards her, he has to remind her that "You're not Curzon anymore!"

Frankly, it's as if she threw herself into Curzon's memories, seeing him as the embodiment of confidence.

In a way...her conflict wasn't that different from Ezri's. The difference was, Ezri didn't try to cover it up under bravado.

Oh, I would consider accusations of desires to prefer women to be "suppressed by Victorian-era standards" as hostile and vitriolic.

Hostility and vitriol have to do with tone, not content. There's non-hostile ways to call somebody a Nazi; there's hostile ways to tell somebody you love them. Reading hostility into content says more about the listener/reader than the speaker/writer (for example, I would consider being called a Nazi a hostile thing no matter how kindly it was delivered - but that's because I fucking despise Nazis).

As would I. Dittos for racism and sexism--I despise both regardless of where it is. Thus, I take being accused of prejudice in that regards to be highly offensive.

The closest analogy I can draw (with apologies for its clumsiness) is that his perspective and yours might be a case of Values Dissonance (with double apologies for the picture on that site). No apologies for sending you into an hours-long bender at TV Tropes.

Oh, no--no need to apologize about its clumsiness. It's actually quite similar to what I've been saying about language, and lack of common ground.

You curiously seem to assume that we argue they're not.

Well, that's the idea that comes across to me, as the claim that we don't like "emancipation" otherwise falls flat on its face.

You're missing the point. Nothing in this thread has been about why you like Ezri or Kira. It's not the liking or the reasons why that's at discussion here. It's the specific reasons why you dislike Jadzia that're at issue.

...That would be because it's been about not who you do like,
but the specific reasons given for disliking Jadzia.

Again, if you agree that Ezri and Kira are "emancipated"--the idea that we don't like Jadzia for being "emancipated" is absurd!

 

[Gepard]

[
Really? You do not consider mockery and wisecracks at others' expense--on a constant basis--to be "putting others down?"

No, I consider it Mystery Science Theater 3000. Team Jadzia up with some cute wisecracking robots and we're all set!

 

[Rush Limborg]

...




Amusing!


But in the case of the robots--they're either programmed that way, or else the chips on their shoulders are...isoliniear.

 

[Thestral]

It wasn't just with Curzon. Recall, when Joran (in Sisko) taunted her, calling her useless, incompetent, worthless, etc.--Jadzia looked very moved--indeed, she was this close to obeying him.

Oh, right. Sorry, twice then. Including the guy that lived in her brain unbeknownst to her for years, haunting and no doubt traumatizing her for the rest of her life. It's like Locutus in reverse but I don't see anybody declaring Picard "insecure" for losing it in First Contact.

The thing is, underneath all the bravado and "irreverence", Jadzia was insecure about whether the talents she displayed were really hers--or if it all came from the symbiont. She wasn't really sure if she was really that useful--that she brought anything to the table herself. Thus, when she heard that Curzon's reasons for letting her have the symbiont involved "pity", it nearly confirmed it in her mind--until Sisko convinced her to stand up to him.

Nope, not buying it. All you've pointed out is that she's vulnerable to barbs from two individuals, not explained how she carries a general insecurity about her place in the world. Contrast the Joran or Curzon situation (which was resolved, as a note, and she incorporated Curzon more fully into herself) with, say... "To the Death," just as the first example that came to my head.

As would I. Dittos for racism and sexism--I despise both regardless of where it is. Thus, I take being accused of prejudice in that regards to be highly offensive.

If multiple people are telling you your arguments fit a certain pattern - not to tear you down, but to make a point - you might need to consider an uncomfortable reality. And you're missing the point anyway - the hostility is read into the accusation without necessarily being native to it.

Again, if you agree that Ezri and Kira are "emancipated"--the idea that we don't like Jadzia for being "emancipated" is absurd!

Not at all. You're objecting to a misinterpretation of events, to what you see as a pattern of behavior. It's what Jadzia does with her emancipation that you object to, not the fact she is.

Making this point doesn't require a declaration either way about Ezri for example, except that her behavior is more in line with traditional values.

 

[iguana_tonante]

And lord knows there hasn't been anything excessive so far in this thread.

We won't have any of that, ma'am.

