Minding One's Manners

In some ways, this debate is the perfect example of Joe's article.

Ethan

Post 61

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:02am

Good for you, Jennifer! Linz may get a free market education yet!!

Jim

Post 62

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:15am

I understand property rights and I have no problem with them. But to me there is another principle at work - manners in general, as the title of the thread says.

In the lack of knowledge of who the owner is, or who pays, I usually follow one more rule outside of respecting property rights - I treat others as I myself am treated, and I start with cordial. Then if someone is nice to me, I am nice to them. Neutral to neutral. Snide to snide. This is a rule of thumb that I use as a starting point - not a rigid commandment.

So, if the owner of where I am at is someone who belligerently insults guests all the time over nothing, plays power games and generally engages in monkeyshines, I will probably tell him to go to hell, property rights or no, and leave. At the very least, I will certainly not stay. (btw - Anyone who thinks that this is what Linz does by his colorful style has no real understanding of the term "rational standard.")

In the case with David, I do not remember - from the posts between David and Joe preceding the blowout - David being addressed in the manner he addressed Joe, not even close. Joe did use the term "asshole" in a non-related post only after his own article and arguments were insulted way beyond rational discourse by one who was trying to raise arrogance to the level of a virtue and equating it with integrity. (Incidentally, that kind of sneering arrogance is extremely anti-benevolent.) Anyone who is interested in seeing how that developed can go read about it. I suggest going to the start of the thread and even reading the article, not just the post linked.

I can understand where some anger comes from, though. When one disagrees with another, it is often hard not to take certain comments personally. Many times, these are not even intended that way by the author.

I have a personal example right here on this thread. I grew up a good part of my childhood and adolescence in a trailer. My parents were very poor when I was born and a trailer was the best they could do at that time in their Homeric effort to get out of coal-mining poverty and join the middle class - and then go on to their retirement in a wonderful middle class "American dream" type neighborhood in Florida. I lived through that struggle and I am extremely proud of them - and I am extremely proud of that trailer, including the trailer park, lodged in my memory. A trailer was a step up for me as I was learning about life, not something to look down on.

So you can imagine how the term "trailer trash" grates on my nerves. It sounds like a slap in the face of one of the things I hold most dear in my parents' history. Would it now be appropriate for me to start a post by saying that Kelly is just masturbating, has diarrhea of the mouth and then open up with all kinds of foul-language invective, even if I "rationally" state why I used each word - and then later, after a general outcry, say I was only joking to call attention to my sensibilities?

I learned my manners differently when I grew up. To tell the truth, I would have gotten slapped up side the head for mouthing off like that.

But Kelly has always been very cordial to me. She knows nothing of my past. My manners dictate that I be cordial to her, even if and where we disagree - and even when she uses the term "trailer trash."

There is a line where I would initiate rudeness, though - if she expressed admiration for Hitler's social policies, for example, or some other absurd opinion. But nothing like that has happened in this whole affair.

btw - Kelly, I admire you tremendously for coming to bat for David, even in this sorry event. I would not do one thing differently in your shoes. That to me is part of what real love is all about. Also, please do not regard this post as a attack on David. I like him very much and enjoy his posts, even where I disagree. And I do disagree with him 100% on the issue of apologizing. I learned my manners in the South.

Michael

Post 63

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:26am

Why have we not heard from Joe himself on this?

I think Davids offending post was uncalled for, but was suitably, and with surgeons skill, answered by Joe on that thread.

In general, I say the insult speaks more to the person doing the insulting. David spoke rudely, but was ably answered, then and there, by Joe.

But SOLO is private property. Linz by speaking out on this says more about himself (his *valuing* of Joe and SOLO)than anything else. I value SOLO, and Joes contribution in time, money, intellect, passion, *more* than a doctrine of fairness which allows guests to insult fellow guest and host equally. How many who are going to Davids July 4th party would even think about insulting he or Kelly while sitting at their table?

