Abusive "argumentation"
It is really appropriate to be abusive? Like "You believe what! How could you possibly!", and "fool, idiot, wicked person!", and all things of that nature. Not just a tone, but literal insults, and brow beating...
Comments (193)
Being abusive is hardly a winning strategy. One is rarely one more slur away from convincing them. "Fun" as it may be...
I would say that once a disagreement reaches that level of emotion, each side is no longer absorbing information to analyze, and is instead defending their identity.
It depends on the context. Take an extreme: say you're arguing with one of the Nazis who marched at Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us", it would absolutely not be inappropriate to say to them "How could you possibly say that!" or "That's a wicked viewpoint!". At the other extreme, calling someone an idiot for preferring Coca cola to Pepsi would absolutely be over-the-top (I'm only giving extreme examples to illustrate that there's no foolproof black and white answer to your question btw. I know they're untypical). Then you've got everywhere in between where generally direct name-calling is unhelpful and may be considered abusive, but tones of disbelief are generally acceptable.
In terms of the rules here, you can report anyone who flames you (calls you an idiot, fool etc.) and that post will most likely be deleted unless, possibly, if it's in the Lounge category, which is more casual and where there's more tolerance for that type of the thing.
Short answer: As per the guidelines: Expressing yourself strongly is ok but flaming tips over into abuse. (And context will always be considered.)
If it's just about how best to market your idea to your opponent in order to convince him/her you're right and they're wrong, i.e. to "win", it's more about effectiveness than appropriacy, which is a different issue, I'd say.
Since such argumentation rely on pre-existing groupthink dynamics and humour rather than a logical analysis of the content of the arguments, a site like TPF should (and does :up: ) restrict its use as much as possible, and encourage everyone to adopt the later form.
But as a tool, abusive argumentation remains very effective, if the objective is to score points with an known auditory.
It is inappropriate if you wish to dissuade them. If we couldn't just physically make them stop, what does distancing yourself and disapproving do, other than as Akanthinos suggested, score points with already in agreement listeners, to huddle closer to them, by creating a greater distance from detractors. It furthers conflict, widens disagreement rather than resolves anything. It's using others as a tool to assert one's goodness, affiliations, and allegiances...
Well, the point with people as dangerous as Nazis (to stay with this example) is primarily to stop them doing the damage they do. There are different ways to achieve that including marginalizing them through the use of discourse and avoiding giving them a platform for their views (as we do here where Nazis are insta-banned). So, while I agree with your sentiment in general, the specifics complicate things. For example, to take another extreme, it's arguable that the best response to Hitler and his followers in the early 1930s (supposing you knew what would happen) would have been to shoot them all rather than to try to engage them in reasoned debate. On a utilitarian calculation at least. Now, I'm not in any way suggesting violence be used with the Nazis of today, just pointing out that the appropriate way to deal with those who expose extreme ideologies may sometimes be extreme, or at least more severe than with those in the mainstream. And may certainly extend beyond the bounds of polite debate which in a way legitimizes their positions (and again that's why we don't allow them here).
In any case, out of curiosity, what rational arguments do you think Nazis and their ilk would be responsive too? Because, honestly, I don't think people at that level are open to rational argumentation. If you can manage to believe the holocaust never happened, and Hitler was actually a good guy, you are very likely too far gone to be convinced of anything to the contrary (on an internet forum at least). Having said all that, do whatever works. Anyone who reduces the number of racists, Nazis etc in the world, short of using physical violence to do it, has my unconditional support and appreciation.
Love is the answer. We are far from entirely rational beings, but love breeds love, and hatred, hatred. With policies about killing too extreme of divergents, you'd better hope that you always remain in power. Being hateful and inflammatory, even to the worse of your enemies just shuts people down, makes them stop listening.
Like raising your child, you do need to disapprove of some things that they do, but you have to have such a relationship where they care about your approval in the first place. When faith and love are lost, is when force is required. Hatred is not stopped by hatred.
I sincerely believe that such extreme action makes things worse, creates a bigger problem, widens gulfs. I would rather reduce hatred and violence in the world, not increase it...
So would I, but (sticking with the more extreme examples we spoke of) loving Hitler wouldn't have stopped him in WWII. It took an invasion of Europe. Loving him would likely have resulted in mass enslavement for those loving souls and actually increased hatred and violence against his victims. So, while I wish love was always the answer (and agree that it is the most desirable answer) the fact that it's obviously not, doesn't mean hatred or violence has to be either. Sometimes you just need to act decisively in context on the basis of an ethical decision that may require you to do that which is not immediately emotionally comfortable but leads to a better long-term outcome.
When you have total power over someone, it's much easier to advocate unconditional love. And I would go along with this (unless my child acquired a case of psychopathy and a dangerous weapon, in which case some harsh discipline may be appropriate).
Loving him would not only fail, and get you harmed, but make him even eviler? I don't agree, I think that love is the answer. You can think that abuse and force is, if they deserve it enough... I don't.
You'd kill your child to save your own life? Do you have any children?
If you stood by "loving" Hitler without making any attempt to forcibly stop him while he proceeded to annihilate the Jewish race, you would be the evil one. If you think giving him love while he was doing this would have stopped him then you're also highly delusional. But you don't really think that, do you?
Quoting All sight
Where did I say I'd kill my own child. I said "harsh discipline". Why would you think that meant an execution?
Because we are speaking precisely about the most extremes, as you reiterated multiple times...
Do I think that I'm evil and delusional? No, I don't suppose so. Do you think that stating that I am does anything beneficial? Do you not find that to be the definition of brow-beating?
No, it's not brow-beating.If anyone (including you) advocated standing by and not doing anything except expressing love for Hitler while he proceeded to wipe out the Jewish race then that person would be doing something morally wrong or evil or use whatever term you like (Agree or disagree?). If anyone (including you) thinks that loving Hitler would have stopped him killing the Jews, they are delusional, very mistaken etc. (Agree or disagree?). In order to have a conversation about ethics, we have to make ethical judgments, do we not? Or is there no act you consider evil and no opinion you consider delusional?
Widening disagreement with Nazis is an excellent goal to pursue. It is right, and good, and just, to hate them, and everything they stand for. What did wonders was bombing the third Reich into bloody, firey, submission and making sure that one couldn't put the word 'love' and 'Nazi' in the same sentence without spewing a little. A lesson that we now seem to be forgetting because some people are apparently are so coddled and privileged to think that a bit of discursive decorum is not worth the indignity of telling supporters of literal genocide to fuck off and die.
Abuse has a honourable and well-deserved place at the table of argument, in the right contexts.
We got into a hypothetical which will help me to understand your views. Now, can you answer my questions please? As again it will help me to understand whether you are taking a principled approach or even a coherent one. I'll answer yours...
Quoting All sight
I'm not presently exerting physical force.
Quoting All sight
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Isn't that obvious to you just from your observations of real life?
You are being disrespectful and unkind now. I asked you nicely to answer my questions, then answered yours and did not impugn your character yet you feel the need to attack me. Why are you being abusive? Don't you love me?
From my personal observations it works wonders, that's why I'm saying it. I was certainly a lot more hot blooded, and prone to agitation when I was younger, and life was much much harder.
Which questions?
These ones:
Quoting Baden
You're just not being serious, and attempting to accuse me of hypocrisy.
I answered that question, I said that I never suggested standing by and loving hitler from a distance, but within the context of dissuasion through conversation.
If something like that is the case, then perhaps radically different experiences could shift them away from Nazism. I read recently about a KKK member whose bail was paid by a black man, under the condition that the former would visit a museum dedicated to slavery. That's the type of magnanimous, loving behavior that brings tears to my eyes.
Moreover, as an added bonus I imagine it's much more efficacious than bludgeoning the KKK guy with insults - although I understand that desire, too, along with other less tolerant strategies.
Again, you are being disrespectful and unkind. I am not attacking your character and am trying to show love as you suggested.
They are yes/no questions. Please do me the courtesy of responding with a yes/no answer to each. Thank you in advance.
That's the way it can work. Not on the internet though. It's too impersonal.
It isn't obvious that we are morally obliged to stop evil, else we're all pretty damn evil for not being vigilantes. No. I think that love is the cure, so no, I don't find that delusional.
