A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship


Dennis Hardin

Recommended Posts

Another point about benevolence (this is not directed at you, Tony). One does not have to offer politeness or sensitivity or the like to people when don't behave in a non-benevolent way themselves. Someone insults you, you can feel free to insult them right back.

I don't have my copy of Phil's Rules of Internet Civility handy, so I thought you might answer the following questions for me:

If you are insulted one time in one post, are you permitted to hurl only one retaliatory insult? Or can you use more than one retaliatory insult in the same post? Or can keep insulting "right back" in many posts indefinitely? I assume you have some rule of proportionality, but I'm not sure.

Another question: Suppose -- and this is only a hypothetical -- I were to say that you have a tendency to write vacuous posts. And suppose -- again, hypothetically -- that you do in fact have a tendency to write vacuous posts. In this case my statement would be true, so would you count it as an insult? Or must an insult be false?

(I chose this particular hypothetical because it is so patently absurd that no one could possibly take it seriously.)

Ghs

"A truth told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent." (Blake) Ergo: ___________________

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tony,

I just get to know someone's behavior over time toward me on the internet and if I feel there is good will, I'm quite capable of responding with tact, sensitivity, kindness.

On the other hand, it gets pretty obvious without a scorecard if someone is mean-spirited or "gunning for you", trying to trip you up and ignore any good points you make. So my policy sometimes is I'll stick the sharp tip of my boot up his ass. Return contempt with contempt.

Other times, I might ignore him and just not respond. Just within the last hour or so,reread the tone of your post and that of George H. Smith above.

I don't sense hostility or contempt or ill-will in yours.

Which is why that's the one I respond politely to.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

I just get to know someone's behavior over time toward me on the internet and if I feel there is good will, I'm quite capable of responding with tact, sensitivity, kindness.

On the other hand, it gets pretty obvious without a scorecard if someone is mean-spirited or "gunning for you", trying to trip you up and ignore any good points you make. So my policy sometimes is I'll stick the sharp tip of my boot up his ass. Return contempt with contempt.

Other times, I might ignore him and just not respond. Just within the last hour or so,reread the tone of your post and that of George H. Smith above.

I don't sense hostility or contempt or ill-will in yours.

Which is why that's the one I respond politely to.

Hostility...contempt...ill will. Do these count as three insults or as only one?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignored.

I understand. After all, what is the point of ignoring someone unless you tell that person, and the world generally, that you are ignoring him?

On the other hand, when you go to the trouble to post "Ignored," you are paying some attention to the person you wish to ignore, so you are not really ignoring that person. In the future I suggest you write something like Ignored, more or less, or Ignored, for the most part, or Ignored, except for this post, etc.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: simple politeness, manners

Baal asked for a translation of the La Fontaine poem. So I took some time to do one. Acknowledgement? Response?

(Your welcome, Baal.)

What about his welcome? Has he worn it out?

Confusedly,

JR

C'mon, JR. We just talked about generosity here, so why nitpick on the absence of a puny little apostrophe and the vowel "e"? ;)

Who knows, maybe at some time in the future, "Your welcome" may even be officially accepted as a variant of "You're welcome"?

In German for example, the English personal genitive (which has an apostrophe) seems to replace the German apostrophe-less genitive. So in German, one more and more comes across combinations like "Paul's Weltreise" instead of "Pauls Weltreise" ...

Subject: simple politeness, manners

Baal asked for a translation of the La Fontaine poem. So I took some time to do one. Acknowledgement? Response?

Phil,

I don't think one can expect to get immediate responses to one's forum posts. Thank you very much for your translation, which for the most part, was correct.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I don't think one can expect to get immediate responses to one's forum posts. Thank you very much for your translation, which for the most part, was correct.

Xray, good point! I forget that sometimes people may check a list once a week or once a month.

(By the way, what did I miss in my translation?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> . . . what is the point of ignoring someone unless you tell that person, and the world generally, that you are ignoring him? On the other hand, when you go to the trouble to post "Ignored," you are paying some attention to the person you wish to ignore, so you are not really ignoring that person. In the future I suggest you write something like Ignored, more or less, or Ignored, for the most part, or Ignored, except for this post, etc.

Long-winded sophistry scanned quickly.

Then ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> . . . what is the point of ignoring someone unless you tell that person, and the world generally, that you are ignoring him? On the other hand, when you go to the trouble to post "Ignored," you are paying some attention to the person you wish to ignore, so you are not really ignoring that person. In the future I suggest you write something like Ignored, more or less, or Ignored, for the most part, or Ignored, except for this post, etc.

Long-winded sophistry scanned quickly.

Then ignored.

Much better.

Now that you have initiated an insult by characterizing my remark as "Long-winded sophistry," should I feel free to insult you right back? Or is there an exception to Phil's Rule of Justifiable Retaliation that you didn't tell us about?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need some clarification from the insult panelists?

Can you preemptively insult Phil?

