Censorship by mob rule

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

What do people expect when they trash the board, its administrators, and its membership as a whole and as individuals? "Thank you for your fruitful contribution"? Spare me.

[godfry n. glad]

America! Fuck yeah!

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by maddog

Or if someone says something they regard as stupid or fallacious or whatever, they are "justified" in "calling them on it."

What of out-and-out lying?

It's up to every individual one of us to exercise integrity in the moment of choice.

Hmm. That would seem to me to be a very subjective assessment. In the case of an out-and-out lie, where someone felt "justified" in "calling them on it," I would imagine that the suggestion that said person was exercising integrity in not calling them on it would conceivably turn that idea of integrity on its head.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I don't get the lynching analogy, no individual member here has any power to stop her from posting if she wants to continue posting.

I don't mean to say it has happened here. As for the analogy, where it breaks down is that a physical lynching requires nothing more than the determination of enough people to do it, while on a board, the victim has to display a weakness which the mob can exploit so as to turn him or her into a pariah in the eyes of the membership. Not much sense in posting when you know you're not going to be listened to.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

So, I'm a dick, and I chose to be a dick. I can certainly cop to that.

Whoa, that post certainly changed after I viewed it!

And, fair enough, taking responsibility for one's own behavior.

I'm not certain, however, why anyone would want deliberately to choose to be obnoxious, as I don't understand what principle of their character or values it expresses. "Copping to" the fault of acting badly is not, however, simply a license to behave badly. "It's okay, I can continue to be a jerk, b/c at least I'm honest enough to say that I know and am choosing to be a jerk." That doesn't stop the hurt that happens when I choose to be a jerk.

It reminds me of Michael Josephson's story about Will ,

a nine-year-old whose father abandoned his mom two years earlier. Will was angry, and he often would lash out at others with hurtful words. He once told his mom, "I see why Dad left you!"

Unable to cope with his outbursts of cruelty, she sent Will to spend the summer with his grandparents. His grandfather’s strategy to help Will learn self control was to make him go into the garage and pound a two-inch-long nail into a four-by-four board every time he said a mean and nasty thing. For a small boy, this was a major task, but he couldn’t return until the nail was all the way in. After about ten trips to the garage, Will began to be more cautious about his words. Eventually, he even apologized for all the bad things he’d said.

That’s when his grandmother came in. She made him bring in the board filled with nails and told him to pull them all out. This was even harder than pounding them in, but after a huge struggle, he did it.

His grandmother hugged him and said, "I appreciate your apology and, of course, I forgive you because I love you, but I want you to know an apology is like pulling out one of those nails. Look at the board. The holes are still there. The board will never be the same. I know your dad put a hole in you, but please don’t put holes in other people; you are better than that."

Saying, "yeah, I can cop to that," about behaving like a jerk is like the holes in the board after pulling out the nails. The board is better without the holes in the first place, even if you pull out the nails. And it's like pounding in more nails if "taking responsibility" for acting like a jerk is treated as a license to keep on doing so.

I'd also note that I'm in the minority opinion when it comes to these discussions of civility. My expression of my preference for principled and courteous exchange often elicits disagreement, which, as here, sometimes manifests itself in discourteous response (including posts gussied-up with even more obnoxiousness than originally expressed). There's nothing I can do to stop such responses, on an unmoderated board.

I'm not saying that I would prefer moderation: certainly not. I'm definitely also opting for the principle of free expression, including people who disagree with me doing so passionately and obnoxiously and all the rest of it, as the fundamental one in this context. I don't consider myself to be censored by the majority who disagrees with me, either in terms of their actual disagreement in principle, or in terms of their mode of expression, which I often find distasteful. Where freedom of expression is the foundational principle, I have to put up with a lot (i.e., of free expression) that I personally disagree with.

What I CAN do is to continue to advocate my point of view, consistently with my own principles and values.

#1039

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by maddog

Whoa, that post certainly changed after I viewed it!

Originally Posted by maddog

... (including posts gussied-up with even more obnoxiousness than originally expressed).