It's not always delusional to think that. But in the specific case of Hitler (and those like him) it seems to be, doesn't it? At least I don't know what you mean by suggesting that could have worked. Maybe you can spell it out in more detail so I can understand. What would have been your strategy of love towards the Nazis that would have stopped their genocide of the Jews in WWII? If you could make it clear, perhaps I may understand.
Keeping in mind that I'm addressing like the worst possible scenario, and none in which we face, or I would certainly hope that everyone would indeed walk their talk.
Loving people from a distance doesn't do much. But being a loving respectful person that people care about the disapproval of, and approval of in their lives makes a big difference. I could not save everyone, but I would hope to introduce and proponent a climate and environment of love and understanding, and disapproval of abuse and violence which would spread. Just like you couldn't personally kill all the nazis, and would require a concerted team effort, I would as well.
Yeah that's a good point, although I think I've had limited success dealing with angry people on social media sites not known for charitable engagement. You're not going to win them all, of course, but I do think the effort is important. Nietzsche's warning to those who battle monsters is something I try to keep in mind.
If everyone thought like that the world would be a much finer place. But when some don't, it becomes inappropriate to make it a hard and fast principle and can result in greater misery--as not using violent means to stop Hitler most certainly would have. But to give another example, suppose you have a young child who is attacked by someone wielding a knife and you also happen to have a knife, do you use it on the attacker to defend your child? I'm trying to understand how far you would take this.
True. I've had as much success with harsh words as with reasoned argument though I think. That being very little in both cases. :)
Sorry, do you mean here you actually would help to kill the Nazis?
I don't have to hate someone to defend someone from them. I can still think that love could have cured them, even if it as a matter of fact did not, and act with a heavy heart. If your wife, mother, or someone else you loved dearly were about to kill your child with the knife, you'd be obliged to prevent this, but this says nothing about having to hate or abuse them in conversation.
Ok, I'm getting a clearer view of your position now. Thanks.
I'm saying that I would be more loving to those around me, and they would be more loving to everyone around them, and it would require a collective effort, just like stopping them with force does. Couldn't do it all by myself.
I mentioned this previously, but my own political views shifted radically about 15 years ago (if not longer) in large part through the kindness of some radical Leftists on a RATM message board. Their patient and charitable treatment of me as a (they would say misguided) human being were just as important as the actual arguments they put forth against free markets, limited govt., etc. Both aspects were essential to the slow, cumulative change in my overall outlook.
But perhaps I'm an exception to the general rule that people don't change their minds through online debates.
Hope springs eternal. :halo:
Again, I agree with the sentiment and we have also agreed that extreme measures may be necessary to combat evil even if done with a "heavy heart" as you put it. We would probably just disagree on what measures were appropriate for what situation. And your call for greater love and respect in conversation in general is laudable.
Really? That's your example of being abusive? So, even this very reply in which I am being expressive with my disbelief at your comment constitutes abuse? :brow:
Lock me up and throw away the key!
OK, some rhetorics 101 here. It's not about being abusive. It's about projecting an arrogant posture, that infuriates the opposition so you get to argue on a non level playing field. Is that a dirty trick? Sure. Does it work? Sometimes. Depends on the temperament of the interlocutor. I tend to not do that here, since most of the folks on here know me from way back. It's not particularly conducive to cultivating social ties. :)
This to me feels a lot like what happens.
There is an actual University Course offered Rhetoric 101 but alas not at my son's campus. I was really intrigued to hear what the outline and substance was to this class. It fell under "Humanities" as the courses satisfaction.
So, how far should one go with Jesus' instruction in Matthew?
Is it a "stumbling block" or sound and moral advice?
Some countries which have good reputations (Ireland and Sweden, for example) and some which didn't at the time (fascist Spain, for instance) were "neutral" during WWII. They either helped Germany (Sweden traded high grade ore and steel products with Germany) or they did nothing.
A world war might have been avoidable and Hitler might have been throttled had we (the future allied states) declared war on Germany in 1938 at the time of Hitler's annexations of the Sudetenland and Austria, and at the very latest, the invasion of Poland in September of 1939. Of course, that didn't happen and one can list compelling reasons why it didn't. The US didn't declare war until December of 41, by which time Europe was pretty much in Hitler's hands, and more besides.
Similarly, Japan should have been resisted earlier. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. How much resistance did Japan meet then?
I am not sure that Jesus' admonition is workable for individuals, outside of an impending Kingdom of God. It isn't workable for nations. When it comes to foreign relations, nations don't have morals, and they don't have friends or enemies. They have "interests". Recognizing the nation's interests early enough is a large part of success. What, exactly, a nation's interests really are at any given moment isn't always obvious.
A nation's domestic interests are not always obvious either. There is so much churn, so much sturm and drang sometimes that it is difficult to separate out groups, mobs, and crowds, never mind deciding about individuals.
What does it mean to be moral? To fight and destroy all of the evil, or to be the change you want to see in the world? To demonstrate what you would wish others would be like? What kind of hypocrisy was Jesus talking about?
More than that, I do believe in a real connection to the divine, that is severed through sin, and can be regained through confession, and change. To me, this is by far the highest good, and in itself sustaining of a person through all measure of trials. Nothing is comparable to the goodness of it, and nothing is comparable to the pain of its absence.
Let's flip the question around.
Is it appropriate to be a fantasy victim?
Is it appropriate to not take responsibility for one's own emotional experience of the Internet?
Is it appropriate for me to expect you, a total stranger somewhere in the world, to worry yourself about the management of my brain?
Is is appropriate for me to try to protect my ego by attempting to manage the words of everyone on the Internuts via a blame and shame manipulation by guilt campaign, instead of focusing my efforts on managing the one brain I have the most access to, my own?
So it is appropriate? I am at fault for caring, or being concerned with it?
I'm not blaming you for anything, and your question is surely a very normal one. I'm attempting to reply with what I hope is a "unnormal" challenge, for that is how I see the purpose of philosophy.
I'm attempting to be rational and helpful. None of us wish to experience emotional distress. So what is the most effective way to approach that goal?
1) I could attempt to manage everyone on the Internet by threatening them with blame and shame if they say things that upset me. That's a couple of billion people I now have to manage.
OR:
2) I could instead attempt to manage the brain that is hearing what's been written or said, my brain. That's one person I have to manage, the one person I have the most control over.
Should I succeed in managing my brain, the mind that is hearing what everyone is saying, then I need not worry about what the billion people might say to me. They might love me, they might hate me, and whatever the case, that is their situation to deal with.
Most people seem to approach this issue through the lens of morality, with a focus on the writer. I'm attempting to approach the issue through the lens of reason, with the focus on the reader.
Doesn't this than apply to you as well? Why aren't you just managing your brain? Why aren't you following this advice?
But of course there's a question of degree and threshold there (how much an abstract criticism "hits home"), so there's room for disagreement on where the line is.
But discussions would be a bit dull without a few insults thrown around here and there. As with most things human, discussion is a bit of an art.
I think that it is indicative of an adversarial approach (I refrain from cursing in the abstract as well. It's unpleasant there as well.), where one is battling, and there are winners and losers. I don't think it has to be that way, we can both win!
I think that tone counts for a lot. Disagreements don't have to feel awful, it's a pleasure to disagree with a kind considerate person, as it is a pleasure to be in their presence in all situations. It is unpleasant to be around an abusive person, regardless of how much you agree with them in the abstract.
It is well known to all that following Jesus gets you crucified. It is a recipe for virtue, not for success. That's why we tend to vote for arseholes, in the hope that in covering their own arses they will accidentally cover ours.
From the POV of the believer, this is entirely consistent and valid. When one falls away from belief, there is nothing quite like faith to take its place.
But what we can do individually has no counterpart for collective action, unless the individuals in the collectivity are extremely well aligned. In most cases (real life) people belong to collectivities provisionally and without strict alignment.
I would say that this depends on the individual's intentions, and on their definition of success.
Could we not say that virtue is successful?
You can say it if you like, the question is whether you believe it yourself or just hope that others will. Personally, I find it difficult to call crucifixion success, but then I am weak-willed and self-centered.
