Censorship by mob rule

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by maddog

I now feel very frustrated and dejected. I feel, as Ang suggests, that I have failed in my responsibility to convey and communicate my views clearly.

The mob has spoken.

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I don't believe in "karma", so to my view slapping someone for spitting in your face (even metaphorically on both counts) is the only possible way "the universe" can dole out consequences.

This is what I was getting at, maddog, I just did not come right out and say it. I hope I did not contribute to your feeling frustrated and dejected, that was not my intention.

Believe it or not, I do think I understand what you're saying, and for the most part, I try to stay out of other people's dramas. But, like others here, I find its not always easy. I'm much more restrained online than I am IRL, because I have longer to assess my choice whether to respond or not.

Also (just a small mention to other threads) it seems you're likely damned if you do and damned if you don't, depending on who you talk to.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by maddog

I never learned to tell analog time very well, because the way they explained it in third grade was too confusing for me. They'd say, "the BIG hand is on the X and the LITTLE hand is on the Y." I couldn't pay attention to that, b/c I was confused from the beginning of the sentence. Which is the "big" hand? is it the TALL hand or the FAT hand? which is the "little" hand? is it the SKINNY hand or the SHORT hand? So I still can't tell analog time very well. But nobody else in class had that problem. They all learned to tell time just fine. They all saw no ambiguity, it was clear for them, so the teachers had no reason to realize or accommodate that their phraseology was problematic for some. I've "thought differently" from most people all my life.

And it makes you a jewel.

What a great story.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by maddog

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.

At face value, such a motivation is questionable, as it allows for the possibility of treating someone with kindness in the hope of being treated kindly in return, which is manipulative. If you act with such motivation, you will likely harbor a secret resentment towards the person who fails to perform according to your expectations, thereby completely missing the point of the stated principle.

I'm reminded of people who in a discussion are superficially civil, but who equivocate, dissimulate and otherwise confuse, which naturally produces irritation in the other participants - and then have the gall to snivel about the resultant lack of civility that their own dishonesty has provoked.

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.

If you kill somebody who tries to kill you, are you in violation?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by maddog

Let's say *A* is a member of an online discussion board. *A* is normally a friendly polite person. One day, *A* says to *B* "you're an idiot and a hypocrite." Let's say you are *C*. What do you do? There are innumerable choices.

For a person of good will, there are only two that matter:

1. Allow yourself to be offended.

2. Don't allow yourself to be offended.

If you follow path 1, you can't win. If you follow path 2, you can't lose.

[Sock Puppet]

Did you miss that in maddog's hypothetical, you are *C*, not *B*? *C*'s choices don't necessarily have anything to do with being personally offended, or even being offended on *B*'s behalf.

My answer stems from the condition maddog provided, that *A* is normally a friendly and polite person. In that case, it would depend on whether I have any close association with either party. If not, I'd probably sit back and see where the discussion goes from that point. If I know *A* well, I would probably PM him/her and ask if *A* was okay. If I know *B* not to be an idiot or a liar, I might question *A*, or I might not. I'd probably still be polite to *A*, however. This hypothetical seems a fairly far cry from the circumstances around this particular discussion.

[quiet bear]

Originally Posted by maddog

In my experience, the "tit for tat" "eye for an eye" brand of "justice" leads, as the old joke goes, to everyone being blind. It does nothing to improve overall behavior in the aggregate among people.

Can I get an amen?

It also leads to 5-10 pages of flailing on equine carcass.


Oh, and maddog said asshat.

* quiet bear chuckles

[viscousmemories]

You're not explaining yourself badly at all, maddog. On the contrary, I think you're making a lot more sense than me. Between this thread and various discussions I've had with livius on the subject, I think I'm really beginning to appreciate this point of view. I'll have to chew on it some more.

[Corona688]

Sure there's a spectrum of responses, but how many types of responses are there to bad behavior? Seems to me a pretty small number -- ignore, avoid, admonish, punish. Ignore doesn't work. Avoid means no discussion at all. Admonish doesn't work. Punish... doesn't work either. Heck if I know what to do about it, but letting these things go unchallenged doesn't sit well with me.

[Shelli]

Seeing as how I made an incorrect ASSumption today on the , I think I'll now read this thread from the beginning.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

Did you miss that in maddog's hypothetical, you are *C*, not *B*?

Actually, yes I did.

*C*'s choices don't necessarily have anything to do with being personally offended, or even being offended on *B*'s behalf.

True, but I guess I don't see a whole lot of value in the scenario. I think maddog likes to complicate things so as to have more to think about.

[Sweetie]

I've been running my ass off, literaly.