A preemptive insult is an insult that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable insult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need some clarification from the insult panelists?

Can you preemptively insult Phil?

A preemptive insult is an insult that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable insult.

I expect this kind of crap from the Dutchman and the Unitarian, but I thought children raised Catholic had more class and Italians a better sense of honor. And Objectivists a bit less concern with social metaphysics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need some clarification from the insult panelists?

Can you preemptively insult Phil?

A preemptive insult is an insult that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable insult.

I expect this kind of crap from the Dutchman and the Unitarian, but I thought children raised Catholic had more class and Italians a better sense of honor. And Objectivists a bit less concern with social metaphysics.

Ted:

Never assume.

I was not raised Catholic, my father, a superior and moral man was excommunicated for being a Mason in the 1930's by the Catholic Church.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need some clarification from the insult panelists?

Can you preemptively insult Phil?

A preemptive insult is an insult that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable insult.

I expect this kind of crap from the Dutchman and the Unitarian, but I thought children raised Catholic had more class and Italians a better sense of honor. And Objectivists a bit less concern with social metaphysics.

Faith in mankind momentarily restored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need some clarification from the insult panelists?

Can you preemptively insult Phil?

A preemptive insult is an insult that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable insult.

I expect this kind of crap from the Dutchman and the Unitarian, but I thought children raised Catholic had more class and Italians a better sense of honor. And Objectivists a bit less concern with social metaphysics.

This is just a wild guess, but I think Adam may have been joking.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he was joking. The majority of the personal attacks on OL are either offered as humor or thinly disguised as humor. Some of the nastiness is quite clever (you guys should be so proud!) but it still diminishes the attacker far more than the object of their sarcastic venom.

But I know everyone is having far too much fun to give a shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he was joking. The majority of the personal attacks on OL are either offered as humor or thinly disguised as humor. Some of the nastiness is quite clever (you guys should be so proud!) but it still diminishes the attacker far more than the object of their sarcastic venom.

But I know everyone is having far too much fun to give a shit.

Please explain how Adam's post qualified as a personal attack or as in any way nasty.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

In an earlier post you linked an article on your website, "The Choice to Live," which contains the following passage:

Advocates on either side of this argument acknowledge that there are specific circumstances, such as terminal illness or political slavery, where one might legitimately conclude that the value of one’s life cannot be properly enjoyed and that, therefore, suicide may be contextually valid. The disagreement pertains to the validity of the option to perish given a normal state of health and reasonable external potential for achieving a successful life.

I am curious about your use of the phrase "contextually valid" in regard to suicide. Could you elaborate a bit?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he was joking. The majority of the personal attacks on OL are either offered as humor or thinly disguised as humor. Some of the nastiness is quite clever (you guys should be so proud!) but it still diminishes the attacker far more than the object of their sarcastic venom.

But I know everyone is having far too much fun to give a shit.

If you object to something specifically object when it comes up so it can be dealt with instead of letting things go on and on. If you don't when you do object you end up with a generalized smear of the type that Phil specializes in. We make some fun at Phil because we like him but he otherwise wouldn't be very tolerable with some of the things he says. I use a lot of humor. Do I need to zip it? Is it "sarcastic venom"? Brant Attacks!? I'm sure I've done such from time to time, after what--+7500 posts? There are many types of humor and many motivations for using them and how the types and motivations may line up may shift from time to time, person to person. Your "Faith in mankind momentarily restored" is certainly sarcastic with the lace of some humor (?), but if OL has destroyed your faith in mankind you don't read the papers or watch the news, that's for sure. Above all, some of us like to play a little, not just come with the big thoughts. The philosophy you seem to want in respect to this topic is throw out the bathwater and throw out the baby; you don't need either. Well, that's good for you, I suppose, since I don't really know or care to know.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he was joking. The majority of the personal attacks on OL are either offered as humor or thinly disguised as humor. Some of the nastiness is quite clever (you guys should be so proud!) but it still diminishes the attacker far more than the object of their sarcastic venom.

But I know everyone is having far too much fun to give a shit.

If you object to something specifically object when it comes up so it can be dealt with instead of letting things go on and on. If you don't when you do object you end up with a generalized smear of the type that Phil specializes in. We make some fun at Phil because we like him but he otherwise wouldn't be very tolerable with some of the things he says. I use a lot of humor. Do I need to zip it? Is it "sarcastic venom"? Brant Attacks!? I'm sure I've done such from time to time, after what--+7500 posts? There are many types of humor and many motivations for using them and how the types and motivations may line up may shift from time to time, person to person. Your "Faith in mankind momentarily restored" is certainly sarcastic with the lace of some humor (?), but if OL has destroyed your faith in mankind you don't read the papers or watch the news, that's for sure. Above all, some of us like to play a little, not just come with the big thoughts. The philosophy you seem to want in respect to this topic is throw out the bathwater and throw out the baby; you don't need either. Well, that's good for you, I suppose, since I don't really know or care to know.