It certainly wouldn't be my cup of blood either. I like my flagellations short and sweet.
This is under the assumption that everyone who is virtuous will be crucified. I disagree that this is the case. Many virtuous people are praised as positive examples of morality as opposed to being crucified for doing so. Have you not commited murder? Good job. You receive the right to remain a part of society. Etc.
Yes, it is an unpleasant religion, isn't it?
[quote=Luke 9:23 King James Version (KJV)]
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.[/quote]
I am concerned with unity, and humanities assertions of righteousness.
Not what separates us that we can't agree on, but what we can agree on that will guide us to our next stage of evolution, and what can further our ability to coexist without destroying one another and planet Earth.
Essentially the trick is to keep competitive discourse a game (in the course of which new things and truths can be discovered) and not let it get personal.
A: All of it's concepts of virtue are not beneficial for society.
Or that
B: Virtue is not successful.
Or that
C: Utilizing it's concepts of virtue will leave you crucified.
It is up to the individual to deduce the concepts of any theory, concept, or religion that are beneficial for our (humanity, and the self's) current state of existence, and for our future state of existence.
For example: Thou shall not kill.
It's obvious how this concept can lend insight into coexistence and the longevity of the species.
Forgive me for referencing murder twice, as I am simultaneously in a discussion with a psychopath about the consequences of it for himself and humanity. Touchy place to be.
I actually think this subject is much deeper than people seems to realize. I've been involved with a lot of discussions with populists and in lack of better terms, low educated or stupid people who doesn't seem to see logic or rationality even if you pushed it into their faces. My lack of direction within this is about how to tackle that kind of dialogue?
How do we talk to people who lack the ability to reason and think logically? Who act out stupidity on such a level that we actually only have the option to call them stupid, since all else challenge a sense of logic that they seem not capable of understanding?
It's frustrating to talk to people that doesn't seem to have the ability to understand their own level of understanding, their own level of intellect.
I understand that it seems that I'm putting myself higher intellectually than other people, but there's no question that there are people with higher intellect than others, so how do they communicate with those with lower intellect, without them feeling like they have lesser status?
The essential question is... how do we communicate across different levels of intellect without it becoming a question of status based on intellect or knowledge?
I think this question is at the basis for why we see a rise in anti-intellectualism and in lack of better terms, a new kind of stupidity.
By replying with objective and unemotional perspective that the other person can understand.
In theory I'm in totally agreement with you, however, after many discussions I know that objective, unemotional, fact-based and logical arguments does not matter to the ones who do not have the cognitive mind or intellectual knowledge to process that argument. I've been involved with too many discussions in which I've presented perfectly logical and pretty much fool proof deductive reasoning and the person I discussed with didn't care a bit. So what to do in that situation?
If someone isn't even able to take in an argument before presenting their opinion, then it doesn't even matter if you have a perfect argument anymore.
In that situations, what do you do? Imagine that you really need to convince the other, not just turn your back on them.
If it isn't important to you, you will move on.
But what is important? I can discuss something in order to feel intellectually overpowered and try to win the argument for my own pleasure, but what is actually important?
I think it's important to oppose illogical arguments, especially the ones destructive for people and within that, when you see that a win in an argument is more than just personal gain and instead is a statement of importance beyond yourself, that's not something you can or should move on from. That's my personal ideal, since everything else is letting stupidity grow freely.
I whole heartedly agree. We do not have the power to control society, but we do have the powers of influence and inspiration, and it is our duty as human beings to work towards correcting what we feel is an imbalance in the equation of humanity. One of humanities best attributes is our ability to learn, and so we must.
Um, how do you know I'm not?? Upon what basis are you asking this question?
I'm not sure you understand my post, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
There are two parties to the transaction, the person offering offense and the person taking offense. There is no obligation to take offense. There is no law of physics which requires it. It's a voluntary choice. So we don't have to be victims of what someone says in our direction, right? Please note that choosing not to be a victim really has nothing to do with the person offering offense.
It seems your opening post is an attempt to manage what rude people say in public. Are you aware that there is a near infinite number of rude people in the world and that you have exactly no chance of ever managing them all? Assuming you are so aware, then I'm suggesting such an operation is not really too logical. Understandable, normal, well-intentioned, but not full logical.
What I'm suggesting is that we spend less time worrying about what someone else is saying, and more time focused on how we are experiencing what they are saying.
We agree on the goal of reducing emotional disturbance. I'm just saying that moralism is not the most rational and effective way to do that.
Is this any clearer?
It could be a winning strategy IF we use the occasion to examine why we are experiencing words typed by strangers on the Internuts as abuse.
Ok, fair enough. But love does not necessarily involve an attempt to manage what other people are doing or saying. So for example, if I deliberately insult you you have the option of having compassion for my sad situation, and privately hoping that I feel better soon. You have the option of seeing that my insult is my problem, and there is no need to make it your problem.
It doesn't do much for the people at a distance, but it does a lot for the person loving. It helps that person find peace within their own mind, making it less likely they will be contributing to conflict. Physician, heal thyself.
Jake, I am cut from the same cloth in the sense that as long as I like who I am and I am acting honestly with myself then if I have a problem with someone else, that is MY problem not theirs. Conversely, if someone has a problem with me, that is THEIR problem, not mine.
I remember in the old PF how quick and effective the administrators were to spot the occasional crank or the person who would start to make ad hominem attacks and be too abusive. Poof! And they were gone instantly. The NKVD worked so well. That instilled a little bit of fear into us and kept the discussion rather polite. Yet when the old forum crashed the first time, the first thing on my mind was had I written something bad and gotten evicted for some reason.
It's not nice to be abused or misused or used.
How is engaging in abusive behavior indicative of being able to "school", rather than be "schooled"? If you are combating abusive behavior with abusive behavior, aren't you really no better than who it is you are attempting to "school"?
It isn't a "win", nor did you score any "points" if all you did was reinforce what you and your group already believe. Scoring points entails persuading people who don't already necessarily agree with you.
Quoting Baden
Combat extremism with extremism? Hypocrisy. What makes your extremism any better than another?
Logic and reason are the only effective means of combating unreasonable beliefs. When the argument becomes political and/or ethical, then it simply comes down to what individual or group has more rights to see things their way than some other individual or group - which is why I rarely get involved in political or ethical debates. Shutting people up and banning their right to free speech is no different from what a Nazi would do, making you no different than Nazis.
Fight ignorance with reason and logic. WHY are Nazis wrong? WHY are you right? Answering those questions gets at the truth without having to resort to the same tactics you say that are wrong in the first place.
If you can't figure that one out, you're really in trouble, as you are if you can't figure out why the mod team on this site are not the same as Nazis simply because we enforce certain standards, or why in general certain things like Nazism, pedophilia, rape etc. are wrong for obvious reasons that we don't need to go into here because we'd rather spend time on stuff that is actually worth debating. But, yes, feel free to go to other sites to try to figure out why Nazism is wrong. I hope you manage it some day.
Sometimes when people get under our skin it is a reflection of our own insecurities.
Particularly we see this pattern in the relationships that are closest to us where we attempt to make predictions of the other person's intent, even though we may not have the facts, but have merely projected our understandings of their intentions based on our history with them and our understandings of ourselves...
But... There are times when people do outlandish and destructive things of their own warrant, and not as a projection of anyone else's insecurities but their own.
I experienced the latter first hand a while ago.
We were at the bar waiting for the fight to start and I struck up conversation with a hoodrat. (he called himself that) At first he seemed civilized and intelligent, and I was fond of him and his wife's company, but somewhere during his third jack and coke he changed. It was clear in his mind that he was still incarcerated, and still in the slums of Houston.
He started to do things with the obvious intentions of instigation. He stole people's chairs as they got up to use the restroom (even though the people were still clearly intending on coming back to them) and gave them to his wife and my mother as if to say "It doesn't matter how these people feel, your family should be comfortable, and you should be willing to fight people in exchange for that at any cost and at any time." He also left his hat on the table in front of me and clearly gave me the responsibility of making sure it didn't fall, he moved people out of his line of sight from the television by intimidation (when he easily could have just shifted his body to account for his line of sight) and he became violent and aggressive towards people for no reason - even yelling in their faces intensely. He backed into me (obviously intentionally) and stepped on my foot, and then turned and said "Sorry bro I didn't mean to back into you" as if to say "I totally meant to do that, but you won't do anything about it because you don't want to fight me."