ETA: Flair for the dramatic I suppose.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by maddog

Saying, "yeah, I can cop to that," about behaving like a jerk is like the holes in the board after pulling out the nails. The board is better without the holes in the first place, even if you pull out the nails. And it's like pounding in more nails if "taking responsibility" for acting like a jerk is treated as a license to keep on doing so.

I would contend that the analogy is somewhat misplaced. The boy in your story said hurtful things to people who didn't deserve them, because he had anger-management issues. Just as the board didn't ask to have nails driven in it.

I realize our disagreement is one of fundamental principle, and I wouldn't ask you to change your principles. But you seem to be arguing a principle of treating everyone with respect and courtesy regardless of how they behave, whereas my principle is more along the lines of, "I favor the just and curse the rotten." Those principles are in conflict, but I strive to be as consistent with my principles as you do with yours. Thus I bristle a bit at the suggestion that to be courteous is an exercise in integrity, whereas acting otherwise is not.

ETA: For example, I treat you with courtesy and respect because you deserve it, maddog.

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by yguy

Not much sense in posting when you know you're not going to be listened to.

If that's how a person feels, they should move on to another message board. If a person needs to have others agree with their opinions to validate themselves, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of message boards out there that will fill that need. The name of this message board should alert potential members that they're gonna be exposed to the full spectrum of opinions, so if you're offended by conflicting opinions, you've got no one to blame but yourself.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by maddog

It's up to every individual one of us to exercise integrity in the moment of choice.

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

But you seem to be arguing a principle of treating everyone with respect and courtesy regardless of how they behave, whereas my principle is more along the lines of, "I favor the just and curse the rotten." Those principles are in conflict, but I strive to be as consistent with my principles as you do with yours. Thus I bristle a bit at the suggestion that to be courteous is an exercise in integrity, whereas acting otherwise is not.

I agree with Sock Puppet on this. That is, if you're suggesting that integrity demands treating people with respect and courtesy regardless of how they behave, I disagree. It seems to me that integrity only demands that we treat people as well as they treat others. I'm definitely open to being convinced otherwise, though.

At the same time I think derailing threads with off-topic comments can disrupt (sometimes fatally) a discussion for everyone else, and to the extent that someone feels that contributing to the quality of dialogue here is more important than satisfying their personal desires, then doing so is perhaps a failing. It's a tragedy of the commons thing.

I'm in the unique position of feeling that people who dish it out deserve to get it back, while also feeling (as a member of this forum and in particular as one of the administrators) that I should put the overall quality of threads above my personal belief that some people periodically need the piss taken out of them.

Needless to say, livius' and I have discussed this many times and her personal philosophy is much more closely aligned with maddog's. Just a note, not an attempt to speak for her.

And the talk of "plonking" is yet another. It's rude. It's an in-your-face expression of "hey, I don't like you and I'm going to tell the world that I don't." That isn't very nice.

I explained why I *plonk* people here. I don't think it's rude to tell someone that you'll no longer be reading their posts.


I don't know what inspired me to check the forum right now or why on Earth our web filter isn't blocking it at the moment, but I'm striking while the fire's hot!

[maddog]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

That is, if you're suggesting that integrity demands treating people with respect and courtesy regardless of how they behave, I disagree. It seems to me that integrity only demands that we treat people as well as they treat others. I'm definitely open to being convinced otherwise, though.

"Integrity" is, I think, acting in accordance with one's principles. Different people may behave differently in a situation, and each still have "integrity." It just depends which principles each has decided are fundamental within their ethical system.

In the case of treating others respectfully and courteously, I view it as a practical application of the Golden Rule, i.e., generally, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Steven Covey goes the Golden Rule one better -- what he calls the Platinum Rule -- by not only treating others the way we would wish to be treated [i.e., the Golden Rule extrapolates a rule of conduct toward others by expanding on what we ourselves favor/desire/think is right, which he views as *self* centered], but treating others, as much as we can ascertain it, the way THEY wish to be treated [which he regards as *other* centered].) In any case, I regard the Golden Rule and its analogues as a fundamental principle I incorporate into my character. It requires me to treat others with courtesy BECAUSE I wish others to treat me courteously. I've never heard the rule, qua rule, expressed with an exception or caveat, "unless/until I decide that you don't *deserve* it." That converts the Golden Rule into a kind of "Rusty Iron Rule" -- Do unto others *until* they do unto you. It even becomes a kind of justification for a "Toledo Steel Rule" -- Do unto others *before* they do unto you. The Golden Rule -- to do unto others as you would wish done unto you -- doesn't contain exceptions. I want people to treat me courteously EVEN IF they have decided I am anathema, EVEN IF they disagree with me, EVEN IF I have sometimes failed to live up to my own principles and been unkind or otherwise shown a flaw of character. It reminds me of Kant's idea of ethics as a principle that you would want universalized to all other human beings. I want the principle of kindness and courtesy universalized to all human beings. Therefore I don't "make exceptions" to the fundamental principles I have of charity, kindness, courtesy, and respect.