You do not consider mockery and wisecracks at others' expense--on a constant basis--to be "putting others down?"

Nope. I consider that normal human interaction. And while Jadzia was quite sarcastic at time (well, in Star Trek terms: people are much more sarcastic in real life), she wasn't some kind of Gregory House clone.

First of all, read what Shran said, and don't ignore it:

Saying that Jadiza and Dukat are similiar in one way doesn't mean they are similiar in all ways.

Which is still again mindbogglingly stupid. Being a tease and/or irreverent is not in any way, shape or form similar to being a sadistic motherfucker on a power-trip with a penchant for mass murder. That's not in the same scale, in the same continuum, not even in the same universe. Just not.

I understand some people here had a bad time in school because they were picked on, but we are getting ridiculous here. The depth on people's insecurities here is horrifying.

Excuse me?

I am the only one reading the conversation here? Because if you don't get it, you might be well reading a different conversation.

Let me put it this way: remember my satirical comment a few pages back about Jadzia fans being "ashamed" to be men? I was using a rediculous scenario to make a finer point. As I recall, the response was, "Well, if you didn't mean it, why did you say it?"

For a satirical piece, that was not very funny.

I fail to see your purpose in your use of "humor".

It's ok. Not everybody can get it.

Even if not--I've met people who don't like chocolate. I find it personally amusing--but never would it occur to me that there's something wrong with that person. It's just a matter of taste.

Well, if they are going to great lengths telling everybody how just horrible chocolate is, and how much better the taste of sweet, sweet vanilla is, maybe there is something wrong with them.

Do you realize that our side of the debate do not consider accusations of prejudicial attitudes towards women to be factual or relevent to problems with Jadzia's character?

Of course I realize it. I also realize that, it's complete bullshit. For the most part, criticisms of Jadzia's character here had everything to do with attitudes towards women.

(Beside, "your side"? Your side of what? Are we picking sides? I'm having a conversation, not fighting a war.)

I ask again: why do Ezri and Kira not count as "emancipated"?

For what is worth, from my point of view they are very much emancipated. But the way they manifest their emancipation puts them in line with more traditional roles (which is a fine-and-good result of emancipation: you can choose to be old-fashioned): no surprise you have no problem with that. The problem comes when emancipation manifests itself in ways that are perceived as going against traditional values: in that case, the labels of "arrogant", "bitchy", "loose" are used with profusion. Seems like women's emancipation is a good thing just as long as they choose to behave "correctly".

So you're not even going to answer my questions as to what you mean by "sexual liberation" or "emancipation"

Nope. Get a passing familiarity with the history of feminism and civil right. I'm not going to do the homework for you.

Again, if you agree that Ezri and Kira are "emancipated"--the idea that we don't like Jadzia for being "emancipated" is absurd!

As I explained above, not really.

Oh, right. Sorry, twice then. Including the guy that lived in her brain unbeknownst to her for years, haunting and no doubt traumatizing her for the rest of her life. It's like Locutus in reverse but I don't see anybody declaring Picard "insecure" for losing it in First Contact.

I believe the correct Internet shorthand for a devastating blow to the opposite point of view is: "BAM!"

As would I. Dittos for racism and sexism--I despise both regardless of where it is. Thus, I take being accused of prejudice in that regards to be highly offensive.

If multiple people are telling you your arguments fit a certain pattern - not to tear you down, but to make a point - you might need to consider an uncomfortable reality.

Oh no, that would be unthinkable. Rush is always right, no matter how many people point it out to him that he's wrong, or that his opinions might be misplaced and/or uninformed. That's just crazy talk.

Again, if you agree that Ezri and Kira are "emancipated"--the idea that we don't like Jadzia for being "emancipated" is absurd!

Not at all. You're objecting to a misinterpretation of events, to what you see as a pattern of behavior. It's what Jadzia does with her emancipation that you object to, not the fact she is.

Making this point doesn't require a declaration either way about Ezri for example, except that her behavior is more in line with traditional values.

Which is exactly what I was getting at, just better expressed. Thank you.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

As would I. Dittos for racism and sexism--I despise both regardless of where it is. Thus, I take being accused of prejudice in that regards to be highly offensive.