This man did everything he could to let everyone around him know that he would fight any of them if they disrespected him, and he did so by being disrespectful. I tried to reason with him, and I feel like I got through to him a little by explaining to him that he is a free man and no longer in prison, and that these types of actions will ultimately make his life more difficult.
I cannot relate to a person like this, and I cannot blame myself for being upset that he exists, because this was not a reflection of me. This was all him.
This is a small scale replica of our destructive nature that tells humanity that peace comes from intimidation, and I just do not agree.
"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."
The fact that we're a moderated forum with standards that are enforced, and that you don't have an absolute right to free speech is not going to change.
I think that there has always been a problem with humans and arrogance, greed, pride, ego, and simply not being able to appreciate that things that are above them will not be immediately apprehended by them.
Wisdom is foolishness to the uninitiated. And having no legitimate stick to measure their relative competence, they overwhelmingly overestimate their own.
There's no real difference between insults and compliments, it's actually just all in my head?
More than it being unpleasant, it is also counter productive.
I'm not a fan of the formalization of morality, in the form of developmental pyschology, and Piaget. I agree that that is how competition, and games work, but I don't agree that morality is identical to that.
Nothing you're saying addresses what I have.
You know, there is a thing it is like to not be haunted by demons. To not be constantly going over what he said, and she said, and the possible satisfactory responses to it, and the returning of those bruised and bruising ideas or words from a different mouth. There's something it's like to be fresh, and hear things with new ears.
When people respond to you as if you are someone else, or some group they've categorized in their hearts and minds, and it appears to the non-mind reader as completely off base, or responding to more than what is available, it is because they've not healed from their previous battles. I can just imagine the expressions on their face as they type from the levels they emit.
There is a thing it is like to not be haunted like that...
So, abusive argumentation is out, but passive aggressive posturing is fine... Ok then...
I'm not going to give you an English lesson. Demonstrate you can do at least some cognitive work yourself and if you really can't figure out why that could be applied to your post then get back to me.
The former is worse though, because overt aggression is difficult to gas light from. Hard to deny, whereas one can deny the intentions of causing harm in the case of its passivity, plausibly. Meaning that it is both more difficult to prove, as well as more difficult to disprove, just based in its nature.
I would just highlight that nearly all examples of it are unavailable to me in this context, and so at best, I could be hurling back-handed compliments, or subtle insults, and by nature of the accusation, they would be hidden, and difficult to detect, and thus also difficult to deny, as things that are not obviously insults, could be said to be so...
All I can say, is that passive aggression is difficult in this context, and that I've said absolutely nothing based in aggressive or resentful feelings.
Your post was assuming those participating in aggression were doing so out of their own paranoia and without cause.
Without saying so, you are trying to suggest they are aggressive without reason and so you are better/have a better position them. You are indirectly asserting your contributions must be more valuable than their aggressive rantings.
Someone who strongly virtue signals about being kind and loving, but when others don't respond the way they wish, engages in subtle insult and other strategies to control the narrative and undermine their interlocutors while still attempting to maintain an appearance of being the most reasonable and considerate person in the exchange is engaging in typical passive aggressive behaviour. And it's going to be given short shrift here.
No, I in fact was not. My point has always been that the abuse does the opposite of what one would wish. It is an attempt to force them to comply, and is all but impotent when restricted entirely to conversation.
Some of the strategies you specifically have used have been to falsely imply that others are ignorant of the topic at hand, and to impugn and mock the characters of those who don't agree with your discoursal strategy, suggesting they may have some personal psychological deficit that you are above.
I don't know how to respond to you. You're just making a string of accusations, none of which are obviously disprovable, based on the claimed covertness of them. All I can do is deny it.
Really?
Quoting All sight
"They" are the people who disagree with you, right? You are not "haunted like that", right?
"Some of the strategies you specifically have used have been to falsely imply that others are ignorant of the topic at hand, and to impugn and mock the characters of those who don't agree with your discoursal strategy suggesting they may have some personal psychological deficit you are above."
Half of this is true, I do believe, as I have explicitly mentioned a number of times, and never denied, is that there is a real connection to the divine, that brings new outlooks, understanding, new life. It is the most important thing as far as I'm concerned, but I have not been cruel or disrespectful to anyone. That is baseless.
That's right, I confess and repent, and it is a real thing, and it is an important thing. Never denied that.
Where did I use those words? I said you were engaging in passive aggressive posturing. Which you were.
I asked you in what sense I was passive aggressive, and you wouldn't tell me, so I had to guess.
You were, the passive aggressivenes of the post is made on your reaction and treatment of others, not on whether your point was abuse doing the opposite of an intention.
Go back and look at you post. You basically said nothing about abuse having the opposite of an intended effect. It was a about how aggressive people couldn't be thinking correctly or reasonably.
After all that, we know the argument you are giving is false too. Properly placed agression is critical to understand what is right or wrong. There are countless examples of telling someone how they are utterly wrong is how they learn.
I did tell you. Here:
Quoting Baden
Lol, but none of that is remotely true. It's character assassination... of course I can't assent to that...
You've just admitted to trying to assassinate the character of your interlocutors by making claims of their inferior personal psychologies. But anyway, I'm not going to go around in circles with a passive aggressive. Most posters here have seen this type of thing dozens of times.
I am sincerely not worried about this exchange making me look bad.
And I sincerely don't care because the jig is up. Your insincere exhortations towards being kind and loving have been revealed as empty posturing and an attempt at propping up your ego.
And clearly you're not. But it's probably because you've
Quoting All sight
I can
Quoting All sight
So, it's not really your fault and we still love you. Despite it all.
You can drop the "poor me" act. They're your words. And none of this has anything to do with whether you stay here or not because no-one has said you've broken any rules.
OK. I think we've both made our points anyway.
Yes, it's all in our head. We CHOOSE how to experience anything anybody says in our direction. That's good news, because it means we need not be victims, unless we CHOOSE to be.
It appears you want to conduct a moral crusade. If true, ok, go for it, I don't object. But that's not going to solve the problem of emotional distress in social interactions. 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian moralizing has clearly failed to stop people from saying ugly things to each other.
This is a philosophy forum, so please examine the evidence. There's no evidence that you or anybody else is going to be able to manage what human beings say to each other.
If your goal is to judge people and tell them how they ought to live, ok, a moral crusade seems a good mechanism for that.
If your goal is to relieve the emotional distress that we sometimes feel when people say unpleasant things in our direction, you are on the wrong course. The solution lies not in the speaker's words, but in the mind of those who hear them.
Imagine we have two families, two sets of parents. One of them is supporting and encouraging. The other disparaging, insulting. Do you think that the results on the child would be random, all else being equal? Or if the child is damaged, this is because they allowed themselves to be, and is their own fault?
I know that it is often said that you shouldn't care what people think, but sometimes they're right. The disdain, disgust, and disapproval is fully justified, and accurate, and you should care about it. It is meant to give you pause, and check your behavior, beliefs, or some other aspect of it, and needs to be taken seriously. This is why I both spoke of restraint (even in one's own heart and mind), and better strategies to dissuade one from such things.
I wouldn't endorse just not caring, or worrying that others see you in such lights (I think that it is worrying, and ought to be deeply and seriously considered), but before that generally can happen, one first needs precisely to care about what you think and feel about them, and there are more and less conducive kinds of relationships with respect to this.
I'm attempting to continue in this vein within which I think that people fully assent already to the idea, and extend it further.
I'm referring to adults, people who have taken responsibility for the emotional state of their own minds. I agree this should not be expected of children. And adults will rarely achieve perfection in this way either. But we can achieve far more control than we typically do. If we CHOOSE to. The problem is that we often CHOOSE not to, because the fantasy victim pose is quite popular.
Quoting All sight
Ok, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't pay any attention to criticism, I agree some of it will be useful. I'm arguing that if we experience criticism in an negative emotional manner, we have CHOSEN to do so.
