George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 How to Reclaim Civil DiscourseYou forgot to list the subtitle: How to make OL the most boring website in the universe. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I have never had a problem with polemical exchanges, including so-called personal attacks, on OL.In my experience you have a problem having a debate that doesn't include ad hominem dripping out of almost every single one of your posts.What I cannot abide are hypocrites who preach one thing and practice another....If you two want civility, then start by setting personal examples via your own posts. Practice what you preach, for a change.It is not hypocritical to ask someone to refrain from punching you and then if they don't, to punch back. You're the hypocrite -- you want frontier justice, and then whine when you get it. I for one will *not* be "setting an example", which in this environment means "disarming myself." What was that Rothbard said about you being a pacifist? How fitting.Phil is easily the most condescending poster on OL, and you are one of the most obnoxious. Yet both of you frequently whine about the incivility on OL. The rountine excuse that both of you use, "But he started it," is what we would expect from five-year olds.More pacifist nonsense. When you initiate something that is most definitely a reason for me finishing it.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 How to Reclaim Civil DiscourseYou forgot to list the subtitle: How to make OL the most boring website in the universe. GhsIf you're right then the experiment will be a total failure, no one will post there, it won't turn the whole website into "the most boring website in the universe". What are you afraid of George? That a tiny area of OL that requires civil discourse might end up being a success? You'd still be free to rant and rave your ad hominems all over the place. Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 MSK is somewhat elastic about civility rules on OL. He won't abide a bully bullying but will let people who can take care of themselves in this Internet context take care of themselves--that is, the bully, if he be one. This is a valid generalization with a few particular variations. Those who want to be children instead of adults will only make themselves look foolish. Thus it doesn't matter if Shayne and George go all at it for when all is said and done both'll be still standing, the relative degrees of height determined by the relative degrees of argument apart from all this shit and that, if that's what it be. So, Shayne, you'll get nowhere requesting a Dan Ust approach to discourse. Let's all be thankful for this lack of entertaining entertainment. Dan is like watching a steamroller roll over--whatever--maybe not so slowly but damn inexorably.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 MSK is somewhat elastic about civility rules on OL. He won't abide a bully bullying but will let people who can take care of themselves in this Internet context take care of themselves--that is, the bully, if he be one. This is a valid generalization with a few particular variations. Those who want to be children instead of adults will only make themselves look foolish. Thus it doesn't matter if Shayne and George go all at it for when all is said and done both'll be still standing, the relative degrees of height determined by the relative degrees of argument apart from all this shit and that, if that's what it be. So, Shayne, you'll get nowhere requesting a Dan Ust approach to discourse. Let's all be thankful for this lack of entertaining entertainment. Dan is like watching a steamroller roll over--whatever--maybe not so slowly but damn inexorably.--BrantWell, I'm not suggesting a Dan Ust style, I'm suggesting a Brant style, a GHS style, a Phil style, a Shayne style -- if you start the thread in the gentlemen's area, then you specify the rules for that thread and only that thread.But I'm not going to strongly advocate this either, I'm just tossing out an idea. It's Michael's site and his prerogative. That's what I keep trying to tell Phil.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I have never had a problem with polemical exchanges, including so-called personal attacks, on OL.In my experience you have a problem having a debate that doesn't include ad hominem dripping out of almost every single one of your posts.You have obviously not read many of my posts, aside from the ones addressed to you. Yes, I am often polemical, but I also will stack up the overall substantive content of my posts against anyone on this list. What I cannot abide are hypocrites who preach one thing and practice another....If you two want civility, then start by setting personal examples via your own posts. Practice what you preach, for a change.It is not hypocritical to ask someone to refrain from punching you and then if they don't, to punch back. You're the hypocrite -- you want frontier justice, and then whine when you get it. I for one will *not* be "setting an example", which in this environment means "disarming myself." What was that Rothbard said about you being a pacifist? How fitting.When did I ever say I was a pacifist? In your view, you are always "punching back." In your view, you are a model of civility until provoked. In other words, you are delusional.Phil is easily the most condescending poster on OL, and you are one of the most obnoxious. Yet both of you frequently whine about the incivility on OL. The routine excuse that both of you use, "But he started it," is what we would expect from five-year olds.More pacifist nonsense. When you initiate something that is most definitely a reason for me finishing it.You use the term "pacifist" with typical imprecision. I don't preach civility. I never have and I never will. But you and Phil often do. The difference is that I am not a hypocrite. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 MSK is somewhat elastic about civility rules on OL. He won't abide a bully bullying but will let people who can take care of themselves in this Internet context take care of themselves--that is, the bully, if he be one. This is a valid generalization with a few particular variations. Those who want to be children instead of adults will only make themselves look foolish. Thus it doesn't matter if Shayne and George go all at it for when all is said and done both'll be still standing, the relative degrees of height determined by the relative degrees of argument apart from all this shit and that, if that's what it be. So, Shayne, you'll get nowhere requesting a Dan Ust approach to discourse. Let's all be thankful for this lack of entertaining entertainment. Dan is like watching a steamroller roll over--whatever--maybe not so slowly but damn inexorably.