If multiple people are telling you your arguments fit a certain pattern - not to tear you down, but to make a point - you might need to consider an uncomfortable reality.

I would warn very strongly against the assumption that being in a group always makes right. That opens one up to groupthink. I suggest reading this article in great depth and conducting an unflinching analysis of this group dynamic, both in terms of the structural issues that precede the groupthink, and in the actual resultant behavior. I've pulled out the highlight here, but provided the entire article for reference. Do bear in mind that while groupthink often sets in in high-pressure situations (which this isn't), in addition to those satisfying the first two proximate causes, high group cohesion is the first and foremost prerequisite and similar to many other diagnostic tools, not all of the prerequisites, or all of the symptoms must be in evidence for the diagnosis to fit, given that each situation is different.

Most particularly, we have evidence suggesting Type II and Type III groupthink.

Type I: Overestimations of the group—its power and morality

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

1. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
2. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

1. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
2. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
3. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty" [usually put more abstractly in this context, as a suggestion that one does not belong to the "enlightened" class]
4. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

This does not require any malice aforethought in order to take place, of course. Other phenomena can include malice, but I see no purpose in imputing any sort of negative desire, or any deliberate desire at all, in order to discuss this subject, especially since the data do fit a pattern that requires none--and can often happen with the absolute best of intentions.

I would warn very strongly against assuming that a group gathering around a single viewpoint--especially a group with a marked homogeneity in ideological backgrounds (cf. "Causes" in the aforementioned article), as we find here--is in fact an arbiter of what is right. And especially when behaviors crop up like going for denigrating suggestions towards those who may express what either is or what is perceived to be a minority opinion, imputing either malicious intent, an untoward bias, or stupidity--making a jump in logic from "He prefers Ezri" to "He's a sexist man"--then that is another clear warning sign that groupthink could happen or is happening.

To assume there is really no way to accept the preferences of Rush Limborg, Admiral Shran, Distorted Humor, myself, and others, without giving credence to any other explanation, with imputing negative motives, and to reflexively dismiss any protestations (in fact, even to use one's protestations as further evidence against them in Cardassian tribunal fashion, where either a confession OR mounting a defense is taken as evidence for the state position) points to a serious logic fault. This has been compounded with automatic dismissal of evidence, provided by myself and others, that they find the same characteristics distasteful in both men and women. This, in turn, has provoked one of a few reactions: they must be lying (most often applied to men), they must hold backwards opinions that they apply to men and women both (and therefore do not deserve respect as "accepted" diversity), or they are perhaps a rare exception proving the rule at best or a sellout at worst (most often applied to women).

Repeat this over a group, feed it with emotions, and it becomes self-reinforcing. And this is neither a productive nor a healthy dynamic.

So why not consider the possibility that there are non-nefarious reasons for a person to prefer Ezri? For a man to prefer Ezri especially? Jumping automatically to impugn others is not at all necessary (not to mention requiring a successive chain of assumptions).

 

[iguana_tonante]

Lulz.

Keep up the good fight against groupthink, Nerys... by engaging in gropthink with like-minded individuals.

I especially love how you suggest that people who disagree with you believe in "might makes right", have "illusions of invulnerability", possess "unquestioning belief" (that's rich coming from you ), engage in "rationalizing" and "stereotyping", are "close-minded", exercise censorship, silence dissenting views, put pressure on people to conform, and have their own thought police. But since you hide behind an article, it's all very sanitized and sneaky.

Of course, I and others did nothing of the sort, except disagree with you and engage in honest debate.

Now, Nerys, do you have a problem with debate?

Because before you sit on your tribunal bench ready to make your rousing speech against assumption, censorship and mind police, I would suggest to be careful not to attempt it on your own.

But I hate to get in the way of a good persecution complex.

 

[Rush Limborg]

It wasn't just with Curzon. Recall, when Joran (in Sisko) taunted her, calling her useless, incompetent, worthless, etc.--Jadzia looked very moved--indeed, she was this close to obeying him.

Oh, right. Sorry, twice then. Including the guy that lived in her brain unbeknownst to her for years, haunting and no doubt traumatizing her for the rest of her life. It's like Locutus in reverse but I don't see anybody declaring Picard "insecure" for losing it in First Contact.