Again, please note that I'm not making a moral statement here. I'm not interested in blaming the person hearing the ugly words. I'm not interested in blaming anybody. I'm interested in solving the problem of emotional distress, to the degree that is possible. I'm making a practical proposal, not a moral claim.
Quoting All sight
I have no argument with a speaker choosing to restrain the range of language they will use. My argument is with third parties who think they will solve the problem of emotional distress via a blame and shame moral crusade. Again, please observe the evidence, 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian moralizing has not ended ugly speech. I'd be for it if it worked. It doesn't work, at least not in very many cases.
And so we live in a world, especially on the Internuts, where some people are going to say ugly things some of the time. Given that there is no known mechanism for preventing this behavior, if there is to be a solution it necessarily resides in the mind of those receiving the speech.
This theory will not be welcomed by those whose primary focus is trying to manage other people's behavior.
This theory will be welcomed by anyone who is serious about relieving the emotional stress that ugly speech can generate, because this theory puts the listener in charge of their own destiny.
As example, do you want your emotional experience to be dictated by what I do or don't say? Or would you prefer that you be in charge of determining your emotional experience. Whose going to be in control of your experience, me and a million other Internet strangers, or you?
I haven't addressed the possible emotional distress except in that example with children. Christianity is perhaps the most successful institution to grace the earth, that it hasn't fully succeeded doesn't mean that it hasn't succeeded better than anything else ever has.
The important point though, is that you're talking past me, imagining that I'm personally hurt by verbal abuse and complaining, when that never occurred, it was in perusing the site that I noticed the prevalence of it, and suggested that it was, indeed, unpleasant (as if it were not intended to be), but the subject was that it is counter productive, and poor strategy.
As opposed to the productive and successful strategy that you've employed in this discussion? From where I'm standing, it looks like you've made a mockery of whatever serious point you may have had. You implore love and restraint, yet it didn't take long before the outward image you wish to project unravelled. It has been quite entertaining to watch. Hats off to @Baden.
I have also found it amusing when being rude, blunt, arrogant or aggressive has been contrasted with being analytical and logical, as if the one and the other are mutually exclusive.
Ok then, let's talk Christianity. Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself", right? This is commonly thought of as a favor one is doing one's neighbor. But let's look closer. Where is that experience of love actually happening? In the lover's mind, right?
So, to translate this out of Jesus lingo in to my lingo....
"If your neighbor says ugly stuff to you, love your neighbor, and you'll feel better. CHOOSE to experience the ugly stuff in a manner that will be a positive experience for you."
Quoting All sight
My comments have nothing whatsoever to do with you personally. I've been making these same points for years all over the net, long before I met you. They tend to be unpopular points, because humans often prefer to do the judgment dance, a focus on who is to blame etc.
Quoting All sight
The ugly talk on this site is very very modest compared to most sites, and most other philosophy forums, just so you know, something to be thankful for, to the mods mostly.
The ugly talk is unpleasant if we choose to experience it as being unpleasant. Let's do an experiment....
ALL SIGHT - YOU ARE AN ORANGE POTATO!!!
Did you experience that insult as unpleasant? No, you chose not to. You CHOSE.
Quoting All sight
Ok, I agree that if we are trying to persuade readers to our position, calling them names is not likely to be productive. The people saying the ugly stuff typically aren't even interested in the subject being discussed, but rather in using the conversation as a vehicle for inflating their ego, making themselves feel bigger, because they actually feel small, etc etc.
Emotional agenda.
Quoting Sapientia
Intellectual agenda.
Quoting Sapientia
They are mutually exclusive. Being rude, blunt, arrogant, aggressive (been there, done that, many times) typically has nothing at all to do with the topic being discussed in a thread, unless perhaps the topic is the nature of the human ego.
Being rude, blunt, arrogant, aggressive (been there, done that, many times) is basically jerking off in public, and labeling it as some great intellectual achievement.
Emotions are felt in the heart, right? Or at least in the body, one makes different facial expressions, takes different postures and positions, and is otherwise animated by the things they feel. I think that the personal benefit to health, well being, and all forms of human interaction from a basis of love are positive, and good. They are not just things we feel, but things that effect every facet of our lives, and interject into all levels of human life.
I really don't understand your point on self control. Is all forms of derogatory and hateful speech always okay, and it is incumbent on the listener in every case, and their own personal flaw, because they chose to take offence? That there is no factual difference between flattery, insult, and neutral and moderate ways of speaking? That this is all in one's head?
As I said in other topics, I do think that when someone's tone changes to mockery, or non-serious, where they've begun to make a joke of the things you've said or you, is indeed ego inflation, and how one acts to inferiors that just don't seem to understand what fools they are -- but getting upset suggests affronting something deeply held or cared about, it is more defensive, and protective. That is why the former makes you out to be a fool, but the latter a monster.
We all experience this to some degree or another, even Baba Jake. :smile: If we don't wish to be emotionally swayed (sometimes we do) then what is to be done? Here are some options:
1) We can try to control what everybody on the Internuts says.
2) We can try to control how we experience what people on the Internuts say.
This is a philosophy forum. We're supposed to be reasoning. And so I ask you, which of the options above is the most rational? Which is most likely to deliver the results we seek?
Again, please note, none of the above has anything at all to do with morality.
You're looking at this through a moral lens. And thus you ask, "what is ok?" Like I keep saying, I'm not looking at this through a moral lens. I'm looking at it through a rational practical problem solving lens. I'm concerning myself with finding the most effective means of relieving the suffering being experienced by the listener.
If that way of looking at it doesn't interest you, ok, no problem. I'm just trying to add something to the thread that isn't already here, which I see as being the job of posters.
What are the results we seek? To not care that someone is drowning next to us, or for someone not to be drowning next to us. Unless our feelings towards things are arbitrary, and it's perfectly valid and reasonable to feel any which way about anything, then I don't think that it is appropriate, or rational to just change the way we feel. Unless we feel the ways we do for mistaken reasons in the first place.
No, that is not my concern, but you can of course hold and proponent any position that you like.
I do agree, that in order for cooperation to get off the ground, it must begin in morality, and one can reasonably extract a common set of moral precepts from the pool of all games. Or to put it another way, cooperation is the foundation of competition in the context of repeatable competitive activities like games.
There was a lot more to my post, that you cherry-picked, that establishes a different theme than what you seem to have gathered from it.
Nazis limited free speech. That is the similarity that your forum has, yes, but I was also referring to your "extremist" statements. Did you not argue that you should engage in extreme behavior to combat extreme behavior? That is what I was referring to in establishing a similarity between you and Nazis.
Sure, you have the right as a private owner of a website to establish certain rules and you don't throw people that break the rules into a concentration camp. That is obvious. It makes me think that you cherry-picked on purpose and misrepresented my post and me, to avoid having to address the meat of my post, or at least trying to insult my intelligence by thinking that I wouldn't know that difference.
You see, in a free society, where free ideas are allowed to compete and the winners are those that are coherent, reasonable and consistent, Nazism would never be able to gain a foothold. It is only when you allow a certain group or individual to gain a lot of power, that you run that risk. As long as true free speech and ideas are allowed to exist AND compete in the arena of reason (there must be a competition of ideas for progress to happen and to root out emotional ideologies like Nazism), then we don't really need rules for controlling it, do we?
Extreme reactions to extreme actions are not the answer. Reasonable reactions to extreme actions are the answer. You fight racism (hate) with reason, not reciprocal racism (hate). The emotions are not bearers of truth (other than the fact that you have them in certain situations). Reason is - and it is why reason always wins out when determining the truth.
What I hear you saying is, "I don't wish to control myself, I wish to control everybody else." Ok, go for it, good luck with that, please post again once you've finished changing all the people who say ugly things.
Quoting All sight
It appears to me that you don't care about those drowning in emotional pain because you're clinging tightly to a methodology which can't help them.
Quoting All sight
Unnecessary suffering is rational??
I'm with you on all but the last bit. Are you suggesting that the last part is a mistaken move? Or that it is descriptive, and it is a mistake to move to the prescriptive? If one is not following the rules to play sports that are taken from the description of successful ways to play sports, and as a result, play inferior spots, or fail to play sports at all, it is then not a description but a prescription in their case?
