Minding One's Manners

It all depends James, on whether they think what they did was wrong or not.

I have appologised in just those circumstances. It wasn't a matter of grovelling before power, it was a matter of justice and honesty. I felt that what I said was wrong. I appologised for myself, and kept my pride. Pride in being honest and just. The value I persued in that act was being true to myself versus the lesser value of admitting my mistake to someone whom I strongly diagree with. I didn't appologise to make the other person feel better, or powerful. I told them that I still disagreed with them, but the use of ceratin terms was wrong on my part. Another illustration showing the correctness of Joe's article, in my view.

Ethan

Post 81

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:36am

"-- because I do not insult."

That's absolutely true.

I disagree.

Post 82

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:37am

I would like to make one point of clarification before signing off. As a capitalist, business owner, and rational human being, I completely understand that it is an owner's right to do as he pleases. All I am saying is that if rules are to be one-sided (and I am not saying they are in this case, as Joe has not yet had a chance to respond to my question), that does not necessarily make for an environment that is attractive.

What I do object to vehemently is, after making an honest inquiry, having my point of view (and questioning) referred to as infantile whining. If that is how questions are to be answered, I will ask no more of them.

Good day, SOLOists.

Post 83

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:39am

Ethan,

I agree with your statement and I have apologized under those circumstances too. I have learned over the years that people are constituted differently and I don't expect it of everybody. I have also had times when I've gotten my back up and wouldn't tolerate ill-treatment no matter the circumstances.

Jim

Post 84

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:46am

Objectivists as a group have a stronger tendency to overreact than others I've been involved with. Types of overreactions include:

1. People reacting to disagreement or employing in debate ad hominems or name-calling -- not just Joe and David, but anyone else on *any* thread, whether initiating it or responding in kind.

2. The owners taking action against people for just a single incident (not part of a pattern) of breaking the stated or unstated rules.

3. Outraged people losing their sense of perspective and getting ready to leave because of their disagreement with #2 or having a "perfectionist" standard under which they won't participate in (or will retain lingering disillusionment with)an organization like SOLO because its policies and its owners aren't "perfect".

What leads to the overreactions is an epistemological mistake and a behavioral mistake:

i) The tendency toward absolutism and intrinsicism in Objectivist circles in regard to how people and their mistakes are judged: context, extenuating circumstances, stepping back and getting a sense of perspective are forgotten.

ii) The maturity in "cooling off" and letting emotions cool and one's sense of proportion reassert itself is forgotten. As is the principle to count to ten or to sleep on it.

This led to escalating harshness in personal tone (even prior to actual insults) of both Joe and David...and of numerous other individuals on other threads or in the wider Objectivist movement. And this leads to the escalating reaction captured in #2, which then leads to #3.

So who's at fault, who erred in this issue?

Pretty much everybody.

Phil

Post 85

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:49am

Undersanding is a three-edged sword: Your side, Their side, and the truth.

I miss Babylon5

Ethan

Post 86

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:53am

I must say that I'm offended by the loose language here.

Given my high standards, you'd never catch ME calling someone here "an asshole."

So let's shape up, people.

Post 87

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:57am

Phil,

Great post. As I step back and get perspective :-)!! I even gave you a sanction this time ;-)!

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 6/13, 11:59am)

Post 88

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:57am

Jim,

My confusion got worse. You 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.

1. Public embarrassment? Is that what you call a demand for a public apology from someone who stated very publicly that a literary effort is a "wank-job" with scatological references, when he had never been addressed in those terms? Was no "public embarrassment" dealt to the author of that article? Do you find it wrong to seek redress in kind for that type of "public embarrassment"? In other words, is "public embarrassment" OK for one to inflict, but not for another to inflict (in the form of demand for an apology) in response?

2. Do you mean that demanding a public apology and enforcing it by being owner of a site is misuse of "power," but sneaking up on someone and blurting out in public a diatribe of foul language aimed at them is not a misuse of "power," the "power" to be published and read, despite any objections or provocation in kind from the victim?

I am not being facetious. I just don't like double standards or bad manners. Is there something I'm not seeing? Is ARI'S excommunication policies still too fresh in people's minds for them to be able to look at the facts here? From my view, having been absent for over 30 years, I see similarity in form to what ARI has done, but definitely not in content.

I don't know the history well enough, but I don't think anyone has published a comment on ARI'S forums against Peikoff or any other ARI director, starting off by stating that they were engaged in a "wank-job" (or similar comment) in one of their articles. From what I understand, not even an apology, public or private, would be enough to make up for that to them.

