TO WHOM IT MAY (OR MAY NOT) CONCERN

[jriggenbach]

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.

Do you ordinarily have this much trouble distinguishing between what is wrong and what you don't like?

JR

[George H. Smith]

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

You make an important point here.

Although I get into arguments much more than you do, this is largely because I post a lot more than you do. But even when I argue, I rarely if ever intend to persuade anyone.

For one thing, many of the philosophical and historical issues I discuss are so complex and require so much background that it would absurd to expect someone to change his or her mind on the basis a few comments by me. Indeed, I would be insulting the intelligence of people if I seriously expected this.

What sometimes happens is that readers might get some information from my posts, or perhaps a fresh perspective, that causes them to rethink their views over time, and in some cases this might bring about a change of mind. If this happens, fine; if not; that is fine as well.

Most of the philosophical issues I discuss on OL are issues that I have studied, discussed, written about, and debated for decades. I don't expect to learn much from others on these topics (though I don't rule out this possibility) simply because I've heard what they have to say, in one form or another, many times before -- e.g., from published sources, elist exchanges, personal conversations, and interactions with students.

There are exceptions, of course, such as Stephen Boydstun, who has contributed many excellent posts on the history of philosophy and who sometimes touches on areas that are relatively unfamiliar to me. But this rarely happens with other posters. This is not a put-down by any means, and it does not mean that I don't learn from other posters in areas they have studied far more than I have.

As for comments and criticisms, it didn't take me long on OL to get a sense of who gives some thought to their responses before posting, and I take their comments more seriously than I take the comments of others. I hesitate to give a list because I would inevitably leave some people out, but a partial list would include: Steve Reed, 9th Doctor, Michael, JR, Robert Campbell, Dennis Hardin, Mary Lee Harsha, Rich Engle, Brant, Merlin Jetton, Roger Bissell, William Scherk, and (more recently) Daunce Lynam.

I listed these names because, for all my reputation as a polemicist, you will find that, with rare exceptions, I don't respond polemically to these people, and I rarely if ever have resorted to invectives, even when I strongly disagree with them. (On those occasions when I have, such as during a burst of anger with Brant, I try to make a point to apologize.)

My polemicism and zingers are typically limited to people who are not on the above list. This indicates that I use polemicism deliberately. Whether Phil thinks this style contributes anything to the discussion does not interest me in the least, because in such cases it is not my purpose to contribute anything substantial to the discussion.

Ghs

[sjw]

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.)

What you always seem to forget Phil are the complexities of actually just adjudication. I think Michael does a great job given how much energy he's at liberty to put into it. I'm sure you think that adjudication is simple, but only in your own head is it so. Which is why I suggest that you actually try your idea in the real world, on your own, and see what happens. You'll quickly find that I am right.

Shayne

Edited April 4, 2011 by sjw

[sjw]

What you always seem to forget Phil are the complexities of actually just adjudication. I think Michael does a great job given how much energy he's at liberty to put into it. I'm sure you think that adjudication is simple, but only in your own head is it so. Which is why I suggest that you actually try your idea in the real world, on your own, and see what happens. You'll quickly find that I am right.

Shayne

But I should point out that this was not a thoughtful post, nor is this a thoughtful refutation of George's anarchism.

Shayne

[Jerry Biggers]

We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here.." but first a word from our 'sponsor'" (that's MSK). I've taken the liberty to directly quote from the posted guidelines for this site:

Posting Guidelines

1. Objectivist Living is a community of people with shared interests, people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects (including checking basic premises from time to time), the Brandens, fine arts and creating works. Members also present articles and links to their own activities and items they find interesting to share. Thus the tenor is slanted toward understanding, discussion and sometimes education, not preaching or conversion.

2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. This should not be seen as a harness on anyone’s intellectual ideas and expression. It is merely a standard for behavior between posters and the bar is fairly high on this forum.

That seems clear enough.

[sjw]

Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue.

That seems clear enough.

It's not clear how it could possibly work though. George for example is particularly clever with his insults. And that? Was that an insult to George?

Only one thing can work here, and that's Michael's best judgment. I sometimes don't like George's insults (although I have to admit much of the time I appreciate their humor even when aimed at me) but I'd like it less if he couldn't make them, and if he couldn't, he wouldn't be here.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

> I have seen you disrupt more good discussions than anyone else I know. [MSK]

What's disruptive is when people decide they enormously resent my criticisms and then launch post after post trying to "bring me down". Consider this thread as proof. Go back and read it. It's short enough. I didn't start off by attacking individuals but by critiquing a pattern and what consequences follow, I took the high road and talked about civility, etc. It was George, Shayne, Jeff, etc. who decided to attack me personally. And so then, I responded to them personally.