The thread is quite big to catch up on, I've skimmed most of it and got the basic idea.

After all of that, the idea of Fencesitter lingers.

I can't think of one real cross word she's stated in my encounters with her. I don't recall seeing one. If she's said a cross word, I'd like to see it.

But she's come and gone, and she's always been fair, civil, and aims for well reasoned discussion, yet because of the direction of her thoughts, some people implicitly or explicitly have come down on her, just for being on the same side as others, whether she's friends with said persons or not, so much so, that she actually asked someone to include her as an ignoree.

Maybe she's prime example, maybe she's not, but I've never seen why she needs now, or has ever needed to be treated badly, all she has ever done to earn it but to hold an unpopular opinion here. I don't know why because she sees value in an argument that does not suit the prejudice or emotional personal investment of one person here, that she needs to be included in ........what's the word?.....in.....the ire intended for other people. If someone like her is a target, then it's not the problem of the existence of another intended target, the ire is directed at thought systems which do not fit what this person believes/wants/needs. It's a prejudice.

Anyways, I don't think she is deserving of ire, and I can't help that people are prejudiced. As has been said, "You can't reason the prejudice out of a man, it was not reasoned in, it cannot be reasoned out."

So what do we do then?

I just think it's absurd for Fencesitter to be the target of any ire. So what does one do when they look at such a clear case as that of Fencesitter?

What's the point, you ask? Not real sure, but....thought it should be noted.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by yguy

I think maddog likes to complicate things so as to have more to think about.

I think maddog recognizes that complex problems are seldom amenable to simple solutions. It was in recognition of that very fact that I started this thread. I also have to agree with her that giving "tit for tat" seldom accomplishes anything useful. It can be immensely satisfying to just let go with both barrels, but the end result is usually just more mayhem and bloodshed. In my experience it is both possible and desirable to expose asshattery without acting like an asshat oneself.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think maddog recognizes that complex problems are seldom amenable to simple solutions.

The source of the problem is not the least bit complex. When egos collide, all sorts of repercussions issue forth. If the aim is to deal with those repercussions while leaving the root cause undisturbed, yes, the solution is necessarily complex; but let us at least admit that such necessity is self-imposed.

It was in recognition of that very fact that I started this thread. I also have to agree with her that giving "tit for tat" seldom accomplishes anything useful.

Is this a point of controversy?

In my experience it is both possible and desirable to expose asshattery without acting like an asshat oneself.

Indeed it is...assuming, of course that your audience is not itself dominated by "asshats" - in which case the exposer will himself become a pariah for being so churlish as to call a spade a spade.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by yguy

The source of the problem is not the least bit complex. When egos collide, all sorts of repercussions issue forth. If the aim is to deal with those repercussions while leaving the root cause undisturbed, yes, the solution is necessarily complex; but let us at least admit that such necessity is self-imposed.

I think it is a given that, in the environment of a discussion board, egos will collide. Given that fact, the difficulties thus generated are not amenable to simple solutions. Are you suggesting that we just eliminate the egos? Be kind of quiet hereabouts if we did.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think it is a given that, in the environment of a discussion board, egos will collide. Given that fact, the difficulties thus generated are not amenable to simple solutions. Are you suggesting that we just eliminate the egos? Be kind of quiet hereabouts if we did.

So we should all hang on to our ego problems so as to give liv and vm and each other something to do in our spare time?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by yguy

So we should all hang on to our ego problems so as to give liv and vm and each other something to do in our spare time?

Who said anything about ego problems. We all have egos. Sometimes those egos collide. When that happens feelings get hurt and communications break down. This is not necessarily a symptom of unhealthy egos. Healthy egos also get bruised and some degree of conflict is inevitable. The question is, how does one go about fostering spirited, even passionate, discussion of issues while minimizing unnecessary, unproductive and distracting conflict? Do you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion, or are you content to just snipe from the sidelines?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Who said anything about ego problems.

That would be me.

We all have egos. Sometimes those egos collide. When that happens feelings get hurt and communications break down. This is not necessarily a symptom of unhealthy egos.

Neither, I suppose, is a rattling sound a symptom of an unhealthy rattlesnake.

Healthy egos also get bruised

Healthy people do not.

and some degree of conflict is inevitable. The question is, how does one go about fostering spirited, even passionate, discussion of issues while minimizing unnecessary, unproductive and distracting conflict?

You start by recognizing the root of the problem. Either that or you have endless discussions which go nowhere.

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion

Seems to me I already have. I understand that my failure to agree with your underlying premises is a problem for you, but it's not a problem for me.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We all have egos. Sometimes those egos collide. When that happens feelings get hurt and communications break down. This is not necessarily a symptom of unhealthy egos.

