TO WHOM IT MAY (OR MAY NOT) CONCERN

[Jerry Biggers]

I am going to try to describe what I have learned from my participation in, and/or observations of, discussions on this board and others on the internet, in print, and in person, where intellectual issues have been exchanged.

In the past, when I have had disagreements over such issues, and my attempts to get the other side to agree with me through use of reason (or as a Peikovian might say, "irrefutable logic"), I have occasionally become impatient and responded with sarcasm or other tactics that stray into the ad hominem. While this attempt by me to launch a devastating attack may have given me a brief sense of self-satisfaction, it has (very) rarely persuaded my opponent (e.g., "You're right. You calling me an asshole has caused me to re-evaluate my whole chain of argument and discard it in your favor!").

On this forum, I have often benefited from arguments made by others, whether or not I have contributed to their discussion. Many, perhaps most, of the contributors here have demonstrated a breadth of knowledge about Objectivism and its applications in science, philosophy, and political discourse that I cannot match. Most people here have other intellectual resources with which they can marshal to offer telling refutation of the arguments of their opponent. This, in turn, has led to responses from the other side or by others that have further improved the quality of the exchange. I have found this beneficial to me, and probably to others.

But when some posters have responded (perhaps out of impatience or frustration) to arguments with which they disagree by personal attacks on each other, impugning the character, intelligence, or ulterior motives, I feel that that particular discussion has changed direction, and not for the better. The use of invective adds nothing to argument and degrades the quality of discourse. It is also self-defeating.

[Philip Coates]

> But when some posters have responded (perhaps out of impatience or frustration) to arguments with which they disagree by personal attacks on each other, impugning the character, intelligence, or ulterior motives, I feel that that particular discussion has changed direction, and not for the better. The use of invective adds nothing to argument and degrades the quality of discourse. It is also self-defeating. [Jerry]

I agree. And everyone knows this, not just people on this board. The problem is they are strongly tempted to ignore it.

I like your phrase above which I put in italics. It's broader and more precise than just the one word "civility", which is sort of vague and sounds like saying "how do you do?" and using the right fork at dinner time.

I can't count the number of times I've started or participated in a serious thread here on OL -- whether on literature or physics or history or the Atlas Shrugged movie or current events or Islam or the course of the Objectivist movement -- and there are maybe five or ten exchanges strictly on the subject, then as soon as personal expressions of contempt are posted, the two parties involved suddenly "wake up", their blood starts boiling and they will let nothing pass and the serious points are forgotten.

Part of the reasons for this are that once you are in a fight, it escalates and swamps the discussion: not just the increase in level of invective but the volume of posts goes up enormously, so the four or five interesting posts are buried under forty or fifty on the "food fight".

[Philip Coates]

An example of thoughtful discussion getting buried is the two threads started today entitled 'to whom it may concern' - this one and the other. The other one will probably become larger and draw more attention because it's become more about personalities (who is worse - Ted or Jeff) and who did what to whom when.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

> But when some posters have responded (perhaps out of impatience or frustration) to arguments with which they disagree by personal attacks on each other, impugning the character, intelligence, or ulterior motives, I feel that that particular discussion has changed direction, and not for the better. The use of invective adds nothing to argument and degrades the quality of discourse. It is also self-defeating. [Jerry]

I agree. And everyone knows this, not just people on this board. The problem is they are strongly tempted to ignore it.

Please, Phil, don't start....

All this stuff is obvious and has been stated over and over again ad nauseam. I cannot think of any subject that has produced less light and substance than the seemingly endless discussions about what other people are supposedly doing wrong.

The fact that your repeated complaints have yielded zero results should tell you something. There comes a point when even the most determined cat-herder should find something better to do. Complainers could do a lot more to improve the overall quality of OL (which is already very high) by thinking about how to make their own posts better.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

An example of thoughtful discussion getting buried is the two threads started today entitled 'to whom it may concern' - this one and the other. The other one will probably become larger and draw more attention because it's become more about personalities (who is worse - Ted or Jeff) and who did what to whom when.

Thanks for not starting that discussion.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My goodness.