Well, I would. He was very insecure--to put it mildly.

The thing is, underneath all the bravado and "irreverence", Jadzia was insecure about whether the talents she displayed were really hers--or if it all came from the symbiont. She wasn't really sure if she was really that useful--that she brought anything to the table herself. Thus, when she heard that Curzon's reasons for letting her have the symbiont involved "pity", it nearly confirmed it in her mind--until Sisko convinced her to stand up to him.

Nope, not buying it. All you've pointed out is that she's vulnerable to barbs from two individuals, not explained how she carries a general insecurity about her place in the world.

Well...whether you buy it or not, my analysis is my analysis--I simply took the facts I have, and draw a conclusion, through tying it into the main aspects of her personality. Whether you or I are right, is left to canon to determine--but as that probably won't happen...well, theories are theories.

Contrast the Joran or Curzon situation (which was resolved, as a note, and she incorporated Curzon more fully into herself) with, say... "To the Death," just as the first example that came to my head.

Hmm...not sure I follow....

As would I. Dittos for racism and sexism--I despise both regardless of where it is. Thus, I take being accused of prejudice in that regards to be highly offensive.

If multiple people are telling you your arguments fit a certain pattern - not to tear you down, but to make a point - you might need to consider an uncomfortable reality. And you're missing the point anyway - the hostility is read into the accusation without necessarily being native to it.

The question, of course, is what such a "point" would entail.

Again, if you agree that Ezri and Kira are "emancipated"--the idea that we don't like Jadzia for being "emancipated" is absurd!

Not at all. You're objecting to a misinterpretation of events, to what you see as a pattern of behavior. It's what Jadzia does with her emancipation that you object to, not the fact she is.

I suppose we can agree on this, at least. (The latter sentence, anyway--I don't consider it "misinterperetation") Behavior is certainly up for approval or disapproval.

Making this point doesn't require a declaration either way about Ezri for example, except that her behavior is more in line with traditional values.

Well, it depends on what one means by "traditional values". In my case, I'd say that "traditional" values are actually much better, and more beneficial, than many would make them out to be.

Lulz.

Keep up the good fight against groupthink, Nerys... by engaging in gropthink with like-minded individuals.

Indeed? Let's see...

I especially love how you suggest that people who disagree with you believe in "might makes right",

Observe the quote she referred to--and then tell me how such an interperetation is absurd.

--have "illusions of invulnerability", possess "unquestioning belief" (that's rich coming from you ), engage in "rationalizing" and "stereotyping", are "close-minded", exercise censorship, silence dissenting views, put pressure on people to conform, and have their own thought police. But since you hide behind an article, it's all very sanitized and sneaky.

Well...you could do worse than to actually address the issue, instead of mocking it. Now...why not do what you have had us do--and defend yourself from this assertion.

Of course, I and others did nothing of the sort, except disagree with you and engage in honest debate.

Now, Nerys, do you have a problem with debate?

Accusations of "backwards thinking" do not constitute "honest debate".

Because before you sit on your tribunal bench ready to make your rousing speech against assumption, censorship and mind police, I would suggest to be careful not to attempt it on your own.

What Nerys is doing here is no worse (indeed, I would say, not nearly as serious) as the accusations you have levvied against her and Shran and I.

So...if you're going to take her to task for a "tribunal bench"...I'd say you'd best get off your own.

But I hate to get in the way of a good persecution complex.

As would I.

For a satirical piece, that was not very funny.

As you yourself said--immediately after that:

It's ok. Not everybody can get it.

Moving right along...

Well, if they are going to great lengths telling everybody how just horrible chocolate is, and how much better the taste of sweet, sweet vanilla is, maybe there is something wrong with them.

"Great lengths"? I think you're exaggerating things just a bit.

And again--taste is taste. It's not "discrimination".

Of course I realize it. I also realize that, it's complete bullshit. For the most part, criticisms of Jadzia's character here had everything to do with attitudes towards women.

Once again, you repeat your accusation.

(Beside, "your side"? Your side of what? Are we picking sides? I'm having a conversation, not fighting a war.)