More than that, what if one could come upon a personal relationship with what appear to be totally rule based, that are not descriptive, as one continues to fail to follow them, but prescriptive in that one is fully aware in pursuing something of ultimate good in its attempt?
The latter part of course is not third person describable, so can be reasonably ignored if you like, but it is the religious claim.
There are things worse than Nazis. How do I know that you aren't a pedophile?
You're not trying to change me? What are you doing then? Having a laugh? Wasting time? Personally I would much prefer it if you were actually trying to change me... but what are you doing?
As I've already clearly stated, I'm discussing the topic of ugly speech, and NOT you personally. I'm discussing this topic for the reasons already stated numerous times.
Quoting All sight
@All sight
Take a deep breath...exhale...and another deep breath...exhale.....lather, rinse and repeat as necessary. :flower:
Quoting All sight
I personally have been dealing with some of the same labels that are being applied to you and I am still trying to cope with it. I say this because you are new to The Philosophy Forum and might be under a different idea of "courtesy" as I was. I am not sure where it derailed, for labeling hasn't always been so prevalent, in fact I was under the impression that "labels" were something to avoid. So, I am trying in my own contributions, to lead by example in what I wish to see the level of courtesy restored to.
Time will tell you if it is a hill you are willing to climb and all I can tell you is that the pursuit of wisdom is worth the hike.
Just be sure to put on your combat boots because if you wear moccasins, you are going to feel every pebble you step on.
@Jake offers a good deal of advice in that it is only we that can interpret what another person has said and while that is true, it does not excuse an argumentative approach that is abusive.
One thought before I go:
As Aristotle has taught us "It is a mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain the ideas of others, without taking them as our own."
I don't know if "abusive argumentation" is the mark of being able to entertain the ideas of others or if it is a display of the exact opposite.
If I could get my change, I'll be on my way.
Tiff :flower:
The only thing in this world YOU have control over is YOU. Period. Full stop.
They are YOUR emotions to control.
YOU are not entitled to your wish of controlling the world.
YOU are entitled to accept the things you cannot change and the power to change the things you can AND the WISDOM to know the difference. Which is what Philosophy is in search of: wisdom.
Delusion and addiction are far more complex and this thread is complicated enough that if you wish to start a thread on delusion or addiction, you might be able to explore them more thoroughly on their own.
You know, I believe this to be not only good, but the best advice that can be given in just such a heated moment. There's a kind of elegance in those that know it that still brings me awe. Hearing it repeated, something so simple, and so many times in my life and yet it fell to deaf ears. It's those little, yet so significant things that in my fervor just pasted me right by for so long. What else so important do I not hear people telling me on such a frequent basis?
Maybe I should be able to handle it better as well. I think that both can be true, for sure. Thank you for your comment.
How do you stop feelings ways? There is definitely breathing, and calming techniques, but there is also the numbing of sensation through addiction, and the influence of beliefs over our emotions. To believe something that is terrible, if true, is to feel terrible. To alter this in any massive way, or to change what one feels, requires chemical alterations, physical damage, or believing things.
It's not so much labels are the problem, but labels used deliberately and unfairly as a rhetorical strategy, which we can all be guilty of sometimes. And even then the best way to react is simply to push back. For example, @Harry Hindu has every right to label the mod team Nazis (in whatever sense) if he wants (here in feedback anyway). It's up to us then to argue back if we want. It wouldn't be sensible for either of us to take any of that personally, and I wouldn't even bother calling it "abusive" as that in itself could be deemed just another label. Come to think of it, aren't we in danger of labelling the labelers, "labelers"! But, yes, @Jake gave some good advice which is worth heeding on these internets.
You are most welcome and I myself am working on finding ways to handle it better and still remain the soft loving person that I am.
Throughout my life people have told me that I am too nice for people to take me seriously.
My response? Never mistake my courtesy as weakness, nor my silence as a sign of compliance.
Hang in there, you are paying your dues but your doing well.
Absolutely. We, myself included, are all guilty of it at times but it seems to me that it is becoming more of the norm. Maybe I am wrong, I might be.
Quoting Baden
A known danger, yes.
One that should be expected to avoid on a Philosophy forum?
I think so.
Ok, but this is a philosophy forum, not a Catholic forum. And so when somebody types ugly words we might be focused on better understanding our own experience.
Somebody calls me a dirty dog. I get upset. Why did I get upset? What is actually happening inside my mind? Typically it goes something like this...
A poster claims that I'm just some stupid old half senile geezer wasting time on the Internuts because I have no life. This story conflicts with the more flattering story I have about myself, which is that I am a seasoned sage passing the wisdom of the ages on to a new generation. :smile:
To the degree I am attached to the "seasoned sage" story I'm likely to resent the "stupid old geezer" story, because that old geezer story diminishes my importance.
Why do I need to feel important, large, significant, useful? Why am I attached to the sage story?? Probably because somewhere inside I feel small and so I'm using the "seasoned sage" story to push that perceived smallness away.
Why do I feel small? Because I think. Thought operates by a process of division and it has divided my experience of reality in to "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small. "Everything else" is very very big. And so I attach "me" to some group, some cause, some story in an attempt to make myself feel bigger, less vulnerable, less alone.
I'm not suggesting the above analysis is perfectly correct, I'm just offering a sample of what kind of inquiry should be taking place.
If a members prefer to engage in a finger pointing blame and shame manipulation by guilt campaign designed to edit everyone else to our taste, ok, go for it. That's a fool's errand imho, but there's no law against it. But such a process is better pursued on websites that are all about moralism, such as a Catholic forum for example. Catholics (and many other Christians) love moralism, they can never get enough of it. Those who want to pursue a moralist strategy would feel quite at home there.
Love is the pinnacle, I really believe. I'd rather not be taken seriously, than give up on love! It takes much much more strength to love in the face of hatred than to hate. The proof is in the difficulty of it. Hate is easy, love is hard.
Thank you for the encouragement, it is much appreciated.
Jake, it is a pleasure to meet you and I do appreciate and agree with your thoughtful response. My only pushback to you is that I don't believe for a minute that your inner "sage" would fall based on another persons opinion.
WTF?? You agree? You agree??? ATTENTION MODERATOR!! Clear violation of the rules!!!! :smile:
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Well, my experience has been that people who learn things learn those things because they need to learn them.
Releasing flying monkeys now!
Oh, I actually missed this post and only got notified of the one where you rhetorically expressed doubt about whether I was a pedophile (consider this a replacement response). Anyway, no, I didn't deliberately cherry pick though of course I may have misunderstood your intention (your post was relatively short and I addressed what appeared to be the substance of it); no, I don't own the site, jamalrob does; no, Nazism did actually take hold in a relatively free society (the Weimar Republic) and in any case we are talking about this forum—I'm not advocating for changes in free speech laws generally; no, it's not wrong to moderate Nazis, pedophiles and the like on an internet forum, it's a very sensible reaction that almost every forum employs; and no, reason demonstrably doesn't always "win" when determining the truth in that plenty of people are convinced by its opposite and ultimate agreement on what the truth is anyway, especially wrt moral issues, is rare.
:scream:
That's uncalled for.
Ok, but what does the arrogant and rude manner have to do with analytical logic? Isn't it a completely separate agenda?
And, I believe All Sight is making the case that using a rude and arrogant manner makes one less persuasive, and thus such a manner is reasonably labeled illogical. If you were to now argue that the speaker is not interested in be persuasive, then what does "pointing that out" mean. Pointing out to who, for what purpose?
Quoting Sapientia
What? WHAT? How dare you accuse me of being capable of rudeness you ignorant peasant!!!! :smile: Seriously, ya, definitely capable of stepping on my own message with rude language. Would this be a good place for me to disclose that I've been banned from more forums than most of you ever thought of visiting? True story!
Exactly.
Quoting Jake
I don't think that "agenda" is necessarily the most fitting word, but otherwise yes, they're two separate things. (Arrogance and rudeness are traits, mannerisms or characteristics first and foremost, and as such, they could simply be manifestations or expressions of mood or personality rather than being an agenda).