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

I know exactly why it is: Because if I see a mistake someone makes who is bearing the standard of a philosophy of reason - whether in logic, in civility, in facts, in rationalistic methods - I will criticize it. I just won't let them get away with nonsense or failing to be fully rational, fully factual.** And I've been doing that for several years, until people just let their resentment out.

Moral: People who pride themselves on how brilliant they are very often simply cannot take extremely strong criticism. No matter how politely expressed. They bristle at it and will eventually attack you personally for it. Unless they are -quite- unusually thick-skinned and objective people.

** just as an example within the last few hours, Robert Campbell posted an illogical criticism of Tara Smith on "pragmatism" -- on the "Ayn Rand Speaker Series 2010" thread. I woulnd't let that go by. I tore it to shreds, and I'm sure Robert would probably bristle with resentment . . . that is, if he didn't have me on "ignore".

Edited April 4, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

Moral: People who pride themselves on how brilliant they generally simply cannot take criticism. They will eventually attack you personally for it.

Phil:

Did you bold this to see who would help you put it into a proper grammatical sentence?

Adam

following George's new protocol

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Consider this thread as proof. Go back and read it. It's short enough.

Phil,

I just did.

Yup.

Disrupted big time.

Poor Jerry's points didn't even get off the ground. You started and almost immediately made it all about Phil.

You baited. Others showed up to take your bait. And here we are.

Like I said, one day you might want to take a fresh look at your premises--especially at your communication methods.

I honestly believe one day you'll figure it out. So I'm rooting for you.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

No. Here's what I said in my original post and was -immediately- attacked for:

<> 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". <>

.... Nothing there that was "about me."

Edited April 4, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

No. Here's what I said in my original post and was -immediately- attacked for:

<> 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". <>

.... Nothing there that was "about me."

Nope...not a single iota of the scope of your post was about you...

[sjw]

Poor Jerry's points didn't even get off the ground. You started and almost immediately made it all about Phil.

For the record, I think Jerry's points are excellent but misguided. The trouble is that many people are not here for actual rational discourse.

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.

The root cause for the low quality of much discourse is actually in the motives. The insults are just an outward, superficial manifestation of this underlying issue. The idea of taking ideas seriously is not seriously practiced by many participants here. And this isn't going to change. But the virtue of OL is at least those who do take ideas seriously can still carry on if they want and not get squashed by a zealous moderator. If we had Phil's moderation style, you can be guaranteed that people who had sincere motives would get squashed.

I for one think it would be nice to have a forum where every participant participated on the premise of taking ideas seriously, holding reason as the only absolute. Everyone would have to pledge to be arguing in good faith. Things would still be able to get heated, but I suspect that it wouldn't matter much to any participant. Such a forum might actually work, but I'm not inclined to create it. One downside is that some entertainment value would be lost, some might miss that more than others.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

I'll even -outline- my points above:

<>

1. Threads often start with a handful of posts on the subject and then get swamped when people get angry.

2. Fights tend to escalate.

3. Fight posts tend to swamp the other posts by an order of magnitude.

4. The posts on the subject then get buried.

<>

The solution:

First, disagree with me factually, logically, calmly on one of the above 4 points or where they lead.

Second, don't start attacking me personally, and then blaming that thread diversion on me.

[Selene]

I'll even -outline- my points above:

<>

1. Threads often start with a handful of posts on the subject and then get swamped when people get angry.

2. Fights tend to escalate.

3. Fight posts tend to swamp the other posts by an order of magnitude.

4. The posts on the subject then get buried.

<>

The solution:

First, disagree with me factually, logically, calmly on one of the above 4 points or where they lead.

Second, don't start attacking me personally, and then blaming that thread diversion on me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

You have set out a difficult task for yourself.

Everybody knows--in their personal lives--that the definition of insanity (from the addiction world) is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result--except the person who keeps doing the same thing over and over.

Wakening a person to this reality is very difficult. I know from personal experience of being the one who needed awakening, then watching in awe as I saw others go through the same process of denial I used to perform. Nowadays I've seen enough to no longer be in awe. This problem is what it is.

The human mind is a wonderful thing, but it can be quite complicated.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here.." but first a word from our 'sponsor'" (that's MSK). I've taken the liberty to directly quote from the posted guidelines for this site:

Posting Guidelines

1. Objectivist Living is a community of people with shared interests, people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects (including checking basic premises from time to time), the Brandens, fine arts and creating works. Members also present articles and links to their own activities and items they find interesting to share. Thus the tenor is slanted toward understanding, discussion and sometimes education, not preaching or conversion.