Originally Posted by yguy

Neither, I suppose, is a rattling sound a symptom of an unhealthy rattlesnake.

Such a conveniently deployed analogy.

Originally Posted by yguy

We don't need biology to note a fundamental difference between humans and animals.

Whoops!

[Sweetie]

I think a lot of people have contributed meaningfully to this discussuion, including yguy and Angkakuk, Fencesitter and maddog, vm and livius, and I'm going to include an etc., so that this doesn't become a popularity thing, or an "I like and recognize this or that person above these others," like another thread going in this Forum.

Sometimes though, the simplest solution is getting to know another person. There have only been three people I do or have corresponded with privately who have been active here, primarily though I did correspond with another privately by way of a gift and some PM's which does or does not qualify, but none of these people here have ever tried to get to know me better, and the ones that have, through private correspondance, always said as far as the private correspondance was considered, that it was an enjoyable experience, or at least, a positive one excepting one who came at me with with the implicit, "I think you're mentally ill and I'm here if you need to talk." Unfortunately, or fortunately however you look at it, it just so happens that I am not mentally ill, but if I was, it was a nice offer.

So I mean, we're staring at words on a page unnattached from some basic knowledge of persons which can give leave for people to have lasting bitterness or feel justified to harass and continually belittle any given person. One man, for instance, TomJoe may feel righteous indignation and feel justified in belittling me, yet the only reason I came up against him was because he was belittling a friend of mine, and so was his friend, and his friend was belittling me for not condemning my friend in good Catholic form, and TomJoe took up his defense, and then it became what it is today, which is an absurdity. If TomJoe had any clue who I was, he would be shamefaced. If he considered a different perspective other than his own, because his anger doesn't respond well to reason, then he would look like the biggest fool, but he doesn't want to look like a fool, and he doesn't want to get over the things he felt justified in being angry about, it's a problem for him and as he's said once, it's something he has to deal with. The question is, why is his problem my own, and why does he keep putting it in front of me?

Which is the better person, the one who can forgive when they're angry, or the one who can't forgive, especially when they're angry, but who are nice otherwise? The one who is easy to anger, or the one who is not prone to get angry, even if it appears that she may say things born of anger?

Maybe that whole situation looked like "tit for tat" or maybe it actually wasn't, maybe there was tit, and maybe tat was assumed, but not proven? Maybe a new pair of eyes needs to be put on to see the situation for what it was from two perspectives?

So it may come accross as tit for tat, but it's not.

Anyhoo, some thoughts, and an example.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

One man, for instance, TomJoe may feel righteous indignation and feel justified in belittling me, yet the only reason I came up against him was because he was belittling a friend of mine, and so was his friend, and his friend was belittling me for not condemning my friend in good Catholic form, and TomJoe took up his defense, and then it became what it is today, which is an absurdity.

So that's how it all went down, eh? Hmm, alrighty.

[chick]

I just do censorship by Ignore List and I don't care what the mob is doing.

[godfry n. glad]

Must you barge in with your incongruent outburst of sanity?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by democracy

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.

I am not sure what point democracy is trying to make with this enigmatic reference to "proper democratic form". If he is trying to suggest that the board does not practice the principles of participatory democracy (as in "majority rule"), then I think that he is absolutely right. It seems to me that FF is something of an experiment in cooperative anarchy. The ultimate results of that experiment are yet to be seen. As an experiment in progress, I think it is both interesting and worthwhile. I can hardly wait to read the book, though I may just wait for the movie.

[democracy]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am not sure what point democracy is trying to make with this enigmatic reference to "proper democratic form". If he is trying to suggest that the board does not practice the principles of participatory democracy (as in "majority rule"), then I think that he is absolutely right. It seems to me that FF is something of an experiment in cooperative anarchy. The ultimate results of that experiment are yet to be seen. As an experiment in progress, I think it is both interesting and worthwhile. I can hardly wait to read the book, though I may just wait for the movie.

I don't know what Angakuk means by the word "anarchy". Since FF is under the control of one or more administrators who have authority over the limits of conversation, I can't accept this as anarchy.

The only "anarchists" I have ever met were the Rainbow Family and they are highly organized in their discussions. The use a "Circle" form.

I've never met a real anarchist who would be late for an appointment or unable to organize a scheduled meeting.

I think of a discussion as an organized form. A group of people speaking in an organized manner. An organization of thought and speech.

If there is disorganization in message board "discussion" (ahem) then I would have to conclude that it is due to a lack of organization. And I see no reason to look for new forms when we have a handy set of traditional forms to rely upon.