Has this discussion turned into one about a personality?

Like... er... say... Phil?

Don't worry, Phil.

You don't have to complain in advance and run imaginary contests.

I predict you'll get some attention here.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Part of the reasons for this are that once you are in a fight, it escalates and swamps the discussion: not just the increase in level of invective but the volume of posts goes up enormously, so the four or five interesting posts are buried under forty or fifty on the "food fight".

It is much easier to locate the quality posts when people have the common courtesy to use the quote function. Clicking on an arrow takes much less time than scrolling through a sea of posts.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

My goodness.

Has this discussion turned into one about a personality?

Like... er... say... Phil?

Don't worry, Phil.

You don't have to complain in advance and run imaginary contests.

I predict you'll get some attention here.

Michael

I seem to be drawn to Phil's posts like a fly to...Simile Check! Simile Check!...er, like a bee to honey.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

I cannot think of any subject that has produced less light and substance than the seemingly endless discussions about what other people are supposedly doing wrong.

The fact that your repeated complaints have yielded zero results should tell you something. There comes a point when even the most determined cat-herder should find something better to do. Complainers could do a lot more to improve the overall quality of OL (which is already very high) by thinking about how to make their own posts better.

I gotta agree with George here.

Phi's admonitions and exhortations about "civility' have produced nothing, except further wrangling with Phil.

Better to put one's efforts into something else. Nearly anything else...

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

I cannot think of any subject that has produced less light and substance than the seemingly endless discussions about what other people are supposedly doing wrong.

The fact that your repeated complaints have yielded zero results should tell you something. There comes a point when even the most determined cat-herder should find something better to do. Complainers could do a lot more to improve the overall quality of OL (which is already very high) by thinking about how to make their own posts better.

I gotta agree with George here.

Me too.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

Not quite sure how I became the subject of conversation again... ???

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not quite sure how I became the subject of conversation again... ???

Phil,

Communication 101.

You drew it to yourself.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Really? Seven posts in a row?

Did you dudes miss that I was making substantive points like this:

<> Part of the reasons for this are that once you are in a fight, it escalates and swamps the discussion: not just the increase in level of invective but the volume of posts goes up enormously, so the four or five interesting posts are buried under forty or fifty on the "food fight". <>

Communication 101: You should focus on the important points I make not on me. (I know it's hard, as I am such a fascinating personality to comment on, but try to resist. )

In case the above super-long paragraph exceeded some attention spans, I've extracted three key concepts: 1. escalation. 2. volume. 3. buried under.

...Need me to make it simpler?

Edited April 3, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

Really? Seven posts in a row?

Did you dudes miss that I was making substantive points like this:

<> Part of the reasons for this are that once you are in a fight, it escalates and swamps the discussion: not just the increase in level of invective but the volume of posts goes up enormously, so the four or five interesting posts are buried under forty or fifty on the "food fight". <>

Communication 101: You should focus on the important points I make not on me. (I know it's hard, as I am such a fascinating personality to comment on, but try to resist. )

In case the above super-long paragraph exceeded some attention spans, I've extracted three key concepts: 1. escalation. 2. volume. 3. buried under.

...Need me to make it simpler?

No, we need you to make it go away.

Ghs

[jriggenbach]

> But when some posters have responded (perhaps out of impatience or frustration) to arguments with which they disagree by personal attacks on each other, impugning the character, intelligence, or ulterior motives, I feel that that particular discussion has changed direction, and not for the better. The use of invective adds nothing to argument and degrades the quality of discourse. It is also self-defeating. [Jerry]

I agree. And everyone knows this, not just people on this board.

No, Phil, "everyone" does not "know this."

Not everyone here has the intention of "adding something to an argument." Therefore, they do not "defeat themselves" by engaging in behavior that would defeat them if they were trying to participate in an argument. This point is so simple, it absolutely defies belief that you (and a number of others) have such extraordinary difficulty grasping it.