2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. This should not be seen as a harness on anyone's intellectual ideas and expression. It is merely a standard for behavior between posters and the bar is fairly high on this forum.

That seems clear enough.

Aren't these trading guidelines--not for eating?

--Brant

uh, oh

[syrakusos]

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

Then why not keep a journal, rather than posting online?

[Philip Coates]

Adam,

Do you truly not understand that most posts of opinion on these lists contain the first person singular? That when someone gives a viewpoint he will say "I think"? But that doesn't make the points he is raising about him.

I'm embarrassed to even have to point this out:

But Adam is now putting in red whenever I post -any- sentence with the first person. You just can't make this stuff up...

Edited April 4, 2011 by Philip Coates

[syrakusos]

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.)

"Jane, you ignorant slut..."

The real problem is "people like Xray." The problem is that people like Xray more than they like Jeff.

".... people [such as] Xray, who have no interest in learning anything..."

I must say that I never met anyone who had no interest in learning anything. Everyone above some minimal level - even downies - have some interest in learning something. Maybe I am wrong about that. How many other people such as Xray are there like this?

I never met Xray. I read her posts here. It seems obvious by inspection that she has some interest in learning because she learned to use a computer and she learned about Objectivism. She probably learned how to scramble eggs, but that may just be my own easy speculation.

"... so that she can triumphantly jump on them with her Philosophy 101-level "proofs" ..."

Ah! Jeff has a master's degree. So, unless Xray can show a trump card, she is asked to fold. (Bluffing is not allowed in this game.)

Basically, I guess I have to wonder why we all don't get moderated, except that some animals are more equal than others.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[George H. Smith]

What's disruptive is when people decide they enormously resent my criticisms and then launch post after post trying to "bring me down". Consider this thread as proof. Go back and read it. It's short enough. I didn't start off by attacking individuals but by critiquing a pattern and what consequences follow, I took the high road and talked about civility, etc. It was George, Shayne, Jeff, etc. who decided to attack me personally. And so then, I responded to them personally.

You should follow your own advice. Go back through this short thread, and then quote even one instance where I attacked you personally. I want to see the remark. I want to see what you regard as a personal attack.

Talk about a pattern. You often complain about personal attacks when there haven't been any. Consider this thread as proof.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

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.

Why is it so important that people agree with you? Please don't tell me that you are a social metaphysician. If you are interested in solving this problem, then ignoring posters who annoy you will solve it. If, however, your real interest lies in controlling the behavior of others, then you will never get what you want.

People often disagree on their perceptions of what is appropriate and what is not. Understanding and accepting this is part of what it means to be an adult. You can play Mrs. Grundy until the cows come home, and it won't change a thing.

Ghs

[sjw]

Why is it so important that people agree with you? Please don't tell me that you are a social metaphysician. If you are interested in solving this problem, then ignoring posters who annoy you will solve it. If, however, your real interest lies in controlling the behavior of others, then you will never get what you want.

People often disagree on their perceptions of what is appropriate and what is not. Understanding and accepting this is part of what it means to be an adult. You can play Mrs. Grundy until the cows come home, and it won't change a thing.

Ghs

Maybe he's just trolling us. If so he's the most brilliant troll in OL history, judging by the volume. Maybe MSK should ban him ;)

That'd be pretty damn funny, to get banned for telling people to be polite!

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

The last of the Mohicans.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If, however, your real interest lies in controlling the behavior of others, then you will never get what you want.

George,

That's exactly what some people seek to extract from Objeciivism. That's why they need an Objectivist movement.

It tears at their insides when they get to be in front of an audience, but can't control others as part of their show.

Phil's easy, though. Hell, I can do this all day.

The problem is it gets boring. Life is short and Phil's lamentations are long. And he wants to make sure we all know it.

Michael

[anthony]

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

Then why not keep a journal, rather than posting online?

Like Mike Marotta, I'm rather bemused by that. It is arbitrarily selective that the person asking a question doesn't merit a reply, but a general interest by others - which is hardly possible to ascertain - does. Why should numbers matter?

Anyhow, in general, engaging on forums, apparently one can take two approaches: either a direct communication with one other person, or a broad appeal to the dozens or hundreds, who will be looking in.

Or some combination.

For me, I'd probably get self-conscious if I kept in mind that this is a public forum, visited by, gawd! a lot of people. That's enough for writer's block to set in, and three posts a month all she wrote, from me. (Which some may think not so terrible to contemplate... )

Of course, this is no more that a perception, but I direct myself at that one member, or at most a handful with whom I've had pleasant/provoking/well-intentioned exchanges in the past.

To each his own, and many are comfortable with a general audience. I'm just a one-on-one type, I guess.

Tony

Edited April 4, 2011 by whYNOT