In praise of civility.

[Roxanne Appleby]

RA This thread is implicitly about the act of intellectual discourse, because that is all we do here.

Therefore, politeness is appropriate, or perhaps more precisely, there is no good excuse for impoliteness.


i disagree. there is no reason to see "Author's Forum" --or the internet generally--as "intellectual", without ramifications in the 'real world' and for 'power' issues. some of us are active at the local level; some of us may get together and act.

further, as the saying goes "ideas have consequences." the internet-- its postings-- is affecting US politics: from Drudge's report on Monica's dress, to the circulation of Smith's "macaca" remark, which probably (helped) cost him the senate election in Virginia.

recently, the Libby trial was blogged live, in real time, and bloggers' comments appear not just on the internet, but on TV, and a few quoted in newspapers. admittedly, some bloggers' wild and flaming comments may not be productive, but impoliteness, incivility, invective, insult and ridicule--esp. where provocative or amusing-- are often present.

i don't see comments here in AH as any different from letters to the editor, or emails to Larry king, or speeches in person at candidates' meetings. you can't be wild and incoherent and PURELY insulting and nasty, but deviations from politieness and civility are not uncommon or demonstrably unproductive.

Maybe I disagree, maybe I don't, but with this I think you will agree: Every forum has its own norms and code of conduct - you wouldn't use the same language in a letter to the NYT as you would in a raucus blog site. AH has a code in which insult, extreme rudeness, over-the-top sarcasm, etc. is not welcome.

 

[Pure]

if insult and rudeness are so unwelcome, why is it that threads amicus starts, with just such postings, are VERY popular-- LOTS of responses, and not merely counter insults and flames?

 

[damppanties]

if insult and rudeness are so unwelcome, why is it that threads amicus starts, with just such postings, are VERY popular-- LOTS of responses, and not merely counter insults and flames?

Because there's still hope in the world? And in the AH...

 

[Pure]

hope for Amicus? surely you jest!

 

[damppanties]

hope for Amicus? surely you jest!

Of course I do. I was just trying to get some lightness into the discussion. You and Rox get very serious sometimes.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Of course I do. I was just trying to get some lightness into the discussion. You and Rox get very serious sometimes.

Dampy! Fancy meeting you here -

Pure and I have fun, though. (I do, anyway - I assume he does too, and doesn't do this because he is a secret Catholic or something and this is his pennace for doing something really sinful.) As do all involved in Ami's flame threads, I suppose.

I'm glad that in general AH has a ethos that encourages debate that is predominantly civil. We are able to dig into some important or profound issues in a way that would be impossible, or at least very unrewarding, without this ethos.

 

[damppanties]

Dampy! Fancy meeting you here -

Pure and I have fun, though. (I do, anyway - I assume he does too, and doesn't do this because he is a secret Catholic or something and this is his pennace for doing something really sinful.) As do all involved in Ami's flame threads, I suppose.

I'm glad that in general AH has a ethos that encourages debate that is predominantly civil. We are able to dig into some important or profound issues in a way that would be impossible, or at least very unrewarding, without this ethos.

I turn up in the most unexpected of places, don't I?

Yes, I'm sure you and Pure have fun. I really couldn't think of any other reason why either of you would keep this is up otherwise. Um, I could, but I won't say it in public.

I'm really glad AH is the way it is too.

 

[Liar]

Amicus is simply saying it's foolish or misguided to say, "Well, things would have gone better if the parties were more civil/polite." Or, in simple terms, "Couldn't we just have a tea party?"

And I'm simply saying that that's not what this is about.

First: The option to bashing each other's heads and having a teapart is not the only ones.

Second: When arguing a controversial position in an assymetric conversation (where the other part is either powerful enough to threaten you or defends a position integral to current culture), is not very likely to convince anybody of anything. Like I said, the sheep who attacks the wolf makes a baaaad choice.

 

[rgraham666]

And I'm simply saying that that's not what this is about.

First: The option to bashing each other's heads and having a teapart is not the only ones.

Second: When arguing a controversial position in an assymetric conversation (where the other part is either powerful enough to threaten you or defends a position integral to current culture), is not very likely to convince anybody of anything. Like I said, the sheep who attacks the wolf makes a baaaad choice.

Not from the wolf's point of view.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

To put it another way, you catch more flies with honey with vinegar. Or something.

Here's an example of the efficacy or wrapping some sweetness around a political message (thanks to Vermillion):

http://static.flickr.com/73/195466364_c6d74de60b.jpg​

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...I my nose was itching and my ears were red for some reason.

Pure surprises me sometimes, then again, he does not, in my absence, he provides the impetus and in this example provided a cogent explanation of the position I stated, whether he, or anyone else, agrees with it.

Roxanne surprises me sometimes also, especially of late, purporting that disagreement and debate are amusing and for entertainment and express no real value in terms of the discovery of values cherished by some, loathed by others.