John

Post 64

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:27am

Abolaji said:

Joe should make it clear that arguing with him can result in certain kinds of penalties

That should be insulting, not arguing. Big difference.

Post 65

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:29am

Abolaji,

I think your post missed the thrust of mine. I wasn�t presenting a complete argument against every point raised by anyone in this thread.

I�ll re-state my point using an analogy: if the CEO of a company choose the MBWA strategy (that�s Management By Walking Around, if you aren�t familiar with the term), that does not mean that s/he gives up all special aspects of their position. That they can do longer hire & fire, etc., etc., because they were acting too much like a regular employee.

The fact that Joe chooses to post on his own board doesn�t mean that he can�t put someone in moderation, decide what constitutes moderation, etc.

It�s true that there were also arguments presented on this thread about calling for more clear rules up front, but I explicitly was making no attempt to address that in my post.

Clearly ownership does not confer extraordinary rights beyond normal and reasonable use and the rights of contract; however, no one is disputing that. Clearly Joe was merely exercising his right to moderate his own forum as he see fit.

You talk about "murder" and being "above the law." There�s nothing even remotely like that going on.

Post 66

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:29am

I want to say that I have not kept silent about this issue because I have nothing to say. I have a great deal to say, but I prefer to say it privately to the people involved.

By the way, I object to being insulted -- I never have been on Solo -- because I do not insult. If I did, I would have no grounds to resent being paid in kind.

Barbara

Post 67

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:38am

Jim,

Regarding:

I find this argument to be little more convincing than Tom Rowland's argument on this board that Peikoff had the right to cut off George Reisman because he didn't have the standing to exercise fiduciary responsibility at ARI. After all, Reisman should have been honored just to be allowed to be in the presence of someone with the lofty stature of Leonard Peikoff. Nathaniel Branden said something roughly like this: There is no authority to whom it is safe to cede one's own judgment.

First, I can�t address Tom�s argument because I didn�t read that thread.

Second, I wasn�t calling for people to cede their own judgment. My point was only that the fact that Joe frequents his own board does not imply that he has to be treated like all other posters. He�s still the moderator.

I can see that people are jumping on my last paragraph and reading more into than what I intended. When I have more time later, I�ll attempt to write it more clearly.

Finally, I don�t understand your "second-handed" point (post 57). Who are you talking about here?

(Edited by Kernon Gibes on 6/13, 10:44am)

Post 68

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:39am

Michael,

I've made it clear that my problem was not with the moderation, but with the public embarrassment. Hell, Joe and Linz would've been well within their prerogative to summarily kick David off the site. That would've been a fact the rest of us would've had to take into consideration. But Linz's handling of this has been unacceptable. We've presented our arguments, Linz has presented his counter-arguments, now people can decide for themselves.

Jim

Post 69

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:47am

Maybe I'm the only one who sees the irony of insult-hurling on threads with the subjects of "Ethics" and "Manners". Mind-body dichotomy anyone?

For the love of Galt, is it too much to ask that the people who have no dog on this debate just shut up and let the people who are involved work it out on their own pace, publicly and/or privately? There's already too much noise. If we trust them to be rational, they'll work it out. After all, there is no conflict of interest among rational people. And they can be loud enough not to need "assistance". If you have some burning issue that needs to be addressed, do it in private, or limit yourself to a single post.

Freedom of speech my <bleep!> A loud argument between X and Y is not helped when A starts to shout at B for pointing out to C that D, who may support X, purports that E, who clearly supports Y, contends that F, who is in a dialogue with G, gets rattled by.........

Being Z, this will be my only post on this thread. I won't give any more damn even if α, β, γ, etc. jump on this fray.

Post 70

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:48am

Jim,

Sure this could have been handled privately. I said as much in my "opinion" post. That would have been my route. In the past and not on SOLO, I have ceratinly made such public accusations often to my loss and embarrasment.

On the other hand, David's post was public so......