Michael

Edit - Rick Pasotto, an unsolicited apology was made in public. That to me attests to the grandeur of Barbara's soul.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/13, 12:09pm)

Post 89

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 12:02pm

Jen, would hate to see you leave SOLO. If you decide to jet we'll meet up again further down the dusty trail.

Lance

Post 90

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 12:07pm

Michael,

I'm willing to concede your points in this post have merit. I don't agree with it, but I think enough people have been figuratively shot dead in this argument already. I disagree and commit and we can talk about it on private e-mail if you want.

Jim

Post 91

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 12:20pm

I want to disagree with the characterization that what has happened here is unfair or one-sided. Someone else mentioned Usenet. The Usenet Objectivism forums are largely worthless abysmal sewers. We have to have standards here, or else one insult will lead to a worse one until we end up at the lowest common denominator. And we do have standards here. We have banned several people and moderated several more. This makes SOLO a much better place than if it were totally open. But to assert that "the rules of SOLO (unwritten but known to all none the less) allow insulting, yelling, and general misbehavior" means that anything goes is ridiculous. We are far more open than many other forums, but I must emphatically state that it is not the case that anything goes. The fact that we have banned and moderated other people in the past shows it. It does not have to be either-or -- it's not either no insults whatsoever or anything goes. We try to find the correct line to draw.

Also, to say that he didn't know that Joe owned the site is ridiculous. It says "Executive Director" right under his name on every post. Even if you only know the meaning of one of two words you should be able to figure it out.

But further, the problem is not that a host and owner was attacked. The problem was the sewer-level ridiculousness of the attack. I would have been in favor of moderation if that attack was directed at anybody. That it was at Joe of all people was just another straw. We will moderate or ban anyone that is that rude and who is attempting to destroy the wonderful atmosphere we have here with their petty bitterness. There is no double standard.

Post 92

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 12:30pm

In regard to my own point #2 in post 84, "The owners taking action against people for just a single incident (not part of a pattern) of breaking the stated or unstated rules", I'm not clear whether *moderation* meant removal of posting privileges in David's case...or simply that any future posts would be looked at before they were posted? If it's the latter, that would seem more understandable.

Post 93

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 12:39pm

I'm with Jennifer (post #59) on this one.

Of all the frequent posters, I find Linz to be one of the individuals to most frequently rant and heap abuse and insults at others - typically through a thin veil of "humorous" epitaphs which are substitutes for rational argument. So I find it ludicrous for him to be spearheading this cause. Who moderates the moderator?

Here are my comments on the issues that have been raised in this thread:

* I don't think anyone here needs a lecture on private property. I believe that everyone agrees that whomever the property owners of this forum are, they can do whatever they like: invite or expel anyone for any reason; dictate the decorum of the discussions; etc. However, in the name of objectivity, it would be nice if the owner(s) clearly spelled out the rules of conduct in advance and in writing so that members could have some idea of what they are accepting by participating. If the owners are to be treated by a different set of rules than others, clearly identify those individuals.

* I'm not a defender of David's comments to Joseph, but I do find it strange that they were singled out from among those made by others. It appears that the differentiating factor was that they were directed at one of the forum owners. Linz has stated (post #48) that there is indeed a double standard in effect for Joe and Jeff. I think this is a tragic mistake. I agree that it is inappropriate to hurl insults at one another and think it should be avoided in ALL cases. We don't have to be passionless in our responses to issues that are raised on this forum, but as mature adults, we need to accept the responsibility of insuring that as we engage in discussion, we do so within a framework of civility and respect. If that is done, then everyone receives the benefits that are apparently now only to accrue to Joe and Jeff.

* "If you truly itch to insult the principals here just because they're principals, then insult me." (Linz: post 48). Where does stuff like this come from? If insults were exchanged, they were in response to differing viewpoints expressed about specific topics relating to interpretations of Objectivism and have absolutely nothing to do with issues of forum ownership! I am constantly amazed at how an important topic can slowly mutate, as we see here, into unfathomable realms. And just to be clear, I'm not taking Linz up on his offer. I am trying to make a point and have no interest in insulting him any more than I do any other person.

* As one final observation, I am amused that Linz, who so often rails (rightly) against the nanny state for extending its parenting hand into inappropriate areas of our life, is so ready to jump in and discipline those of us he disagrees with, as though we were children needing to be spanked. (e.g., "I have rubbed the noses of the infantile prats who clearly need educating ...") I believe that most parents on this list could probably advise him about much more effective ways to raise children. I would like to add that he might get better results if he were to realize that we are, in fact, not children, and start treating us as adults.

Well, I guess it's time for me to "fuck off". Bye bye.
--
Jeff

Post 94

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 1:08pm

Give me a break.