Quoting Jake
You might be right that it makes one less persuasive, but I think you'll find that that's not everyone's top priority here. Personally, I prefer to stick to a style that suits me, and leave it up to others as to whether they can pass muster and see past the superficial layer of tone or harshness of language and get down to business. Some people chose not to, and that's their prerogative. Others are unable to, and that's a weakness. I would much prefer a blunt and on point response to a sugar coated off point one.
Quoting Jake
Interesting. Well, I like you anyways, for whatever that's worth, despite clashing with you in your discussion on nuclear weapons. (There's nothin' like a good ol' clash, I say!). Turns out you're not as single-minded as I initially thought. :razz:
It’s hard to take someone who holds such a shallow and idealistic view of love seriously, not to mention the melodrama.
Love is not the pinnacle. Any idiot can love. Truth, reason, equanimity, wisdom, and so on, are no less valuable.
:up:
Reminds me of Dostoyevsky's [I]The Idiot[/I].
Sounds more like cynicism than wisdom to me.
And that ended well. [said the cynic]
well played
Well, at least it all turned out well in the end for Raskolnikov in [I]Crime and Punishment[/I]. I mean, eight years of hard labour in Siberia can't be [i]that[/I] bad, right?
I'm not devaluing love and I didn't claim the difficulty of taking you seriously was wise. It's more of an intuitive estimation, I suppose. But maybe my estimation is wrong. Can you make an argument that 'love is the pinnacle'?
No one is asking you to give up on love, incidentally.
Quoting All sight
Love may or may not be the best response to hatred, depending on the situation and the the desired outcome.
Quoting All sight
You find it hard to love people but easy to hate them?
:up:
Isn't that a big brother attitude or is it parental prerogatives? Are you saying some ''children'' need spanking?
I guess you're right but we all hope for a better world.
What resonates with me from Street's post is that there's a meta-battle for framing going on above and beyond any particular debate. Those who tend towards a more aggressive form of argumentation are likely to describe themselves as 'passionate' and 'forceful' whereas those who don't will probably condemn that style as 'arrogant' and 'bullying'. On this level of framing then the gloves are off for the "nice" interlocutors too as they become the primary aggressors. The only difference really being that they want to have their moral-high-ground cake and eat it too. So, there's no inherent moral superiority of either style. That's just smoke and mirrors. They're strategies that can only be judged in terms of their moral appropriateness with regard to the contexts in which they are applied. For example, a parent bullying their child into doing what they want with harsh language is generally wrong, but a forceful verbal pushback against the purveyors of vile ideologies is very often appropriate.
Quoting Baden
'A meta-battle for framing' is a nice way to put it; and the challenge here is to avoid - at all costs - fixing the value of this meta-framing once and all: as if all aggression is only never negative and debilitating, as if all cordiality is only ever positive and helpful. But none of these meta-framings can be given in advance, and it's only with attention to - as you said - their context of deployment, that one can start talking, with any seriousness at all, about 'big brother attitudes' and so on.
Wha-What?
What other method has provided access to truth better than reason? What other method, other than reason, has provided actual answers to anything?
The ironic thing is that everyone uses their reason to find answers to solutions. It is ONLY when they don't like the answer do they suddenly say, "reason doesn't provide all the answers." Reason itself dictates that your feelings are nothing when it comes to determining truth. We were never guaranteed answers that we like or are consolable.
When it comes to moral issues, you are in agreement with me without even knowing it. There are no answers to moral issues, because morality isn't objective. Morality has to do with our individual goals and how they are either inhibited or promoted by others. The best "answer" you can come up to any moral dilemma is whose goals get to be imposed on others?
Exactly. That is why I said that we need to dispense with the labeling and engage in reasoning your way through arguments. Labeling does nothing other than reinforce your already deeply held beliefs (beliefs with emotional attachments).
I'm making the pragmatic point that many people are fairly impervious to reason and more swayed by rthetoric, so if "winning" in the marketplace of ideas really was just down to using reason, I'd agree with you, but I'm saying it's demonstrably not.
So, I'm rejecting the implication as put here:
Quoting Harry Hindu
that the winners in the marketplace of ideas will be the ideas that are coherent, reasonable and consistent. It's more like the winners in the marketplace of ideas will be those of whoever is in power. To paraphrase Marx, the ruling ideology is the ideology of the rulers. And wrt to extremism, what determines whether it flourishes or not tends to relate more to the presence of social and economic turmoil that upsets the hegemony of the ruling class than levels of censorship etc. The power of the prevalent ideology tends to wane in proportion to how difficult it gets to put food on the table.
Of course, none of that is incompatible with the more philosophical point that, all other things being equal, the use of reason is, theoretically, the best way for each individual to search for truth. That's hardly more than a truism. And in any case, I'm in agreement with the principles of public free speech (with some minor limitations). What I reject is the idea that because it is desirable to apply this to society as a whole, it is desirable to apply it to every micro-environment in that society. What is more desirable in my view is that people are given a choice of environments of varying levels of free speech which they can freely choose to frequent in so far as it suits them to do so. What posters can't get here, they can get somewhere else, but if we all acquiesced to full free speech then this type of controlled environment, which is many people's preference, would be unavailable anywhere.
Quoting Harry Hindu
But again, we're in a battle for framing as I've already alluded to. And labelling is to some degree unavoidable. So, the label you seem to want to put on someone like me is an "enemy of reason" or an "enemy of free speech". On those terms, you already win. And yes, it's true if I successfully label someone a Nazi or a racist, I already win (among the vast majority of people). So, if you can deprive me through an effort at framing of the legitimacy of taking advantage of explicit labels while you take advantage of implicit ones, you put me at a disadvantage (I'm using "you" and "I" in a generalized way here btw). All of that is just a matter of argumentative strategy. Where the ethical comes in is in terms of goals. What is the strategy aimed at achieving?
(For example, am I labeling someone a Nazi just to disparage and hurt them because I don't like them personally, and/or because I have no other argumentative tools at my disposal (unethical). Or am I labeling someone a Nazi because they have demonstrated themselves to be so, and I think it's important people know, so that the Nazi be marginalized and deprived of some opportunity to spread their dangerous ideology (ethical)).
Many or most forums can be described as mutual validation societies. You know, like minded people gather together to build a self flattering group consensus. "We are the chosen holy people", or "we are the laser sharp logic masters", and so on.
If we enter such a community and challenge the group consensus that may be welcomed because the challenge gives the community the opportunity to reinforce their self flattering story by rising to meet the challenge. If the challenge presented is ineffective the group will revel in their defeat of the outsider, and all will be well.
Problems will soon arise if the challenge presented is an effective challenge. There are two ways to present an effective challenge, the kind way, and the ruthless way.
KIND: The kind way to present an effective challenge is to do so rudely. This allows the threatened community to change the subject from the post to the poster, and gives them an out, an excuse to ban us without having to admit they are doing so to escape from the threat.
RUTHLESS: The ruthless way to present to present an effective challenge is to do so with impeccable manners, because now all doors of escape are closed.
So obviously it is in the spirit of love and compassion that I scream in your faces that all of you are a bunch of BRAINLESS BUMBLING BOVINES!!!
Is this the best rationalization you've read all day, or what? :smile:
Oops, gotta go, the nurse is bringing my medications...
I won't do so here, but a case can be made for Nazism. Should the mods be willing to conduct such an experiment I'll start a new thread for it. The point of such an exercise might be to illustrate that in the right hands any idea can be defended or destroyed, which may tend to illustrate the limitations of thought, reason and philosophy etc.
There's nothing to lose really, if you wind up not liking the thread you can always delete it.
Devil's advocate type thing? Let us think about it.
Anyway, to add another couple of cents concerning this discussion: Part of the problem here is, I think, that we're always looking for simple narratives/injunctions to guide our behaviour. We're built that way. Two such on display here are:
1: Be nice (That's good)!
2: Don't label (That's bad)!
I think those injunctions need to be problematized and rejected in favour of (if we need some relatively simple principles):
1: Argue on the basis of the desire for a justifiable outcome (That's good!)
2: Don't be insincere (That's bad)!
3: Be aware of the distinction between strategy and morality and the various levels at which they are employed (That's good!).
Yes, I'm not a Nazi.
Quoting Baden
If you agree to the proposal, I'll pass the word on down the chain of command to my stooges to make sure they don't haul you off to the camps.