--Brant

I saw Phil fairly often during the nearly 5 years I lived in SF. We got along fine, and I like him personally, but I find his civility lectures on OL annoying. Phil is no more civil than the average bear on OL. He often writes insulting posts without provocation. As you astutely point out, Phil specializes in the "generalized smear"; i.e., he will insult people without naming names, even though it is obvious to everyone whom he has in mind. I don't regard this kind of insult as morally superior to any other. On the contrary, I regard it as a cowardly manner of insulting people, because it always leaves Phil an out: "Oh, but I didn't actually mention anyone by name."

I honestly don't know if Phil has any sense of how condescending some of his posts are.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If you object to something specifically object when it comes up so it can be dealt with instead of letting things go on and on. If you don't when you do object you end up with a generalized smear [brant]

> Phil specializes in the "generalized smear"; i.e., he will insult people without naming names, even though it is obvious to everyone whom he has in mind. I don't regard this kind of insult as morally superior to any other. [GHS]

Both Brant and George are -completely- wrong about this. This fallacy about "failure to name names" has been raised a dozen times on this board.

I will now rebut it completely:

1. Dennis is under no obligation to specifically object every time something comes up that is dumb, offensive or whatever the case may be. And neither am I. Why? Because no one has that kind of time - you'd end up doing nothing else and getting in purely personal "but I didn't do it here" type fights. You simply wait until they add up then make it a general criticism.

2. It is usually *vastly superior* to make a general statement about the type of error. That doesn't put anyone on the spot and (presumably, although it doesn't seem to work out that way on OL) doesn't put anyone on the defensive by calling him out personally.

3. The principles are universal principles about behavior or thinking or social skills. It is best to discuss them generally. They apply much more widely than just to people on OL...as might Dennis's criticisms. And -certainly- my many criticisms of the Oist movement are intended to be much broader than a few people who post here.

> On the contrary, I regard it as a cowardly manner of insulting people, because it always leaves Phil an out: "Oh, but I didn't actually mention anyone by name." [GHS]

Huh?? I actually could care less about an 'out' -- while I believe general abstract broad criticisms are necessary and appropriate, haven't you noticed I am less than shy about mentioning how my criticism might apply to specific examples from specific OListers, when that seems necessary for clarity or concretization?

,,,,,

(I''ll give parenthetical space to the fallacy of calling every strong criticism an "insult" or a "smear". Or the inappropriate use of the adjective "condescending" by those who resent and dislike criticism.)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe general abstract broad criticisms are necessary and appropriate, haven't you noticed I am less than shy about mentioning how my criticism might apply to specific examples from specific OListers, when that seems necessary for clarity or concretization?

Translation: When Phil insults someone, he does so because it "seems necessary for clarity or concretization."

Priceless, absolutely priceless. :lol:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In justice, I never got the impression Phil wants an "out," rather he wants the "in" and in the inn he'll stay respecting what's being discussed. Whether he takes a dip in its pool by falling in or being tossed in, he's still in the inn, or at least at it. But at such times we can say, "Phil, you're all wet!" Of course, that's just pointing out the obvious. Now this string of metaphors isn't an argument and it certainly won't work any metamorphical transformation on his immutable personality, but he surely does keep us ad hominemly engaged.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he was joking. The majority of the personal attacks on OL are either offered as humor or thinly disguised as humor. Some of the nastiness is quite clever (you guys should be so proud!) but it still diminishes the attacker far more than the object of their sarcastic venom.

But I know everyone is having far too much fun to give a shit.

Please explain how Adam's post qualified as a personal attack or as in any way nasty.

Ghs

I wouldn’t describe that particular post as nasty, and I apologize to Adam if it appeared that way. It most definitely did strike me as personal and disrespectful. It seemed like “piling on” to me, especially in the context of Phil’s expressed wish for more politeness and civility. And coming right after Brant’s post, which seemed so uncharacteristic for him. I know Brant was just trying to be funny but I thought that [creating a new thread dedicated to insulting Phil] was way out of line.

For the record: I have reacted negatively to some of Phil’s posts in the past where I did feel he was condescending. I will admit that some of my own responses (to Phil and others) have a disrespectful tone at times—but almost always in “self-defense” to a similar prior post from the same person. I operate on the principle of not "initiating malevolence" — and even then I try hard to avoid crossing the line into name-calling and personal insults.

If someone says something you feel is contemptible, I see nothing wrong with saying so. But turning that into a personal attack with name-calling and insults seems utterly juvenile. We should all focus on the ideas, not the person expressing them. (Wow! Suddenly I'm hearing echoes of David Kelley and "A Question of Sanction.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

There is a major difference between vicious personal attacks which are designed to cause emotional pain and sarcasm or humor.

In my case, I do not take a barb or attack personally because to do so empowers the attacker.

I enjoy life too much not to be able to laugh at myself or to make a joke about a persons prissiness, aloofness etc.

Now, in terms of Phil though...

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now