#1041

[freemonkey]

I have thought quite a bit about the Golden Rule over the years. While I agree with what you say in principle, Maddog, and think that your ideal is something we can and should strive for, one of the things I've learned about social interaction is that when I'm acting like a dumbshit, the people I get the best from are the ones who call me on it.

[godfry n. glad]

That "Golden Rule" stuff goes along just fine until you run into a masochist who follows the "Golden Rule", too.

[maddog]

Right, freemonkey. But there are ways and ways of doing the same thing. Let's say I lose my head for a minute and call someone a name. I would far rather be "called on it" by having someone I like, trust, and respect send me a PM, saying, "you know, md, I say this as a friend, but I think that was out of line and I'm surprised you did that," than someone simply flaming me in the thread, saying, "wow, look at that retard maddog; what a hypocrite!" In either case, I've been "called on it," but one is much more likely to restore my emotional and moral balance, help me see my error, and correct it as much as I am able.

There's no necessary conflict between telling a friend a hard truth ("calling them on it") and nonetheless treating them (albeit firmly and sincerely) with kindness, courtesy and respect.

#1042

[maddog]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

That "Golden Rule" stuff goes along just fine until you run into a masochist who follows the "Golden Rule", too.

Well, that's why Covey talks about the Platinum Rule. To a masochist, "I don't mind being treated in X manner, therefore it's OK for me to do that to you," complies with the Golden Rule. It's *self* centered, and proceeds from one's own views and preferences, without taking sufficient regard of the other person's feelings, principles or sensibilities. Being able to see things in the terms preferred by others, rather than merely one's own predilections, reflects a measure of maturity the masochist-Golden-Rule-r doesn't employ.

#1043

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by maddog

"Integrity" is, I think, acting in accordance with one's principles. Different people may behave differently in a situation, and each still have "integrity." It just depends which principles each has decided are fundamental within their ethical system.

I agree.

Originally Posted by maddog

In the case of treating others respectfully and courteously, I view it as a practical application of the Golden Rule, i.e., generally, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I suppose I don't adhere to that Golden Rule, then, because I do not, as a matter of principle, strive to treat everyone in every case as I hope to be treated in the ideal case. In other words, if I pee on someone's leg I expect to be punched in the nose. Sure, in an ideal world I could pee on anyone's leg I choose and not be punched in the nose, but given what I know about humans, that's the result I expect. I strive to be consistently kind and generous to people who don't piss on my leg. I reckon that's my Golden Rule.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I agree.

I suppose I don't adhere to that Golden Rule, then, because I do not, as a matter of principle, strive to treat everyone in every case as I hope to be treated in the ideal case. In other words, if I pee on someone's leg I expect to be punched in the nose. Sure, in an ideal world I could pee on anyone's leg I choose and not be punched in the nose, but given what I know about humans, that's the result I expect. I strive to be consistently kind and generous to people who don't piss on my leg. I reckon that's my Golden Rule.

In my view, this is kind of backwards from the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule *should* lead you to the conclusion that you shouldn't do certain conduct (pee on someone's leg) in the first place. It regards and measures what your conduct should be, not what others' conduct should be. You don't have control over what they do. You DO have control over what YOU do. So your rule is not the Golden Rule at all, but what I've called the Rusty Iron rule, "I'll treat you the way I'd like to be treated UNLESS you piss me off." Leaves the Golden Rule as not much of a "guiding principle" IMO, if it tarnishes that easily. After all, who among us doesn't do things from time to time that we wish we hadn't done? If that's a justification for tossing out the Golden Rule, then there is no Golden Rule at all.