I suppose I worship and seek passion in life and all aspects of life, especially love. When I love, I love completely...when I hate, I do so in like fashion; there are few things I ever wish to be mildly civil about as life is so fleeting and love seldom lasts.

And ideas are perhaps even more passionately held than love for a woman, (I know, sorry...it would be 'civil' to say love for another person, but I do not feel that way, nor will I pretend.) Ideas involve not just the emotions, in which love is rooted, but occupies the mind and the joy of learning, of discovery, is a lifelong pursuit and always rewarding and I have not found women to be nearly as exciting as a new idea.

Thus I am passionate about ideas. Ideas concerning basic truths and human values, however they are defined. You may not be passionate if the society you live in forbids you more than one child; I would start a revolution or die in the effort.

You may think it a public obligation to have your son drafted into the military, I would fight with everything I could and if no recourse were available I would leave the society that sacrificed my rights to the good of the whole.

Not a real hard philosophy, or ethical and moral system I hold, in fact, much easier to comprehend, though difficult to practice, because rationality and reason and an adherence to reality is something almost everyone can do with a little effort.

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Is not the true sign of passion and love for an idea to exercise discipline in how one promotes and explains that idea, with goal being to attract and convince others of that idea, rather than to trumpet its superiority in ways that one may find satsfying but which are destructive to the ultimate victory of that idea?

(Posing this in question form is an example - it is less beligerant than just asserting this, and less likely to get the "back up" of the targeted audience, which would make that audience less likely to accept the virtues of the argument.)

 

[shereads]

Recusant.

Rombol'd!

 

[Liar]

Thanks rox. That saved me a lot of keystrokes.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Roxanne Appleby]Is not the true sign of passion and love for an idea to exercise discipline in how one promotes and explains that idea, with goal being to attract and convince others of that idea, rather than to trumpet its superiority in ways that one may find satsfying but which are destructive to the ultimate victory of that idea?

(Posing this in question form is an example - it is less beligerant than just asserting this, and less likely to get the "back up" of the targeted audience, which would make that audience less likely to accept the virtues of the argument.)[/QUOTE]

~~~

Insofar as ideas and debate are concerned Roxanne, I have over twenty years experience hosting or moderating radio and television talk and interview programs.

I did not spring from the earth fully prepared to do my first radio program and it took time to learn how to cultivate an audience and how to tease/seduce them into responding. Tnere is no doubt a good bit of the 'show biz' aspect enters my debate style on this forum.

Judge for yourself, as someone mentioned, if my stylistic anomalies are successful in generating discussion.

Arriving at 'truth' is another matter and you and I both know this forum, by the very nature of this site, is heavily tilted in one direction. Makes easy game for me.

Secondly, and you may not appreciate this, but one can vary an approach or a style to suit the environment in the pursuit of ideas or controversy as well as the pursuit of a woman.

Some like candlelight and dinner and maybe a play or a classical concert, a little gentile wooing along the way.

Some women see through the formal seduction scene and want a liplock and a hairpull even before the rendezvous gets fully underway.

Some like it up against the wall or down in the mud, blood and beer. I claim no universal truths when it comes to styles of seduction and conquest, nor will I even recommend my methods as efficacious in all aspects.

That tongue in cheek and 'civil' enough to suit you, m'dear? Lay down, I think I love you.


chuckles



amicus...

 

[mckai777]

Rombol'd!

Infirm of purpose!

 

[shereads]

I must admit to being left (uncharacteristically) speechless at being accused earlier of having "your head up your ass." On a "Civility" thread. By the maker of the thread.

I think you misread what was intended as a compliment, RA. Among the Haush tribes, a now-extinct aboriginal society of Tierra del Fuego, it was common for friends to greet each other by complimenting each other's physical attributes. Going for the obvious (pretty eyes, nice smile) would have been considered lazy, and therefore insulting. To show genuine appreciation, a compliment had to be entirely original.

As you can imagine, the longer this custom was practiced, the more difficult it became to deliver a compliment that hadn't been used before. The simple exchange of greetings could require so much thought and preparation, many people gave up and lived in seclusion, rather than risk insulting their former friends. Over time, the civilization dwindled to a few polite hermits and unmannerly social rejects, and then died out altogether.

In the century or so preceding the end of Huash society, an exchange between two friends determined to continue the tradition might have gone like this,

"The hair that grows from your ears is more lovely than a guanaco's pelt."

"Thanks. Your ass is so fine, I'm surprised you don't keep your head in there."


~ ~ ~

That's just one example of the destructive power of too much civility.

 

[kendo1]

Ah!
I think I've figured out the problem.

ami uses the word 'Truth' instead of 'solution', or 'concensus'

Personally, I think he should use 'rectitude', it has a nice ring to it- as if someone is talking out their ass.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think you misread what was intended as a compliment, RA. Among the Haush tribes, a now-extinct aboriginal society of Tierra del Fuego, it was common for friends to greet each other by complimenting each other's physical attributes. Going for the obvious (pretty eyes, nice smile) would have been considered lazy, and therefore insulting. To show genuine appreciation, a compliment had to be entirely original.

As you can imagine, the longer this custom was practiced, the more difficult it became to deliver a compliment that hadn't been used before. The simple exchange of greetings could require so much thought and preparation, many people gave up and lived in seclusion, rather than risk insulting their former friends. Over time, the civilization dwindled to a few polite hermits and unmannerly social rejects, and then died out altogether.

In the century or so preceding the end of Huash society, an exchange between two friends determined to continue the tradition might have gone like this,

"The hair that grows from your ears is more lovely than a guanaco's pelt."

"Thanks. Your ass is so fine, I'm surprised you don't keep your head in there."

Uh huh.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . Secondly, and you may not appreciate this, but one can vary an approach or a style to suit the environment in the pursuit of ideas or controversy as well as the pursuit of a woman.

C'mon Ami, be honest - on this issue do you ever use the "flowers and sweet talk" approach? Because I've seen a number of speakers from that "in your face" wing of the O'ist "movement," in a variety of settings, and almost without exception they use the same confrontational style regardless of the venue.

(Yaron Brock came close to being an exception as long as he was talking about pure philosophical and cultural matters -and he was very engaging and convincing - but when current events and movement personalities were introduced, off came the gloves.)

 

[Guest]

Ah!
I think I've figured out the problem.

ami uses the word 'Truth' instead of 'solution', or 'concensus'

Personally, I think he should use 'rectitude', it has a nice ring to it- as if someone is talking out their ass.

BWAH!!!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by kendo1
Ah!
I think I've figured out the problem.

ami uses the word 'Truth' instead of 'solution', or 'concensus'

Personally, I think he should use 'rectitude', it has a nice ring to it- as if someone is talking out their ass.

BWAH!!!

I dunno - I suppose some would say that given his style of address he asks for it. I still don't like it, and - giving it on a civility thread?

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Roxanne Appleby]C'mon Ami, be honest - on this issue do you ever use the "flowers and sweet talk" approach? Because I've seen a number of speakers from that "in your face" wing of the O'ist "movement," in a variety of settings, and almost without exception they use the same confrontational style regardless of the venue.

(Yaron Brock came close to being an exception as long as he was talking about pure philosophical and cultural matters -and he was very engaging and convincing - but when current events and movement personalities were introduced, off came the gloves.)[/QUOTE]