"Our side" of the debate, naturally.

Nope. Get a passing familiarity with the history of feminism and civil right. I'm not going to do the homework for you.

Unfortunately, iguana, it's not my responsibility to define your point of view.

Somehow...I'm not entirely convinced you are able to define those terms for me....

For what is worth, from my point of view they are very much emancipated. But the way they manifest their emancipation puts them in line with more traditional roles (which is a fine-and-good result of emancipation: you can choose to be old-fashioned): no surprise you have no problem with that. The problem comes when emancipation manifests itself in ways that are perceived as going against traditional values: in that case, the labels of "arrogant", "bitchy", "loose" are used with profusion. Seems like women's emancipation is a good thing just as long as they choose to behave "correctly".

Nice bit of "weaseling" there. Unfortunately, emancipation is as emancipation goes.

Now, let me get this straight: even though you now concede that we have no problem with women's emancipation as such...you're problem is how we judge how it manifests itself?

You're problem is that we're criticizing behavior?

iguana...as even John Locke said, liberty does not mean license. With great liberty--and the power that comes with it--comes great responsibility.

Yes--people have the right to behave as they will, provided it doesn't hurt others--but that doesn't mean others should just accept it, and not criticize it. And no, criticizing behavior--criticizing the use of liberty--does not mean people want to "suppress" liberty. It means they see a problem with someone's behavior--a problem involving how said behavior could and/or does affect those around that someone.

They may be right. They may be wrong. But accusations of "backwards thinking" and "old-fashioned values" do not describe the invoking of standards, in regards to the use of liberty. Manners are manners. Politeness is politeness. Words, like it or not, have the power to harm--and while people do have freedom of speach, they also have the responsibility to not misuse that freedom.

The responsibility is their own--no one can necessarily "force" them to watch how they speak. But that does not mean people can't point out lack of responsibility when they see it.


Finally--

Oh no, that would be unthinkable. Rush is always right, no matter how many people point it out to him that he's wrong, or that his opinions might be misplaced and/or uninformed. That's just crazy talk.

Once again...calling the kettle black.

 

[{ Emilia }]

If multiple people are telling you your arguments fit a certain pattern - not to tear you down, but to make a point - you might need to consider an uncomfortable reality.

I would warn very strongly against the assumption that being in a group always makes right. That opens one up to groupthink.

1. Kestrel said "you might need to consider". Kestrel didn't say being in a group "always makes right."

2. If I keep saying that 2+2=5 and a "group of people" tells me I'm wrong then that's no example for "groupthink". It's an example for reasonable people not taking any shit from silly little me.

On a sidenote: Can somebody give me an example for Jadzia "putting others down"?
For some reason all I seem to remember was some harmless sarcasm and friendly banter. I do that all the time to my friends and they do it to me because you know... there's no point taking yourself too seriously. Some healthy self-irony goes a long way but I realize that some people are too insecure for "friendly banter".

 

[Rush Limborg]

If multiple people are telling you your arguments fit a certain pattern - not to tear you down, but to make a point - you might need to consider an uncomfortable reality.

I would warn very strongly against the assumption that being in a group always makes right. That opens one up to groupthink.

1. Kestrel said "you might need to consider". Kestrel didn't say being in a group "always makes right."

The implication is that the crowd is right more often than not. But as One Who Resists The Tug Of Popular Sentiment--I, as well as Nerys, beg to differ.

2. If I keep saying that 2+2=5 and a "group of people" tells me I'm wrong then that's no example for "groupthink". It's an example for reasonable people not taking any shit from silly little me.

This isn't a matter of objective facts--i.e., science and mathematics. This is a matter of interperetation of facts--philosophy and ethics.

On a sidenote: Can somebody give me an example for Jadzia "putting others down"?
For some reason all I seem to remember was some harmless sarcasm and friendly banter. I do that all the time to my friends and they do it to me because you know... there's no point taking yourself too seriously. Some healthy self-irony goes a long way but I realize that some people are too insecure for "friendly banter".