#1044

[viscousmemories]

Okay, let me ask you this: Say there's a police officer who adheres to your Golden Rule, and who prefers not to be put in handcuffs. In your view, does he demonstrate a lack of integrity by putting handcuffs on an arrestee?

[livius drusus]

I like the Platinum Rule notion a lot, maddog, which is unsurprising given how much I like your posts and overall approach.

I think in the end I don't see myself as in a position to dispense verbal justice. I used to -- it's still an impulse I struggle with -- but there are so many elements to assess in order to determine what someone "deserves" and most of the times I've lashed out, no matter what I told myself, it wasn't about principle but about temper. Sooner or later I've regretted it.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Okay, let me ask you this: Say there's a police officer who adheres to your Golden Rule, and who prefers not to be put in handcuffs. In your view, does he demonstrate a lack of integrity by putting handcuffs on an arrestee?

That's the *self*centered version of the Golden Rule you've got going there, vm. You're being too concrete, I think. A police officer ideally has as a general principle "treating other people fairly and justly." In a given social system, complete with police officers and handcuffs, the safety of the innocent members of society requires handcuffing arrestees. Handcuffing is far better than beating them up. It keeps people safe, doesn't do physical harm, safeguards the public, the officer and the arrestee, and allows the judicial process to go forward expeditiously, while according respect to everyone's rights. So a police officer, even one who would personally prefer not to be handcuffed, may still act with integrity in handcuffing arrestees. There is more than one principle involved in the transaction. ETA: e.g., "my personal comfort" is one principle, but the police officer must also rank other principles in his/her ethical system, such as "protecting the public from harm," and "commitment to the justice system as a method of resolving social conflicts," or "fair and treatment for those accused, while still applying the force of the state to investigate the truth of an accusation." I'm floundering a bit here in expressing what I mean, but I hope you get the idea that the Golden Rule also involves a ranking between different principles held by the actor, and choosing to act based on what he/she considers the highest moral/ethical principles.

#1045

[democracy]

I have found this entire discussion to be very informative. There are many diverse opinions and each seems to have been considered well before posting.

Even though you are all intelligent posters, I find that you lack proper democratic form. With the application of correct form this and other discussions can be raised up a notch on the scale of perfection.

[Sock Puppet]

I guess that I've been burned so many times by attempting to appeal to people's better nature, that I've been forced to conclude that some people just don't have one. When people take respectful opinions and stomp on them and piss on them, I'm not inclined to offer them again.

I also feel that there is a time and a place for venting so-called "negative" emotions. If the target of flames, insults, etc. is chosen carefully and deliberately, then the venting can be done in a manner that is just and proper. I realize that will probably be viewed as a bullshit justification for behaving "badly," but it's not a conclusion I came to lightly. You might not recognize me if you saw my online posts from a few years ago. I wouldn't call my principle a "Rusty Iron Rule," as that does not take into account the kindness I extend to the deserving. Perhaps I'd call it a Velvet and Brass Knuckles Rule.

As an aside, what the furry, flying fuck is "proper democratic form" in a message board discussion? Something tells me I might not want to know.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by maddog

That's the *self*centered version of the Golden Rule you've got going there, vm.

I don't think so. I thought it could go without saying that the hypothetical arrestee would prefer not to be handcuffed, so even given the "Platinum Rule" putting handcuffs on him would be a violation of that principle. In any case I agree that there's more than one principle in that transaction, and that the principle of protecting society trumps the dude's individual preference to avoid handcuffs. In fact that's essentially my point. In my view there's more than one principle involved in most interactions, and certainly in how I treat people. Again, if the Golden (or Platinum) Rule means "treat everyone as they would prefer to be treated regardless of how they treat others", then I reject it. I might prefer for people to treat me kindly no matter how cruel I am to them, but I believe I deserve to be treated only as well as I treat others.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

I guess that I've been burned so many times by attempting to appeal to people's better nature, that I've been forced to conclude that some people just don't have one. When people take respectful opinions and stomp on them and piss on them, I'm not inclined to offer them again.