Let me try another way of saying this. There are a number of possible reasons a person might join a group like this and post occasionally. In my case, I find it interesting to read what some of the others on the list have to say about the topics they choose to write about. I also find it useful in my own professional work to keep up with what is going on in that branch of the libertarian movement known as Objectivism. Reading this site is a good way to keep up with such news. Occasionally, I comment, usually in the spirit of correcting an error of fact or clarifying some point I know more about than most people. If people ask me questions about what I write, I usually attempt to answer them. The main exception is people like Xray, who (so far as I can see) have no interest in learning anything but only in getting other people to use certain phrases so that she can triumphantly jump on them with her Philosophy 101-level "proofs" that this, that, or the other point about Objectivism as Xray "Understands" It is incorrect. (She actually "understands" almost nothing, of course, in part because she can't be bothered to read anything any longer than a post on a discussion list.)

I never post in an effort to join an argument or to present an argument or to convince anybody of anything. Let me say that again: I never post in an effort to join an argument or to present an argument or to convince anybody of anything. Let me say that again: I NEVER POST IN AN EFFORT TO JOIN AN ARGUMENT OR TO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT OR TO CONVINCE ANYBODY OF ANYTHING. I competed in interscholastic and intercollegiate debate when I was in high school and college. I loved it back then and did pretty well at it, but I no longer have any interest in it whatever.

Now, let me make my next point as clearly and unequivocally as I know how: Since I am not trying to convince anybody of anything, I do NOT "defeat myself" by expressing myself as I see fit. Since my purpose is expressing myself as I see fit, I do the exact opposite of defeating myself by expressing myself as I see fit. By expressing myself as I see fit, I attain my objective of having expressed myself as I saw fit. If anyone is "unconvinced" by what I write, fine. I never meant to "convince" him or her in the first place. If anyone is put off by my sarcasm or my choice of words or anything else about my chosen way of expressing myself, fine. Let that person go read someone else's posts instead of mine. There are others who find what I write witty and amusing. There are even a few who agree with its substance.

I hope all this is clear. (But of course, I know damn well that it isn't. Clarity is helpless in the face of Invincible Ignorance. There are those here, who, I suspect, have an enormous emotional commitment to the idea - absurd on its face - that everyone is here to join in a discussion by presenting arguments in favor of their views in as convincing a manner as possible - that this is, after all, the only possible reason any of us could be here - and that all this discussing and arguing must - simply must - be conducted with certain prescribed steps, in a sort of ceremonial dance, rather like the Minuet, called Civility. Such people will not allow any explanation, however clear, to interfere with this all important commitment.)

JR

Edited April 3, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Xray]

Occasionally, I comment, usually in the spirit of correcting an error of fact or clarifying some point I know more about than most people. If people ask me questions about what I write, I usually attempt to answer them. The main exception is people like Xray, who (so far as I can see) have no interest in learning anything but only in getting other people to use certain phrases so that she can triumphantly jump on them with her Philosophy 101-level "proofs" that this, that, or the other point about Objectivism as Xray "Understands" It is incorrect. (She actually "understands" almost nothing, of course, in part because she can't be bothered to read anything any longer than a post on a discussion list.)

C'mon JR, on a public discussion forum you always answer to all those too who read your elaborations on a subject. Which is why your 'I'm not talking to you' argument is not convincing. What does it matter whether a poster whose take on an issue might not happen to match yours agrees or not with what you say? If your arguments are convincing, how can it matter to you how this poster may react to them?

Edited April 3, 2011 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

Occasionally, I comment, usually in the spirit of correcting an error of fact or clarifying some point I know more about than most people. If people ask me questions about what I write, I usually attempt to answer them. The main exception is people like Xray, who (so far as I can see) have no interest in learning anything but only in getting other people to use certain phrases so that she can triumphantly jump on them with her Philosophy 101-level "proofs" that this, that, or the other point about Objectivism as Xray "Understands" It is incorrect. (She actually "understands" almost nothing, of course, in part because she can't be bothered to read anything any longer than a post on a discussion list.)