It's not all insecurity. As Sisko himself noted, sometimes Curzon had to be called out when he pushed it too far. That goes for Jadzia, too. She may have told herself, "Oh, I'm just having fun," but...for one, note how, in "Change Of Heart", when Worf gave her a dose of her own medicine--she got pretty ticked off. She didn't like when he did it to her--as if she's allowed to dish it out, but he is not.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I would point to The Ship as an example of Dax "putting others down." When Worf and O'Brien literally lose it and start fighting, Sisko immediately diffuses the situation. Dax, then, feels the need to jump in a say "Tough guys. A little pressure and they buckle." Sisko then immediately diffuses that situation.

Now, I realize they were under a lot of pressure, but still, her idea of diffusing the tension was to ridicule the others. She cleary thought it was nothing but just some fun, but it clearly wasn't. And, as Rush pointed out, she's willing to dish it out but not take it. When Sisko tells her that nobody is laughing, she looks like she's literally struggling not to explode at him.

I would also point to The Reckoning and her complete contempt for Sisko's faith. There's being skeptical, which is just fine, and then there's ridiculing people because they believe something you don't.

 

[Thestral]

I believe the correct Internet shorthand for a devastating blow to the opposite point of view is: "BAM!"

I've always been partial to "SHAZAM!" myself. "BOOM! Headshot!" is also pretty popular.

Which is exactly what I was getting at, just better expressed. Thank you.

I live to serve.

I would warn very strongly against the assumption that being in a group always makes right.

Consider the warning taken in stride. I'm quite familiar with groupthink, thanks.

...--especially a group with a marked homogeneity in ideological backgrounds...

You must be joking, right? Since you've drawn up an Order of Battle, let me present one of my own to show you what's wrong with this statement. Kestrel, iguana_tonante, Deckerd, { Emilia }. I don't wanna speak much for the others, but that's really a pretty darned heterogenous mix; you're not gonna find many guys with as different ideological background as myself and iguana, for example, and I'm closer to Rush in background than any of them.. I'm sorry, but if this is one of your evidences for groupthink... you should seriously reconsider.

This has been compounded with automatic dismissal of evidence, provided by myself and others, that they find the same characteristics distasteful in both men and women.

I don't believe I've seen said dismissal, honestly. Actually, I don't think I've seen this point addressed at all.

So why not consider the possibility that there are non-nefarious reasons for a person to prefer Ezri? For a man to prefer Ezri especially?

I'm perfectly happy to say that. That's not what this is about, as I've tried to explain to Rush - it's not about liking Ezri better, it's about the specific reasons given for disliking Jadzia. There's a difference.

Also, point of order: if you'll look back several pages you'll note Distorted Humor being told - repeatedly - that his preference for Ezri is perfectly chill and not at issue.

Oh, right. Sorry, twice then. Including the guy that lived in her brain unbeknownst to her for years, haunting and no doubt traumatizing her for the rest of her life. It's like Locutus in reverse but I don't see anybody declaring Picard "insecure" for losing it in First Contact.

Well, I would. He was very insecure--to put it mildly.

You're right. He was. Because he was reliving the trauma of being kidnapped, surgically altered, mind raped, and transformed into a soulless killing machine responsible for the deaths of 40 Starships, all while he watched helplessly from inside his own body.

I don't know about you, but I think that's damned good cause to be insecure.

Not unlike suddenly finding out the reason you're being haunted by demented nightmares is because you were a serial killer in a former life, but were brainwashed to forget it and the brainwashing is wearing off. And there's nothing you can do about it but live with the knowledge and move forward. Again - pretty good reason to be insecure about the serial killer in your psyche.

Nope, not buying it. All you've pointed out is that she's vulnerable to barbs from two individuals, not explained how she carries a general insecurity about her place in the world.

Well...whether you buy it or not, my analysis is my analysis--I simply took the facts I have, and draw a conclusion, through tying it into the main aspects of her personality. Whether you or I are right, is left to canon to determine--but as that probably won't happen...well, theories are theories.

I'm sorry (I'm so sorry), but your analysis simply doesn't fit the facts.

Your initial premise: Jadzia uses sarcasm and quips to mask a deep-seated anxiety and vulnerability, not unlike K'Ehleyr.