I also feel that there is a time and a place for venting so-called "negative" emotions. If the target of flames, insults, etc. is chosen carefully and deliberately, then the venting can be done in a manner that is just and proper. I realize that will probably be viewed as a bullshit justification for behaving "badly," but it's not a conclusion I came to lightly. You might not recognize me if you saw my online posts from a few years ago. I wouldn't call my principle a "Rusty Iron Rule," as that does not take into account the kindness I extend to the deserving. Perhaps I'd call it a Velvet and Brass Knuckles Rule.

As an aside, what the furry, flying fuck is "proper democratic form" in a message board discussion? Something tells me I might not want to know.

Proper democratic form is mob rule.

[Shelli]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

... what the furry, flying fuck ...

[maddog]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I don't think so. I thought it could go without saying that the hypothetical arrestee would prefer not to be handcuffed, so even given the "Platinum Rule" putting handcuffs on him would be a violation of that principle.

I think you're right that my analysis was flawed in that regard. Neither person prefers to be handcuffed.

Nevertheless, I thiink my point about the ranking of principles is still in play, and the Golden/Platinum rule still operates. "personal comfort" takes a back seat to "safety and justice." while nobody wants to be subjected to discomfort, IF some measure of that is necessary to achieve a more important purpose, a police officer may, consistent with the Golden/Platinum rule, and with their integrity, handcuff an arrestee.

For example, if the investigating agency finds certain evidence, and that evidence provides a reasonable suspicion that X has committed a crime, then even the police officer would be able to say, "Under those circumstances, if that evidence pointed to me, I could in conscience say that criminal proceedings ought to be begun against me to protect the public." The police officer would recognize that s/he would want another officer in the same position to arrest/handcuff her/him to initiate the proper proceedings. S/he might not personally *like* it, but could recognize, and apply universally, the rule concerning the necessity of doing so. AND EVEN WHEN you handcuff someone, you can do so without unnecessary pain/injury/other punishment.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

In any case I agree that there's more than one principle in that transaction, and that the principle of protecting society trumps the dude's individual preference to avoid handcuffs. In fact that's essentially my point. In my view there's more than one principle involved in most interactions, and certainly in how I treat people. Again, if the Golden (or Platinum) Rule means "treat everyone as they would prefer to be treated regardless of how they treat others", then I reject it. I might prefer for people to treat me kindly no matter how cruel I am to them, but I believe I deserve to be treated only as well as I treat others.

I can understand that. I endeavor to go beyond that, however, because with that kind of principle or thinking, then no one has any reason or incentive to begin treating people at a higher level. In a way, it's like the Christian concept of sin. Everyone is a sinner. All *deserve* to be consigned to hell. If everyone is treated as they *deserve* then no one will be treated well. They *deserve* it.

I aspire beyond that. I think that, only when people are routinely treated *better* than they *deserve* (according to what measure, I don't know) will good treatment be generally proffered. In a way, I reject this secular concept of sin. I think people DO all *deserve* to be treated well, regardless of their own conduct, because they are all human beings. The highest moral for a human being IMO is to treat one another with dignity, consideration and kindness. I subscribe to the Enlightenment ideals (I'm particularly influenced by them as embodied in the American-experiment, Declaration of Independence version), that all human beings are equal, in the sense of equally deserving of moral and humane treatment. Even the most callous criminal, even when there is no doubt as to guilt, is accorded rights and dignities. The state, with all its power and resources, must provide the accused with fair proceedings, with counsel, with the right to examine witnesses against him/her, with an impartial jury, with a presumption of innocence, with proof to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-standard, and many other accoutrements of due process. Even those properly and fairly convicted of heinous criminal offenses *deserve* certain human dignities. They are protected against imposition of cruel and unusual punishments, they may petition the government for redress of wrongs, and so on. If these people were treated *as they deserve* (according to most people's lights) they would be divested of any such consideration.

What the Golden/Platinum rule requires is for me to ask myself, "If I were in that position, how should I be treated?" If I have committed, or the evidence reasonably points to my having committed, a public offense, I would *want* the police to act, in a way that protects the greatest amount of the interests of the public, the officer, and myself.

#1046