~~~

Just so there is no misunderstanding Roxanne, I have and have never had any connection with the Objectivist Movement, as it were. The last contact was some thirty years ago when I gave a speech at the headquarters during a speech contest in which I placed second with a silver medal.

Thus I know nothing of the current status of anyone connected with the movement even to the point of knowing any names associated, I simply do not.

My awareness of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy, is solely from her books and newsletters.

I did, however, at the University of Hawaii, give weekly lectures and lead meeting groups discussing each months issue of the Newsletter with an average class of about fifteen students.

To be honest, the 'flowers and sweet talk', method is never permitted to be utilized on this forum, and you know this as well as I, as the advocates of the left in such things as abortion, gay mariage and rights, feminism, environmentalism and global warming, are iron clad in their positions and not open to discussion, they have 'seen the light' and are iron clad and immovable in their positions. Ridicule and overwhelming evidence doesn't even slow them down.

Take a vote or a poll here, someone. I estimate that nine out of ten favor abortion, gay marriage and believe global warming is the result of the actions of man. Nine out of ten...take that to the bank.

One can always debate reasonably when logic and rationality in concert with a recognition of reality as an absolute to form a foundation upon which to build a discussion. Without those ingredients it becomes just another subjective argument with 'opinions' reigning supreme.

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

PS to my previous post about Kendo and Sarah's posts:

To Ami: Returning to Liar's point, and my concurrence with it, this is a good example of why I think he's right. There are those here whose attitude toward the idea of O'ism is the one expressed here in the quoted posts. I don't know what Kendo and Sarah think about Objectivist ideas, if they know much about them, if they care. If you were expressing the ideas in a polite and respectful manner, I doubt these two individuals would talk this way, regardless of what they think of the ideas. If they were interested, they would most likely debate the content in a civil manner.

But let's imagine that Kendo and Sarah were hostile toward these ideas: Using that impolite and disrespectful style would give them "cover" under which they could mock those ideas with statements like Kendo's that are directed toward the proponent of the ideas, or really, the style in which that proponent expresses them.

It pains me to see posts like Kendo's, because I am almost totally in agreement with these ideas, and think the world would be a much better place if they were broadly accepted. But given the beligerancy with which these ideas are so frequently expressed, I am disarmed in the face of a post like his.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

To be honest, the 'flowers and sweet talk', method is never permitted to be utilized on this forum . . .

Oh? I see someone cited in your sig: "In fond memory of Colleen Thomas."

She was a lot more than "flowers and sweet talk," but she was a lot closer to that that what we're talking about here. And she changed some minds.