Hah, thanks. (And I knew you weren't a Nazi, honest :) )
Eliminate all screen names, any and all reference to the poster. A collection of ideas appear on the page, and who typed them is irrelevant.
After all, little of what we're saying can really be called "MY idea" anyway. We're all basically recycling ideas that have already been expressed a million times in one form or another.
Isn't it interesting how adamantly we will promote and defend a totally anonymous identity such as screen name SnoopyDog27? If I had no screen name I'd have nothing to promote, nothing to defend, and that would pull the rug out from under at least some of the pose striking.
Of course, then almost everyone would stop posting. So there's that. :smile:
No, it really is a rule structure that is in fact conducive to human flourishing (or any of that basket of closely related goals).
The objectivity was implicit in the fact that ancestors who happened to live in ways that sketchily and searchingly accorded with those rules, howsoever "blindly" (without knowing what they were doing) tended to survive and flourish. And the objectivity is still there when the rules and goals are made explicit, streamlined, made more coherent, as time goes on.
Okay, yeah, I agree with that.
The meta-battle or meta-framing can only arise from a position of superiority.
Have you heard of divine madman stories? I think they're common in most religions I believe. [I]Divine madmen[/i] are well known for breaking from convention, especially moral or societal ones. They may be rude and sometimes even outright evil. To me one has to achieve a certain level of, I shall call it, enlightenment to wield emotions and manipulate people to achieve good.
Anyway. I think you guys are right.
That would only happen if we as a society reject reason and logic as the arbiters of truth. If we were to actually value reason over emotion as a society, then we could get to the place I have proposed.
If you aren't interested in reason, then what are you really saying? Your words would be meaningless. If you are inconsistent, then how can you actually mean anything? How is it that your words become interesting or even valuable when you are inconsistent and emotional? It seems to me that we simply have a problem of not valuing reason over emotional rhetoric - which is a social problem - one that needs fixing if we are to keep away from hateful ideologies.
Well, I wasn't presenting a hypothetical but describing a current reality. There's no "would" about it. That's demonstrably the way things are. On top of that, I want to make it clear that what I said is not an injunction not to be reasonable nor to reject reason and logic as the ultimate arbiters of truth, nor is it an expression of a lack of interest in reason, but just the observation that in reality winning in the marketplace of ideas (insofar as winning is defined for a given idea as the extent to which it holds social sway) is not solely down to reason.
So, yes, I agree, it's a social problem. It's also a human problem. We're not rational animals; we're at best rationalising ones. Given that, reason alone is not necessarily enough to protect people from hateful ideologies. And in a world where the most powerful man is apparently a racist, that's fairly salient. So, where do we stand? It seems you are saying we should allow unrestricted free speech everywhere including on this forum because otherwise we are using illegitimate (unreasonable) means to combat unreasonable ideologies (am I correct?). Whereas where I stand is that I think it's not sensible to unnecessarily restrict yourself in terms of methods employed to fight these ideologies and their purveyors such that you give them (who are not directly interested in reason at all but merely in spreading their beliefs) any help in the marketplace of ideas. So if one way of combating their spread is to marginalize them, I say, that's fine.
So, we could frame this as me being unprincipled and you being principled, or me being realistic and you being naive, or me being a labeler and you being a non-labeler, or me being a consequentialist and you being a deontologist, or any other way you want that reflects well or badly on either of us, but if the agreed goal is to inhibit the spread of hateful ideologies then I think I'm on more solid ground than you in suggesting we don't handicap ourselves rhetorically or strategically any more than they do in this fight.
Hate+Hate does not = Peace
Bitter and hateful people might be full of so much love and positivity to offer the world, but if they never have the chance to understand that then they may have to live with their fear of others for the rest of their lives. They have extreme passion that can be utilized to help others and to help take care of the Earth if they have the chance to redirect their effort.
Or they may remain as they are as a choice regardless of interaction with others, and we may not be able to help them no matter what we do. We cannot control others, but we can try our best to inspire hope within them.
You have a duty to your fellow human beings, because it is up to all of us to continue our evolution. If you feel like you see a miscalculation in the equation of society and you have the courage to face adversary head on to balance the equation out in order to pursue peace, then by all means please do, but if you shout at someone, belittle them, or become violent with them, then have you really given your best effort? I don't think so.
You have to talk with them; not at them. They have already been talked at, it doesn't work, and that is part of why they are upset in the first place.
The trouble with the latter of these two reasons is that it actually creates both problems in the first place. The more we perpetuate the notion that the grand political ideologies are the result of reasoned analysis, the more fuel we give to every distasteful fundamentalist group who demands their 'new' idea be given fair consideration. But we just don't seem to arrive at grand ideologies in that way, nor is it demonstrably possible to do so. Ideologies have been debated by intelligent groups of people for decades, no one's won yet. At least a sensible working presumption for the time being is that the "let's resolve this once and for all with a rational discussion" project, is probably something of a non-starter.
The idea, for example, that certain races are 'inferior' has been around for decades. Its been around that long (as opposed to, say, the idea that there is no gravity, or that jelly is a good building material), because it is possible to construct an argument, using evidence and logic, in favour of it. That doesn't make it right, of course, the evidence could be (and is) deeply flawed and logic is always fallible in any other form that obvious syllogisms, but pointing out that those flaws exist is just highlighting a general property of all ideas (that they contain sufficient flaws to construct a counter-argument from). So the extremist need feel no obligation to alter their view simply for knowing such flaws exist.
The alternative is to focus on some measure of the extent of the flaws. There's no doubt, for example, that the science claiming that certain races are inferior is massively more flawed than any science claiming the opposite. But then this suggests that, automaton-like, we are obliged to adopt those ideas for which the least flaws in the scientific or logical evidence exist, and again, this is demonstrably not how we find and hold ideas, nor is it possible to establish with clarity (in most cases). It seems clear that we almost universally form, or adopt, ideas and as a result of numerous factors (mostly social) and reject them only if they are overwhelmingly demonstrated to be unsupportable, or a more attractive idea comes along. Reason and logic play a supporting role from the sidelines at best, at worst, they barely get a look in.
So, given that most ideas are arrived at by social cues, what could be worse for an unpleasant idea than to give those in whose mind it currently festers the notion that there's an acceptable social group of people who also hold such ideas and who seem to at least be taken seriously enough to be part of the 'global debate'?
I can see no reason why any community should not be able to make a clear statement about the boundaries of tolerance within which ideas will be discussed and outside of which ideas are rejected as not worthy of consideration. Ridicule is a tried and tested method for making this boundary absolutely clear.
As far as 'free speech' is concerned, has anyone not heard of these ideas before? Especially with the Internet, I don't see the worldwide suppression of any idea being likely. The freedom to speak about your ideas does not entail the freedom to do so in any place and at any time.
It depends on who "they" are. If "they" are other relatively reasonable people as tend to predominate on this site then it's more productive to engage purely on the level of reason even if you ultimately will continue to disagree. However, if "they" are people who have no intention of engaging on the level of reason as they are not willing or capable of doing so, and if you being reasonable and them not being reasonable suits a destructive agenda of theirs then it makes sense to allow yourself other options, which may include censoring, marginalizing, positive propaganda, abusive argumentation or whatever. Think of it from a game theory point of view. Rule number 1: Don't play a dominated strategy. A high horse is no good to you if your interlocutors are busy turning the ground beneath you into a swamp.
I've always found this argument entirely disingenuous. By putting murderers in prision, we do not make them 'martyrs'. By locking away rapists we do not make rape a cause of martyrdom. The 'martyrs' argument is always selectively wheeled out by those who do not have the courage of their own convictions, playing a faux-neutrality that does nothing but give aid to horrible people. Let awful people be martyred. We'll 'martyr' their sympathizers too. As for this:
Quoting Lif3r
No one ought to give a flying fig about 'human beings', an abstract, useless category made to intellectualize the flesh and blood of the world out of existence; one has duties to the persecuted, the voiceless, friends and strangers in need. Not 'human beings', who are as miserable as they are wonderful by turns. Human beings don't exist. Only these people and those people in real, concrete situations do. And one 'has a duty' to them, far more than the armchair, paper cut-out notion of the 'human being'.
:clap: