Minding One's Manners

I'm posting the following on several relevant threads:

I wonder at the message these public feuds are transmitting to the world. They seem to be saying that being an Objectivist -- like being in love -- means never having to say you're sorry.

Post 121

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:24pm

Robert,

Its just as I said in the "atlas" art thread. Arguments such as this only make the ones who hate Objectivism and SOLO laugh. It works only to their benefit.

Ethan

Post 122

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:27pm

What's so interesting about this tread are the people who hold an opinion one way on the ARI/Packard-Reisman personality differences and hold the exact opposite view on the Joe-Linz-Jeff/David personality differences.

Post 123

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:43pm

While I have not been around long, I have greatly enjoyed posting here and the interactions with a great many of the other posters. Among the people I like very much are those in all parts of the spectrum of this issue. Among those people, I very much like Jennifer, as I think many of you do also.

Linz, you have done great things, greater than I am sure I can know in such a short time. I have agreed that David's post was intolerable. Moderating him was very reasonable. I would have thought that a better approach would simply have been to ask him to apologize first and if he did not, then moderate him. This is a fine point, however.

One of the wonderful things that is happening at SOLO is the formation of many friendships among some unusually good people. While friendships do not everywhere seem to be much valued by many Objectivists, I do value them greatly. I see that many of you do also. For me, a friendship is a response to the good in another person. Like the word or not, that response is generally akin to love. Love, we have heard is exception-making. That was something of a short-hand I believe for "Love is a response to the total person, his ideals, his actions, and his sense of life. The person loved has earned loyalty, which is the virtue of keeping in mind the total person who earned your love, when a flaw presents itself."

Linz, did you think about this when you gave Jennifer good reason to believe that you were calling her an infantile whiner?

The danger in doing great work is that soon others will expect you to display great wisdom.

Post 124

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 8:04pm

Rick, as I believe is clear in the post to which you linked, I was in part joking (perhaps not very effectively) and in part indicating my very strong, angry, and tantrum-provoking indignation at your insistence that ""a 5-day old has no more right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered than a 5-year old or a 50-year old. Whatever the parents (or others) give the child are gifts."

Barbara

Post 125

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 9:04pm

Temper tantrums are not logical arguments and are quite unlikely to change someone's mind.

Post 126

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:59pm

Well, I had never read the other thread until today. If you have a baby and don't take care of it your lack of care is an assault on that child. The care as "gifts" is ludicrous. That's like saying my not assaulting you is a "gift." A true gift from such a parent would be to give the baby over to someone who would take care of it.

--Brant

Post 127

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 4:19am

I will make no more posts on this subject in this thread so as not to hijack it.

Nonetheless, what is ludicrous is equating action with non-action.

Post 128

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 8:18am

Rick, I'll recap on the thread "The Virtue of Selfishness and Children" and we can continue there. Take an hour or two.

--Brant

Post 129

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 10:39am

Joe, Jeff and Linz can do anything they want to on this forum. There can be no questioning their property rights.

Whether they OUGHT to ban or moderate people who offend them, whether being rude or holding contrary, but not without support in facts and logic versions of Objectivism, is another issue. It is the issue of may versus ought.

Ultimately, we can express our opinions as to where to draw the line, but as for each of us in our lives, we all draw our own lines. Objectivism (i.e., reality) can guide us as to principles that ought to guide running a forum like this. Maybe more on this later.

Let's get one thing straight. Joe has never been the first to pull out name-calling or insults. If you find Joe posting something insulting or condescending, it is after his 3rd or 4th time explaining something to someone who is being insulting towards him from the beginning. Joe is definitely more patient than I am. Even when Joe has someone dead to rights in an argument, he HAS NEVER NAME-CALLED OR INSULTED THEM without them first doing so, unless they are not taking the disagreement seriously, in which case, they are wasting Joe's time. I follow what Joe writes because he is a tremendously talented thinker and writer. He practices what he 'preaches.' Even if you do not like him, or agree with him as to his particular explanation of Objectivism, you MUST Objectively appreciate his contributions, his accomplishments. In light of this, if benevolence is a virtue, I have no idea why Mr. Elmore decided to open a critque of Joe's article as he did. I suspect that such a caustic opening coupled with a vicious attack on Joe's ideas, in combination, is what really ruffled feathers. Joe's mind is his stock in trade. Joe carefully cultivates and spends tremendous time honing and testing his ideas and the premises he holds. A vicious attack on them, coupled with name calling, is sure as hell not benevolent.

What I am saying is that Elmore's attack is different in KIND that Joe's occasional derisive post.

I have already posted in the past how much I like Linz, and how much I wish he would be less volcanic and abrasive when his shorts are in a bundle.

I'm neither a Perigo/Rowlands fanboy, nor a detractor. I see the tremendous good that they do, but also disagree on a few things.

Here is what should happen.

1. David Elmore should write a public apology to Joe along these lines: "Joe, I apologize for beginning my post with such abrasive and harsh language. I still think you are wrong on several points, but I agree that I was over the top. In the future, I will be a bit more reserved in the language I use to explain why you are wrong, to reflect that, while we disagree on the minutiae, as Objectivists, we probably agree on about 90% of the rest of life."

2. Linz should write a public apology to Jennifer along these lines: "Jennifer, we [SOLO] appreciate your contributions here greatly, and value you as a thinker and as a presence. I apologize if my words made you feel that I, and SOLO, hold you, and your thoughts, in any but the highest regard.

[These must be public because the insults and discussion has, thus far, been public. No grovelling, just an admission of error and mutualy respect. Nothing to be embarassed of, but instead, benevolent virtue to be PROUD of.]

3. A new policy of: A. Private contact with request for public retraction or apology of offending post; followed by B. Moderated status (is A is refused); and C. Banning (if B doesn't work), ought to be adopted.

I will leave with my thoughts on the dinner party analogy. You don't insult your host at a dinner party. As host, it is not okay to insult your guests. But as the host of the dinner party, I would NEVER allow any guests to insult other guests, beyond what I myself would stand for.

If we agree that this analogy has wheels, then it is silly to have a double standard for hosts of dinner parties and guests.

The issue is one of benevolence FIRST, and ownership of this site second. Offer benevolence until someone demonstrates that they are no longer worthy of it. And the door swings both ways.

Insulters and insultees in this instance all owe one another and deserve some benevolence.

Post 130

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 3:03pm

It seems to me that when you come out of the gates for article discussion with a line like that, you've compromised yourself. About the only way a line like that could be taken as anything but narcissistic, pompous, and goofy is if you had very little forum experience and just surfed in- maybe you would be in awe for a minute of such a master stroke. That kind of stuff has been around forever, I saw it in the green screen days. Hell, I wrote stuff like that. That kind of thing was elevated to an art form. Anymore, it just makes people think "Who the hell died and made you Elvis?"

Primary rule in email and posting: The irrectractability of the launch.

I mean, there are very few people that can pull that kind of thing off, and the ones that could, don't.

Post 131

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 6:03pm

Thanks for all of the support. Too many people posted to thank you personally, but know that I appreciate it.

For those who wanted to know what our policy is, I've written it here.

I did find a number of the arguments completely absurd. Let me just list a few.

1.) There was an equivocation on the phrase "open forum". We mean you can discuss any issue. We don't ban topics. Others have suggested it means you can be as hostile, rude, and vicious as you want to be. That anything goes.

2.) It was argued that someone needs to be warned not to be incredibly vicious and rude. 4 year-olds recognize this, but Objectivists are assumed to be ignorant.

3.) It was argued that a public attack should be handled privately, to spare the feelings of the attacker. Is this justice? I'll only note that this argument was made publicly and not privately.

4.) It was argued that because SOLO is a cesspool of hatred anyway, we shouldn't moderate anyone. First, it's obviously not as the same people have praised it up and down in the past. Second, it doesn't make sense. If it was a cesspool, that would be a very good reason to try to fix it! This argument is really a variant on the two wrongs make a right argument. Since everyone else is doing it (which they aren't), there's nothing wrong with him doing it.

5.) It's been argued that because I participate on the forum, any attack on me is justifiable. Wow. That's great.

6.) Lots of equivocating. Moderating someone is like murder. Moderating someone is just like ARI behavior. Pointing out that someone is being an asshole (when they are) is the same as David's attack. That since some people aren't very nice on SOLO, it's a cesspool of hatred and anything is allowed. Perspective is completely lost in attempts to make arguments.

7.) The most common argument is that there's a double standard and this kind of behavior is only a problem when the owners are insulted. This is the most interesting argument of them all. See, they can't really argue that David's behavior was appropriate. They can't even argue that moderation is too severe a reprimand for that kind of action. It's a difficult job defending someone who's obviously guilty. So instead, they have to play a different game. "Sure, it may be justified to moderate him, but only if you moderate everyone who acts that way. Otherwise it's unfair!" The argument is that he may deserve it, but other people do too, and they're not being banned. It's unfair!

Except as Michael Marotta brought up, Sumit Arora was. I banned Orion Reasoner for his disgusting attacks. I've banned several no-name people for theirs. We banned Regi and Cass and Citizen Rat for theirs. The list is long. Just go take a look at SoloRejects.com. We've issued a handful of warnings to people that they were pushing the limits, and some have quieted down and others have left.

Personally, I think David should have just been banned (I wonder if that would have been preferable to everyone instead of "publicly embarrassing him"). A number of the staff actually suggested it to me. Lindsay, always wanting to give people another chance, made me settle on mere moderation. He even decided that David should be able to come off of moderation if he simply apologized. Err on the side of leniency. On top of that, he wanted to make a public post affirming that we will not tolerate that kind of disgusting behavior. Especially when it's directed at SOLO itself or the owners.

I told him we didn't need to. Everyone should know there are limits to how disgusting you can be, and it's not our job to teach them. We've been far too lenient in the past, and it's caused nothing but trouble. But in the end, I agreed to go along with him and his generous approach. It would simply be moderation, with the possibility of an early parole via apology.

But nothing is ever good enough. And quickly this became a thread about how evil SOLO is for setting limits on abuse. The horror!

Post 132

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 7:20pm

Aw, come on, Joe! Some of us are supporting you!

Post 133

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 8:00pm

Thanks Scott. I did mention at the beginning of the post that I was thankful. And while there are many bad arguments being made, there have been excellent posts as well. But let me say it again. Thanks to everyone who supported me.

Post 134

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 8:47pm

Joe: " And quickly this became a thread about how evil SOLO is for setting limits on abuse. The horror!"

Don't you think this is at least an exaggeration? Most of the posts said that Solo SHOULD set a limit on abuse.

Barbara

Post 135

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 9:02pm

Barbara, is it an exaggeration? We had people arguing that he was never told that he shouldn't be rude. We had people saying that since he didn't know I contributed financially to the site, it was okay. We had people saying that it was an open forum, and so it should be permitted. We had people saying that because the whole website is cesspool of hatred, he shouldn't be reprimanded. And we had plenty of people who couldn't actually come out and say what he did wrong, at least not on this thread, and instead criticized SOLO's management.

Now if you want to be extremely precise, I don't know that anyone used the term "evil" to describe SOLO, so yes it was an exaggeration. But not quite in the way you seem to be suggesting.

Post 136

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 10:28pm

Joe,

Barbara is correct in saying it's an exaggeration because numerically most people (and the people sanctioning your posts) were greater than the number of people saying Solo was evil or more precisely mistaken for setting limits on abuse.

(People are often more stung by those who attack them and at first reaction think that they are greater in number than those who support them or don't attack.)

Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 6/15, 10:30pm)

Post 137

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 11:49pm

Joseph -- My impression was that almost everyone thought that SOLO has a great tradition and they just wanted some refinements to help it continue that tradition. The vast majority agreed that David was out of bounds and that moderation was deserved. Some hoped that everyone would take care not to abuse others and that the standards of respect would be raised in general.

For the record, I think that SOLO is serving a wonderful purpose. It brings many people together to talk about the philosophical issues that we think are critical. It enables many of us to find people worthy of our friendship and gives us the chance to form those friendships. It also gave me the chance to read your excellent article whose discussion David abused.

The creation of SOLO is clearly the result of a great passion by very enterprising and hardworking people. The foremost of these people may be you. Thank you for that.

One person can admire another person and yet disagree with them on some non-trivial matters. Please do not lose sight of the respect that almost everyone has for you and your work. If the results of your work were not great, no one would be so interested in enjoying it and trying to contribute their part to it. Strangely enough, if there were no suggestions for improvements, that would be a sign of lack of interest and your efforts would be for naught.

Post 138

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 10:01am

In the end, I think Lindsay kind of did David a favor. There are some places not far from here where it would have been self-managed, and we'd still be driving by looking at the roadkill.

That's why it's not a good idea to come out of the blocks like David did- I haven't looked back on his other postings yet, but people say there's good stuff in there. When you bust a move like that, you're just shooting yourself in the foot, and then someone will be wanting to push you down the stairs.

Post 139

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 12:16pm