But if you actually look at the times when she's most vulnerable, you find the facts don't bear that out. Use the examples of Joran, of Curzon... and of Verad, the three times when she was most traumatized and vulnerable. In all three cases, rather than being sarcastic and quippy, Jadzia is clearly unsure of herself and her vulnerability shows through as she's faced with the uncertainty that each situation presents - rather than being hard-charging and using force of will to bluster through her pain. Look at her death scene, for that matter. Any silly quips there?

In contrast, when she's most quippy and sarcastic, it's in situations and surroundings where she's familiar - especially around and about Klingons, but also about to go into battle with Jem'Hadar at her side ("To the Death") and very often around friends.

If multiple people are telling you your arguments fit a certain pattern - not to tear you down, but to make a point...

The question, of course, is what such a "point" would entail.

To serve as a teaching moment? To explain where this line of reasoning comes from, so as to allow said person to examine and change their prejudices and thus be better integrated into the world around them? Debating doesn't have to be a zero sum game, after all.

Making this point doesn't require a declaration either way about Ezri for example, except that her behavior is more in line with traditional values.

Well, it depends on what one means by "traditional values". In my case, I'd say that "traditional" values are actually much better, and more beneficial, than many would make them out to be.

That's... not really germaine to my point, which is that you can't invoke liking Ezri as a defense in this case, because it's not about her.

Accusations of "backwards thinking" do not constitute "honest debate".

Orly? Why not?

Unfortunately, iguana, it's not my responsibility to define your point of view.

Somehow...I'm not entirely convinced you are able to define those terms for me....

It's not his point of view. Look, if you're going to talk math, do you start with calculus or arithmetic? Would you go up to a physicist and demand he explain every single basic principal before he presents a grand new theory? There's a certain level of education that's readily available out there but really doesn't belong here.

For what is worth, from my point of view they are very much emancipated. But the way they manifest their emancipation puts them in line with more traditional roles (which is a fine-and-good result of emancipation: you can choose to be old-fashioned): no surprise you have no problem with that. The problem comes when emancipation manifests itself in ways that are perceived as going against traditional values: in that case, the labels of "arrogant", "bitchy", "loose" are used with profusion. Seems like women's emancipation is a good thing just as long as they choose to behave "correctly".

Nice bit of "weaseling" there. Unfortunately, emancipation is as emancipation goes.

No weaseling there - that's a very accurate explanation of how two women, both equally free, can have different reactions to them based on whether or not they freely choose to stick with more traditional roles.

Now, let me get this straight: even though you now concede that we have no problem with women's emancipation as such...you're problem is how we judge how it manifests itself?

You're problem is that we're criticizing behavior?

A particular kind of behavior, yes.

The implication is that the crowd is right more often than not. But as One Who Resists The Tug Of Popular Sentiment--I, as well as Nerys, beg to differ.

Continuing to arrogate Socratic (?) titles to yourself isn't helping your case and just makes you look pompous, to be frank.

The denotation isn't the rightness of the crowd, it's the fact that other people - ie not oneself - can sometimes see truths and patterns that the self can't see, and hearing the same thing repeatedly from very different people might mean there's something to it.

 

[Deckerd]

My Spidey senses are quivering. Was I just used in an argument? You know this can only go one way from here.

 

[{ Emilia }]

1. Kestrel said "you might need to consider". Kestrel didn't say being in a group "always makes right."

The implication is that the crowd is right more often than not. But as One Who Resists The Tug Of Popular Sentiment--I, as well as Nerys, beg to differ.

No, the implication was that if a couple of people from heterogeneous backgrounds who all seem to be pretty reasonable and coherent think you're being silly then you might want to rethink your own position and draw your own conclusions.
There's nothing wrong with questioning yourself or your ideas once in a while. I do it all the time. You should try it, Rush.

(Sidenote: I'm also pretty sure you don't have to lecture the Iguana or me about resisting the popular sentiment. He lives in a country that's dominated by Berlusconi's media yet he doesn't fall for it. And if you think that I'm a good example for a conformist person then you haven't read any of my posts in the past. )

This isn't a matter of objective facts--i.e., science and mathematics. This is a matter of interperetation of facts--philosophy and ethics.