This is why I said that we have a good illustration of Joe's article. David is now faced with weighing the virtues and values associated with his response. How does he balance honesty, objectivity, justice, and pride in this case? If they are rules rather principles, he will find it difficult.

Ethan

Post 71

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:51am

Kernon,

The second-handed comment was not directed at anybody. I'm simply saying that people should take their own responsibility for understanding Objectivism. Some of that my include consulting knowledgable people, but ultimately each individual's judgement is paramount. Forums where that is not the case are inferior. SOLO is a first-class forum.

BTW, I'm usually a very even-keeled person. If my anger has come out and offended anyone, I apologize.

Jim

Post 72

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:55am

num++

It's already a public debate, isn't it???????????

Post 73

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:56am

Jim,

I'm confused here. I thought you were saying this before, but now I see it being stated more clearly. Yet I still have to ask:

Are you saying that it is OK for a person to hurl gratuitous insults using foul language at another in public*, but a demand for an apology in public for that very same act is not OK as amends?

Why do I smell a double standard?

Michael

* "Gratuitous" according to the standard of treating others as you have been treated.

Post 74

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:02am

Michael,

My objection is to the public embarrassment in conjunction with a use of POWER. Reasonable people do not do this. I think this is an aberration and I hope I never see it again.

Jim

Post 75

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:04am

Barbara said,
"By the way, I object to being insulted..."

Me too.

"-- I never have been on Solo..."

You are too kind, Barbara. Even I remember a few posts from the past that I consider to have insulted you. I also consider it a good thing that most of those posters are no longer here...

"-- because I do not insult."

That's absolutely true.

Post 76

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:08am

James Heaps-Nelson wrote:

My objection is to the public embarrassment in conjunction with a use of POWER. Reasonable people do not do this. I think this is an aberration and I hope I never see it again.

I disagree. Reasonable people who have the ability to assert themselves via their assertion of their property rights will do so. I consider this an actualization of self-esteem and I expect to see it practiced consistently here.

Post 77

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:10am

Jim,

That argument has been done to death in the anti-war threads . If anyone should have the right to express their opinion, its those who pay for and run the site. This isn't some left wing fairness club. Frankly, if people don't want to be embarrased, they should be careful what they say.

I too noted that a public call for apology would not have been my tactic in this case, but to argue that it shouldn't happen because of the "POWER" involved is wrong. Come on!

Ethan

Post 78

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:14am

Angela,

I think that if you've debated enough Objectivists, the line is fairly hard to draw, especially when the Objectivist is convinced that he/she is right and that your position is immoral. In their eyes, all denunciations of you are justified by your immorality.

Good rhetoricians are also skilled at dropping subtle, condescending insults when arguing. You often don't notice those insults when they are not directed at you. But the intended audience gets the idea pretty quickly, because they hold the positions being questioned.

If I say "reasonable people should be able to see that my last post was beyond questioning" or "the subjectivists do not believe in equitability and fairness - might is right in their eyes", I'm naming no names, but I'm fairly sure that my words would be just as insulting to you (and others critical of my post) as what David wrote. David was just too obvious and easy to call out.

And I do not mean or intend anything insulting in the last paragraph, by the way.

Kernon,

If that is the case, then no one holds the position you were addressing. A CEO who creates policies that give him rights that are not due others who have done what he has is assaulting certain notions of fairness.

It is unfair for a CEO to join his co-workers playing basketball after work, where the rules of basketball apply, then fire the employee who blocks his (the CEO's) shot for embarrassing him unless company policy has explicitly stated that no one may embarrass the CEO. Otherwise, everyone was just playing basketball as usual.

It is the CEO's right to fire anyone. He doesn't have to have a good or rational reason.

Hopefully, this example works better than my last one.

Might doesn't make right. But I've learned enough in my past that appealing to notions of fairness should not be your strongest defense. The Founding Fathers felt the same way too.

Cheers,

Laj

Post 79

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:20am