Shankbone vs. Kohs, part deux Options

[A Horse With No Name]

Our favorite evil queen is back in a new tsk-tsk against the beloved Mr. Kohs:

http://blog.shankbone.org/2009/04/14/greg-...edia-dramatica/

Kohs, take it from this horse's mouth -- Mr. Miller ain't good enough to flush your toilet!

[Jon Awbrey]

So long as we're all asking questions that ought to be purely retro-ical by now —

Why do you think they encourage him?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Somey]

Why do you think they encourage him?

Ehh, I seem to have gotten confused as to which "blog aggregator" he's on, and it could be argued that the one he's on now isn't as "official" as the first one, which means he's not being encouraged to the same extent he was a few months ago.

But as Moulton suggested, given the nature of NPD, his removal from the preferred blog aggregator probably just made him nastier, given that he can now self-justify by saying "they dropped me from their blog aggregator, so I'm going to get my revenge," blah blah blah.

The fact remains that there will always be a handful of Wikipedia Uber Alles types for whom someone like Shankers can do no wrong, simply because they see him as some sort of rottweiler-ish attack dog. And when a person is that far gone, narcissism-wise, that's all it takes - unless he receives (for all practical purposes) unanimous repudiation, he'll always be able to say, "but so-and-so knows me and thinks I'm a great guy, so what's your problem?" ...and just keep on doing what he does.

All I can do, speaking only for myself, is continue to point out that as long as Shankers remains unbanned and/or tolerated on Wikipedia, nobody from Wikipedia should be deemed to have any legitimate right to complain about how we operate or what we post here on WR, or even to complain about Encyclopedia Dramatica. To suggest otherwise is utterly laughable. We will always have and maintain the "moral high ground" over Wikipedia, as long as this situation continues.

[Moulton]

The fact remains that there will always be a handful of Wikipedia Uber Alles types for whom someone like Shankers can do no wrong, simply because they see him as some sort of rottweiler-ish attack dog. And when a person is that far gone, narcissism-wise, that's all it takes - unless he receives (for all practical purposes) unanimous repudiation, he'll always be able to say, "but so-and-so knows me and thinks I'm a great guy, so what's your problem?" ...and just keep on doing what he does.

As long as it's seen as a contest between competing tribes, the contest is likely to continue whilst the pep squads cheer on their respective teams.

All I can do, speaking only for myself, is continue to point out that as long as Shankers remains unbanned and/or tolerated on Wikipedia, nobody from Wikipedia should be deemed to have any legitimate right to complain about how we operate or what we post here on WR, or even to complain about Encyclopedia Dramatica. To suggest otherwise is utterly laughable. We will always have and maintain the "moral high ground" over Wikipedia, as long as this situation continues.

The problem with moral relativism is that the contestants tend to think they are winning if they doing at least incrementally better than the other guy. What moral relativism overlooks is that the whole arena can be ineluctably sinking into the dark and deplorable depths of damnable depravity.

[Jon Awbrey]

The fact remains that there will always be a handful of Wikipedia Uber Alles types for whom someone like Shankers can do no wrong, simply because they see him as some sort of rottweiler-ish attack dog. And when a person is that far gone, narcissism-wise, that's all it takes — unless he receives (for all practical purposes) unanimous repudiation, he'll always be able to say, "but so-and-so knows me and thinks I'm a great guy, so what's your problem?" … and just keep on doing what he does.

As long as it's seen as a contest between competing tribes, the contest is likely to continue whilst the pep squads cheer on their respective teams.

All I can do, speaking only for myself, is continue to point out that as long as Shankers remains unbanned and/or tolerated on Wikipedia, nobody from Wikipedia should be deemed to have any legitimate right to complain about how we operate or what we post here on WR, or even to complain about Encyclopedia Dramatica. To suggest otherwise is utterly laughable. We will always have and maintain the "moral high ground" over Wikipedia, as long as this situation continues.

The problem with moral relativism is that the contestants tend to think they are winning if they doing at least incrementally better than the other guy. What moral relativism overlooks is that the whole arena can be ineluctably sinking into the dark and deplorable depths of damnable depravity.

Hobgoblind o' th' Duelist Mind, Batman! Why is everyone always so oblivious to the Turdium Quid who always wins, the one who rents out the stadium?

I guess my guess would have to be that Skunkboner gets e-couraged to whatever extent he does because he's a representative sampleton of the target market that Jimbo guesses he'll get the greatest return pandering to. In this case, it's a brand of mutual pandering — Panders Of A Feather Pimp Together.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Somey]

I guess my guess would have to be that Skunkboner gets e-couraged to whatever extent he does because he's a representative sampleton of the target market that Jimbo guesses he'll get the greatest return pandering to. In this case, it's a brand of mutual pandering — Panders Of A Feather Pimp Together.

That's it exactly, isn't it?

In the days before The Social Web Revolution™, there was a reasonably clear distinction between recognition and notoriety. The distinction is still there, but it's obscured by the web's immediacy and cheap accessibility. So, the classic hypernarcissist personality can't see the distinction, or doesn't want to.

And to make matters worse, everything on the "social web" is so hopelessly based on instant gratification that a hypernarcissist who's in his mid-20's - who grew up with this state of affairs and perhaps can't actually remember a time when things were any different - is simply lost in it. It might not even have occurred to him that some people wouldn't respect and admire him merely for his ability to get attention by behaving in ways that demonstrate moral bankruptcy and sociopathic tendencies.

Ultimately, that's the genius of Wikipedia: It panders to precisely that sort of person, and the pandering is built right into the software. It's literally the very core of the system.