"Wank-job" is the same as "intellectual masturbation". The latter term I have often used (I believe once on this forum) to describe people who write mostly to show off their pleasure in observing their own bombastic writing). It is a lurid term, but I've seen worse from many on SOLO, and when I use it, there is a mutual, unstated agreement between my opponent and me that all gloves have been taken off. Obviously, David didn't have that agreement with Joe.

In this context, David was angry with what he viewed as Joe's mischaracterization of his (David's) position, and this mischaracterization, in David's view, served purely as a means for Joe to aggrandize himself (Joe).

David's choice of language is as explicable as it is indefensible. The problem here is that rather than focusing on the problem with what David did (lewd profanity) and the appropriateness of the action taken in response (moderation), the point that owners have rights to do as they wish is being ultimately offered as the moral basis for the action taken.

Moreover, to abase David even further, the issue has been made public. So David's manhood has been challenged because his humiliation gets a wider audience.

Does David have to be shamed to post again? Now, even the SOLO owners can't back down because the stakes have been elevated.

Come on. "Wank-job" comments don't make you the scum of the earth!

Is this as good as it gets?

Post 95

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 1:48pm

Dayamm Jim!

Sorry, man. I am almost shooting my own self in the foot, as I explained in the e-mail. I'm not targeting you at all (much less shooting you dead!). I just got a bit wound up about the principles and principals involved. Of course we can disagree. For me it is an honor to engage you in any discussion, even when we do disagree.

Laj,

I most emphatically disagree with you. Making an apology apparently is only shame and humiliation to an Objectivist suffering from hardening of the categories. A fate worse than death. The ultimate in cruel punishment and torture.

But foul language and bad manners is foul language and bad manners anywhere else on earth. It is thus to Christians, Moslems, Buddists, New Agers, all of them - just not to badass rugged individualists who ain't going to take no shit from nobody and have REASON AND RATIONALITY to back it up (they think).

Maybe it is time for foul language and bad manners to be foul language and bad manners in Objectivism also. I am pretty sick of rationalizations about this. To paraphrase you, "Give me a break!"

I personally engage in both foul language and bad manners for my own reasons - usually playful. I see no gain in calling these things by any other name, nor by saying that they are justified when they are not. I rarely use them to offend - and that makes apologizing very easy for me. I have no wish for a person to harbor in his heart an offense I did not make, but my own behavior prompted. Especially if I am the one who engaged in foul language and bad manners.

If I did want to offend that person, then who knows? Maybe having to apologize in public would be a humiliation, since I really did want to humiliate that person myself.

Well anyway, how about another good idea for Objectivism that I see very little of in these types of discussions? How about just a little common sense and decency?

Michael

Post 96

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 2:04pm

No problem, Michael! My interest in this thing has fast dwindled to zero.

Jim

Post 97

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 3:31pm

Jeff makes a point so obvious that it shouldn't need to be made, but clearly it does. The way some folk have been going on, you'd think the SOLO board consisted of nothing but insults. The only sense in which that's true is the huge volume of *mock* insults that occurs, in a spirit of affectionate playfulness that I think is one of the Board's best features. But *real* insults? Unless I'm not reading the right threads, I think it's their very rarity that makes them so noticed.

In the past, there has been the odd offender who's slipped through the moderation process that everyone undergoes at the beginning & set out to insult everyone left, right & centre. Justin Raimondo & "Rooster Puke" come to mind. They got thrown off. There is no carte blanche to insult. Equally, we can't police every post just to see if it contains an insult. The only way to do that would be to have everyone under permanent moderation. That's not our way.

One other thing staggers me. You'd think, from the brouhaha here, that we'd not merely moderated David, meaning his posts are viewed before they're posted, but that we'd banned him outright & sent an assassination squad after him. What sort of seismic cataclysm would have occurred if we *had* banned him I hesitate to think. Again, I plead for a sense of perspective here. I still find it incomprehensible that someone can acknowledge that we have indeed created the "open sunlit field" of our aspiration, yet carp away about an insulter being moderated.

Sir Robert - I just want you to know that the wicked humour - & the significance of it - in your "ecumenical" post did not pass by unnoticed. Just so you know it wasn't wasted, you bad, bad boy. I hope it doesn't get you into trouble. :-)

Linz

Post 98

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 4:30pm

Lindsay,

I apologize for getting wound up today, but this thing really pissed me off. I'm on my way to forgetting the whole thing happened. The pleasant tone of your current post has done wonders for soothing my nerves. I look forward to David's posts coming through moderation and getting back to normal SOLO business.

Jim

Post 99

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 4:38pm