viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&p=2689006&hilit=prismatic#p2689006
Here pointing out what you consider a negative pattern of behavior.
And this one…
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&p=2688936&hilit=prismatic#p2689132
Now, as said, I confused you with another poster. More than this poster and I have responded more generally than you have and fit the shaming pattern I encouraged above better than your posts. Perhaps it speaks to Prismatics need for chastisement that even when I mix up your name with someone else you have done things which less perfectly fit the kind of shaming I am recommending, but nevertheless are present in your posts.
You responded more specifically - though indicating a general criticism (the reference to his psychology) - and were ad hom in the sense of directing criticism at the person not the argument.
I am suggesting that if a broad pattern of ruins discussion behavior is enacted by one poster MAKING GENERAL shaming statements is perfectly appropriate. We would do it at a dinner party and at college seminar in a debate in a meeting. Not always, not always when we should - given all the reasons one may hold back what needs to be said - buy it is a part of pretty much any community self-regulation. Hey, what you are doing is fucked up. It is good feedback for the person. It provides them with information- which is almost always ignored now, but sometimes has longer term affects when the same feedback comes again and again. Sometimes, I have noticed, the person shamed does not acknowledge anything, but changes behavior, tones it down, tries to respond more to those he or she is arguing with, gets more careful about making cogent arguments. Better if they could openly acknowledge but still positive results.
here you are making fun of him.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&hilit=prismatic&p=2689164&view=show#p2689165