--BrantWell, I'm not suggesting a Dan Ust style, I'm suggesting a Brant style, a GHS style, a Phil style, a Shayne style -- if you start the thread in the gentlemen's area, then you specify the rules for that thread and only that thread.But I'm not going to strongly advocate this either, I'm just tossing out an idea. It's Michael's site and his prerogative. That's what I keep trying to tell Phil.ShayneNo, no, no. Michael is too busy with everything. You want to pay him? Go ahead, but I'm telling you now nobody will show up but you. I told you once how to deal with George by PM, but you didn't and now you complain about him still. I can only conclude you're blowing smoke here.--Brantdon't do or respond to ad h. and that'll be that in a very few posts!--then see what's left over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 In your view, you are always "punching back." In your view, you are a model of civility until provoked. In other words, you are delusional.Finally! The Viagra kicking in is it? I thought you'd be at it all night. ("That's what she said...")I don't preach civility. I never have and I never will. But you and Phil often do. I don't "preach" civility, I requested a debate with you devoid of ad hominem in order to have more efficient, productive discourse. And I'm not "preaching" it here either, I'm suggesting a resolution.The difference is that I am not a hypocrite. It's pretty damn easy not to be a hypocrite when you have no standards. In any case, when I suggested a debate with you with civilized rules, I meant for them to be applied to both of us equally. But I'm not going to abide by rules you routinely break. If you think that's hypocritical then you're an intrinsicist. Oh wait, I already learned that given your intrinsicist definition of government.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 How to Reclaim Civil DiscourseYou forgot to list the subtitle: How to make OL the most boring website in the universe. GhsIf you're right then the experiment will be a total failure, no one will post there, it won't turn the whole website into "the most boring website in the universe". What are you afraid of George? That a tiny area of OL that requires civil discourse might end up being a success? You'd still be free to rant and rave your ad hominems all over the place. ShayneThere are already many civil threads on OL. I have posted on many of them, as have you. But we don't need rule-bound mentalities dictating what is and is not permitted. Have you noticed that you are given a choice as to which threads you follow and contribute to? Has anyone put a gun to your head and demanded that you read and contribute to polemical threads? And have you noticed that you can skip polemical posts as you scroll down a thread? If a thread contains substantial substance, then readers with an interest in that subject matter will tend to follow it. If you or Phil should ever start a thread with substance, then many people will follow it, regardless of your dumbass rules. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 If you think that's hypocritical then you're an intrinsicist. Oh wait, I already learned that given your intrinsicist definition of government.Do you have any idea what "intrinsicist" means? If so, please favor us with a definition. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It's pretty damn easy not to be a hypocrite when you have no standards.... I didn't say it was easy for you not to be a hypocrite. But your confession came as a surprise, and I thank you for it. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 No, no, no. Michael is too busy with everything. You want to pay him? Go ahead, but I'm telling you now nobody will show up but you.What I am suggesting would not require intensive moderation. If it did I wouldn't suggest it. If it turned out to require it then I would retract the suggestion.Besides, you contradict yourself. If no one would show up, then there'd be nothing to moderate.I told you once how to deal with George by PM, but you didn't and now you complain about him still. I can only conclude you're blowing smoke here.So, if I don't take your advice, I'm blowing smoke. OK. Gotcha. Actually what happened is that we finally had a polite debate going, and then George lapses into an intrinsicist fit. It wasn't the ad hominem that killed it, the debate actually was legitimately finished at a fundamental philosophical difference, in spite of the inefficiency. So I can't complain that George didn't debate me, he did.--Brantdon't do or respond to ad h. and that'll be that in a very few posts!--then see what's left overNot saying you're not right though...Shayne -Geez, it's just an idea for an experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 But we don't need rule-bound mentalities dictating what is and is not permitted.I don't know if you know this or not, but there are rules at OL that dictate what is and is not permitted.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 But we don't need rule-bound mentalities dictating what is and is not permitted.I don't know if you know this or not, but there are rules at OL that dictate what is and is not permitted.ShayneI spoke of "rule-bound mentalities," not rules per se. Michael does not have a rule-bound mentality. You and Phil do. If either of you were moderating this list, none of the better posters would participate in it, at least not on a regular basis. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The hour is late, and tomorrow I must once again rejoin the real world. <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UPw-3e_pzqU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 "Did you ever have the feeling that you wanted to go,and also have the feeling that you wanted to stay?"Al Pacino (again) in Scent of a Woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 "Did you ever have the feeling that you wanted to go,and also have the feeling that you wanted to stay?"Al Pacino (again) in Scent of a Woman. OL is a difficult addiction to quit, even temporarily. You tell yourself, "I will just do one line, and that's all" -- and before you know it you've gone through an eight-ball. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 If people want a gentlemen's area, I have a practical suggestion.There's the entire Internet out there just waiting for someone to make one. Lots of free platforms, too.Whoever sets one up can link to it from here.That way, as an added benefit, the person who set it up can be in charge.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 But we don't need rule-bound mentalities dictating what is and is not permitted.I don't know if you know this or not, but there are rules at OL that dictate what is and is not permitted.ShayneI spoke of "rule-bound mentalities," not rules per se. Michael does not have a rule-bound mentality. You and Phil do. If either of you were moderating this list, none of the better posters would participate in it, at least not on a regular basis. GhsYou spoke of dictating what is and is not permitted, but I actually expected precisely this weaselly answer back from you.And, again, I am not suggesting that the list be moderated. I know, it's complicated.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 But we don't need rule-bound mentalities dictating what is and is not permitted.I don't know if you know this or not, but there are rules at OL that dictate what is and is not permitted.ShayneI spoke of "rule-bound mentalities," not rules per se. Michael does not have a rule-bound mentality. You and Phil do. If either of you were moderating this list, none of the better posters would participate in it, at least not on a regular basis. GhsYou spoke of dictating what is and is not permitted, but I actually expected precisely this weaselly answer back from you.And, again, I am not suggesting that the list be moderated. I know, it's complicated.ShayneIt's not complicated at all. If you don't like the tone of a thread, then don't read it or participate in it. And if you don't want to provoke incivility, then don't start any more of your moronic threads claiming that Rand has no theory of rights, that libertarian anarchists are "overgrown teenagers," and the like. Polemical threads typically provoke polemical comments. Suppose I started a thread titled "Is Shayne Beavis or Butthead?" and then feigned surprise when you responded in an uncivil manner: "Gee,everything was going really well until Shayne got nasty. I wanted to have a civil discussion about whether Shayne is more like Beavis or more like Butthead. I happen to believe that Shayne is smarter than Beavis and dumber than Butthead, but reasonable people may disagree. If Shayne promises to be polite, then I will debate this subject with him in a gentlemanly manner."This is just a hypothetical example, of course. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It's not complicated at all. If you don't like the tone of a thread, then don't read it or participate in it.Are you really that dumb George or is this just you trying and failing to score the cheap shot? The point at issue is a thread that starts off being productive and ends up as a snipe fest. The "tone" of the thread is not some mystical property that keeps unethical debaters out.The problem with you is that you spend so much effort on insults that it often makes you appear to be quite stupid. That can't be the case can it? Because if you are that stupid I'm going to have to go even easier on you than I have been.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It's not complicated at all. If you don't like the tone of a thread, then don't read it or participate in it.Are you really that dumb George or is this just you trying and failing to score the cheap shot? The point at issue is a thread that starts off being productive and ends up as a snipe fest. The "tone" of the thread is not some mystical property that keeps unethical debaters out.The problem with you is that you spend so much effort on insults that it often makes you appear to be quite stupid. That can't be the case can it? Because if you are that stupid I'm going to have to go even easier on you than I have been.ShayneAwh! The famous, humanitarian and jejune argumentum ad stupidum!--Brantan ad hominem sub-category Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It's not complicated at all. If you don't like the tone of a thread, then don't read it or participate in it.Are you really that dumb George or is this just you trying and failing to score the cheap shot? The point at issue is a thread that starts off being productive and ends up as a snipe fest. The "tone" of the thread is not some mystical property that keeps unethical debaters out.The problem with you is that you spend so much effort on insults that it often makes you appear to be quite stupid. That can't be the case can it? Because if you are that stupid I'm going to have to go even easier on you than I have been.ShayneAwh! The famous, humanitarian and jejune argumentum ad stupidum!--Brantan ad hominem sub-categoryThe point seems simple enough Brant. And I'm serious. I don't comprehend how George could be that dumb.Shayne -Solve the puzzle don't just take cheap shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It's not complicated at all. If you don't like the tone of a thread, then don't read it or participate in it.Are you really that dumb George or is this just you trying and failing to score the cheap shot? The point at issue is a thread that starts off being productive and ends up as a snipe fest. The "tone" of the thread is not some mystical property that keeps unethical debaters out.The problem with you is that you spend so much effort on insults that it often makes you appear to be quite stupid. That can't be the case can it? Because if you are that stupid I'm going to have to go even easier on you than I have been.ShayneA discussion about "Is Shayne Beavis or Butthead?" could be very productive, unless you turned it into a snipe fest. Let's test it out, shall we?I said before that you are smarter than Beavis and dumber than Butthead. Do you agree or disagree? I have asked a civil question, on a par with "Are Anarchists Overgrown Teenagers?" --so no sniping, please. I expect you to be a gentleman.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) It seems pretty obvious, Shayne, that George doesn't care for your proposed format. And this opinion of mine is also based on over ten years of Internet experience with him. However, I'll leave you two at it. --Brant Edited February 22, 2011 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now