C'mon JR, on a public discussion forum you always answer to all those too who read your elaborations on a subject. Which is why your 'I'm not talking to you' argument is not convincing. What does it matter whether a poster whose take on an issue might not happen to match yours agrees or not with what you say? If your arguments are convincing, how can it matter to you how this poster may react to them?

You can't read at all, can you? I'm not making an argument. I'm not trying to convince anyone. If you ask me a question, it goes unanswered for the reason I stated. If I'm unaware that anyone else is interested in what I might have to say about the question, why bother writing a reply?

JR

[sjw]

I have never put anyone on ignore before (which is saying something) but Xray is about to go on that list. One more bizarrely illogical context-dropping response to me and that's where she goes.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

> No, Phil, "everyone" does not "know this." [Jeff]

Yes, Jeff, everyone older than ten -does- know that personal attacks are inappropriate when people are trying to have a serious discussion about an important issue.

Even worse if it's your intention to be disruptive or you don't care about offering an argument.

(Whether you 'defeat yourself' or just damage the discussion of other people is a side issue.)

[sjw]

> No, Phil, "everyone" does not "know this." [Jeff]

Yes, Jeff, everyone older than ten -does- know that personal attacks are inappropriate when people are trying to have a serious discussion about an important issue.

Even worse if it's your intention to be disruptive or you don't care about offering an argument.

(Whether you 'defeat yourself' or just damage the discussion of other people is a side issue.)

You have a vision of what discussions should be like here and you incessantly say so. I think it's clear that Michael is not interested. And yet you continue. Is that polite?

I recognize that somewhere in your mind you've got some semblance of some kind of sort of good idea, maybe, but there's a really good way for you to find out. Found your own site. See what happens. But you get angry every time I suggest this. I think there's some kind of information in that that might be useful to you.

Shayne

[jriggenbach]

> No, Phil, "everyone" does not "know this." [Jeff]

Yes, Jeff, everyone older than ten -does- know that personal attacks are inappropriate when people are trying to have a serious discussion about an important issue.

Even worse if it's your intention to be disruptive or you don't care about offering an argument.

(Whether you 'defeat yourself' or just damage the discussion of other people is a side issue.)

As I said, Phil, if you don't like my posts, read somebody else's. I'd think you'd be too occupied with your dancing to pay any attention to them anyway.

JR

[George H. Smith]

> No, Phil, "everyone" does not "know this." [Jeff]

Yes, Jeff, everyone older than ten -does- know that personal attacks are inappropriate when people are trying to have a serious discussion about an important issue.

Even worse if it's your intention to be disruptive or you don't care about offering an argument.

(Whether you 'defeat yourself' or just damage the discussion of other people is a side issue.)

Why don't you just put Jeff on "ignore," if his posts bother you? I did this with you a few times, and it did wonders for my disposition.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> I think it's clear that Michael is not interested. And yet you continue. Is that polite?

Nice try. It's in the site guidelines.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Grade School Illogic

> As I said, Phil, if you don't like my posts, read somebody else's. [jeff]

> Why don't you just put Jeff on "ignore," if his posts bother you? [ghs]

> Found your own site. [shayne]

Notice the illogic here: Someone is doing something inappropriate or disruptive and the answer: "Just try to get away from it." No acknowledgement of the fact that it's -wrong- or disruptive to engage in personal attacks.

Student: "Johnny likes to slap me."

Teacher: "Why didn't you just move your face out of the way? Or you could run and hide every time he enters the room? Better yet why don't you transfer to another school, you troublemaker, instead of trying to change Johnny..... after all, bear in mind Johnny LIKES to hit people."

(There's the additional mistake that I wasn't talking just about one person but about a widespread tendency.)

Edited April 3, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Here is a fact, and I'm not attacking and have no ill will in saying this.

I have seen you disrupt more good discussions than anyone else I know.

People are sailing along just fine on a train of thought, but once you join, many times it becomes all about Phil. Not always, but way too many times to count.

Not just on OL, either.

Someday you might want to look into why this happens so often.

(Here it goes... dayaamm!... I've said it before and it's happening again... you bring out the damnedest maternal feelings in me and I ain't even a woman. I think you need a hug. Seriously.)

Michael