ETA: I'm aware this has been linked on at least one of the digests. Before you jump in with both feet, it might help to know that this is me verbalizing my way through the dynamics. The goal is a reasonable yet flexible understanding. That way in future I'll be better equipped to know when I'm dealing with digression or derailment in myself or others, and how to better express myself to reduce what ambiguity and misunderstanding that I can.
Towards that end, civil, logical, and trend-supported arguments are most persuasive. I say 'trend-supported,' because too-specific instances are too easily dismissed as 'exceptions'; I do use examples but only when I can think of at least four other instances of similar. Otherwise... well, we do all have our bad days, eh.
This post is in itself a digression from what's actually been on my mind, but partially references the discussions in my linkspam reset post and the preliminary pokings I did in re derailment. (Side note to this side note: there's a lack of replies-to-replies on the second linked post, b/c I had notes saved, blue-screened my mac -- because yes, I really can do that -- and lost them and just didn't have the energy to recreate... so, uhm, there it is.)
This may not be as detailed-thought-out as usual, because I'm busy with other stuff and have limited brainpan space right now for heavy editing... but on the plus side, that also means it's a lot shorter than usual. So, yay for that, and please to be excusing any really awkward stuff. Oh, hell, I'll probably be smoothing the worst of any rough spots over the next day or so, or as they're pointed out.
Anyway, the various discussions have had me contemplating how one can identify digression versus derailment, because sometimes it seems as though digressions get labeled as derailment when perhaps they aren't. ( The very charge of 'derailment!' is so loaded that, from what I've seen, it can clear football-field-sized holes in a journal. It simply reduces any potential defense to rubble. It's like how the Reductio ad Hitlerum maneuver used to work, before it got used one too many times and we ended up with Godwin's Law and learned to laugh hysterically whenever Hitler's invoked. )
Towards that end, civil, logical, and trend-supported arguments are most persuasive. I say 'trend-supported,' because too-specific instances are too easily dismissed as 'exceptions'; I do use examples but only when I can think of at least four other instances of similar. Otherwise... well, we do all have our bad days, eh.
This post is in itself a digression from what's actually been on my mind, but partially references the discussions in my linkspam reset post and the preliminary pokings I did in re derailment. (Side note to this side note: there's a lack of replies-to-replies on the second linked post, b/c I had notes saved, blue-screened my mac -- because yes, I really can do that -- and lost them and just didn't have the energy to recreate... so, uhm, there it is.)
This may not be as detailed-thought-out as usual, because I'm busy with other stuff and have limited brainpan space right now for heavy editing... but on the plus side, that also means it's a lot shorter than usual. So, yay for that, and please to be excusing any really awkward stuff. Oh, hell, I'll probably be smoothing the worst of any rough spots over the next day or so, or as they're pointed out.
Anyway, the various discussions have had me contemplating how one can identify digression versus derailment, because sometimes it seems as though digressions get labeled as derailment when perhaps they aren't. ( The very charge of 'derailment!' is so loaded that, from what I've seen, it can clear football-field-sized holes in a journal. It simply reduces any potential defense to rubble. It's like how the Reductio ad Hitlerum maneuver used to work, before it got used one too many times and we ended up with Godwin's Law and learned to laugh hysterically whenever Hitler's invoked. )