I gave him multiple chances. Four on the previous post alone. He demonstrated that he is completely unwilling to abide by the principles of modern discourse as listed in the previous post, but insisted upon ignoring the topics at hand and showed that he was only interested in discussing my motivations, my character, how I might compare to others, (including himself), and so on.
Note the very first point in the modern discourse list: "personal detachment from the issues under discussion". Matt is an observably postmodern rabbit, even though he attempts to appeal to modern values. This, as I will explain in a future post, is quite common among high-functioning rabbits.
In his final comment, Matt brought up what a "Master Rhetorician" would do instead of banning him, thereby indicating that he simply does not understand that the purpose of dialectical discourse is not to demonstrate an ability to engage in superior rhetoric. While I am interested in teaching people how to successfully engage the Rabbit People in a language they can understand, I have zero interest in putting up with someone who simply cannot rise above the rhetorical level whenever he disagrees with me or anyone else. And while I can engage in a rhetorical hopping match with him, I have even less interest in doing that.
This is especially true when I have seen his behavior on Dalrock's Rollo's, and Roissy's blog has been very similar to his behavior here. They can tolerate him if they like, I will no longer do so. Matt wants to be a chief rabbit, his problem is that he doesn't understand that most Game blogs are not run by Rabbit People.
Being limited to the rhetorical level, Matt does not understand that heterotopic and dialectical discourse does not rely upon permitting everyone to say whatever they want to say at all times. Nor does he grasp that refusing to let someone repeatedly attempt to monopolize the comment section does not amount to being sensitivity-driven. He is not being banned for his ideas or his differences of opinion or even for any subjective opinion of his behavior, but for his repeated refusal to participate in modern, heterotopic, and dialectical discourse.
For example, Matt added three more comments after the four for which he was banned. Here is his idea of "heterotopic" discourse:
Who are these stuffed animals with which you word-joust? What kind of ciphers "lower their eyes" when some puffed-up prig makes mention of Mensa? No wonder you are so out of practice. You choose your opponents carefully and pretend the rest of us don't exist.Notice here three of the distinguishing features of a rabbit. He simply can't imagine that everything isn't about him. More importantly he can't imagine someone taking an action that isn't rooted in how it will look to others. And while his words superficially appear to make sense, they are fundamentally nonsensical; how could publicly announcing my actions possibly hide them from everyone knowing what they are? Why would I pretend to "postmodern" self-flattery when it is his postmodern form of discourse that I disdain?
Erase me. Does it give you a little tingle thrill to exert such pretend power?
That's it. Yeahh. Nobody will ever know I can't manage even a mediocre comment section. On to the next "postmodern" self-flattery...