I used the maths example for effect, I'll give you that. It still applies to opinions, too if to a lesser degree. That doesn't change the fact that nobody wants to force an opinion onto you, people just wonder if your ego is too big for you to actually be able to reconsider your positions once in a while.

It's not all insecurity. As Sisko himself noted, sometimes Curzon had to be called out when he pushed it too far. That goes for Jadzia, too. She may have told herself, "Oh, I'm just having fun," but...for one, note how, in "Change Of Heart", when Worf gave her a dose of her own medicine--she got pretty ticked off. She didn't like when he did it to her--as if she's allowed to dish it out, but he is not.

Thanks, my question was genuine. I'll have to check the episode out.

But I'm getting the feeling that I'm just not as prone to passing quick judgement on somebody's character as you are.
"Perfect" people who never "cross the line" or "push too far" bore me. I don't expect everybody to be perfect. I suck at keeping my mouth shut for example but I don't think I'm a terrible person.

Right?!

 

[Distorted Humor]

I would point to The Ship as an example of Dax "putting others down." When Worf and O'Brien literally lose it and start fighting, Sisko immediately diffuses the situation. Dax, then, feels the need to jump in a say "Tough guys. A little pressure and they buckle." Sisko then immediately diffuses that situation.

Now, I realize they were under a lot of pressure, but still, her idea of diffusing the tension was to ridicule the others. She cleary thought it was nothing but just some fun, but it clearly wasn't. And, as Rush pointed out, she's willing to dish it out but not take it. When Sisko tells her that nobody is laughing, she looks like she's literally struggling not to explode at him.

I would also point to The Reckoning and her complete contempt for Sisko's faith. There's being skeptical, which is just fine, and then there's ridiculing people because they believe something you don't.

+100

 

[Goliath]

The implication is that the crowd is right more often than not. But as One Who Resists The Tug Of Popular Sentiment--I, as well as Nerys, beg to differ.

Continuing to arrogate Socratic (?) titles to yourself isn't helping your case and just makes you look pompous, to be frank.

The denotation isn't the rightness of the crowd, it's the fact that other people - ie not oneself - can sometimes see truths and patterns that the self can't see, and hearing the same thing repeatedly from very different people might mean there's something to it.

"One Who Resists the Tug of Popular Sentiment"--

This from a guy with a popular AM radio talk-show host in his avatar.

Now that I've had my contemptuous laugh--I'd just like to point out that what Kestrel is describing, and what Rush is wrongly disparaging as mere conformity or groupthink, is called "intersubjectivity"--the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals. And far from something to be disparaged, it's one of the most reliable means of obtaining knowledge that human beings have ever invented.

Any time you turn to the person next to you and ask "did you see that?" you're engaging in intersubjectivity, by checking the reliability of your own perceptions against someone else's. In fact, intersubjectivity is built right into our sensory system: stereopsis and depth perception are made possible by the fact that we have two eyes that quite literally provide us with two (slightly) different perspectives on the world. And it's one of the pillars of the scientific method: experimental results are never accepted unless they can be reproduced--that is to say, unless other experimenters can check and see for themselves.

Intersubjectivity is important because the brain is one of our least reliable organs. Our brains routinely make wrong predictions and come to wildly inaccurate conclusions based on the available evidence. People talk about their eyes playing tricks on them, when in truth it's the brain that plays tricks on itself--and then tries to shift the blame onto the eyes, which are actually the much more reliable of the two organs. So, in order to survive and flourish in this world, we check our perceptions against other people's perceptions. Generally speaking, two heads really are better than one.

Of course, it is possible to have too much of this good thing. There are many situations in which the individual's judgment is correct, and the group's is wrong. Moreover, as the Asch Conformity Experiments have shown, the pressure to conform can make people deny the plain evidence of their senses.

But though our culture makes a fetish out of the lone wolf, the romantic genius, and the rugged individual, the truth is that just about everything we do and think is a group effort--and the only true individuals in any society are the insane. In nature, the lone wolf is more likely to die than one who stays with the pack.

The crowd is not always right--but if the crowd is against the individual, the burden of proof rests with the individual. Any other position is just pretentious puffery. Doubly pretentious, in this case, because they come from someone who actively advertises his emulation of another person, in both his avatar and his username.