<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the
Vote)</title></head><body>
<div>At 7:19 AM -0500 11/24/07, KovenRonald@aol.com wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Geneva" size="-1"
color="#000000">Dear All --<br>
<br>
The problem with proposals to "moderate" rudeness is that
they are a form of censorship.<br>
<br>
If there are persons who choose to be rude or offensive, they should
be free to do so. Some of the reactions dubbing statements "ad
hominem" are overly sensitive. And sometimes rude or offensive
comments may in fact be justifiable.<br>
<br>
Those who make excessive comments are more or less automatically
punished by having their views disqualified in the minds of large
numbers.<br>
<br>
Calling for courteous discourse is fine. Choosing to ignore
discourteous comments is fine, too. But one person's lack of
politesses may be another's justified anger.<br>
<br>
"Ad hominem" attacks may be unpleasant, but knowing who it
is who is saying what is not irrelevant. Jean-Paul Sartre once said
that one should judge any statement in the light of "<i>quel
salaud l'a fait</i>" -- "what bastard made it."<br>
<br>
As for defining "rudeness," I think any definition is bound
to be open to criticism. It seems to me that it's more like the
comment of a US Supreme Court justice who once said, speaking of
"pornography," "I can't define it, but I know it when I
see it."<br>
<br>
I think<i> les salauds</i> should be allowed to be<i> salauds</i> if
that's what they want to be. The advantage is that by behaving that
way they show themselves up for what they are, instead of hiding
behind a screen of false politesse.<br>
<br>
If that position is liberalism run amok, so be it -- make the most of
it.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Geneva" size="-1"
color="#000000">Bests, Rony Koven</font></blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">I appreciate my friend Rony Koven's most
literate defense of the liberal view - it's a pleasure to read such a
well thought-out contribution.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">In my experience, however, different
conclusions ensue from a wider take on the question. And that,
of course, is what effective dialog is all about, the opportunity to
consider a range of analyses.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">In this view, human communities, across time -
literally eons - and today around the globe, perennially return to a
challenge: how to deal with the member who would insist on the
primacy of his/her position. That is to say, this is a
universal, across cultures and time.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">The problem is bluntest with the use of force
to wreak one's will, toward autocracy and so one person's prevailing
over others. The same is only slightly more submerged in
economic affairs, when the would-be monopolist tries to drag all the
marbles into his/her corner. In the realm of discourse, in what
are always necessary deliberations - to join separate individual's
contributions into common knowledge and reach some conclusion - the
same proclivity, to individual hegemony, emerges from the human
character.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">While not often treated as of the same cloth,
I believe we can understand - and hopefully gain some traction for
dealing - if we appreciate the common thread underlying.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Of course the use of force in discussion takes
a form particular to discourse. But we all, and all folks, know
it - Rony's quote is to the point here, paraphrasing slightly, 'I know
it when I [feel] it.' In particular, some individuals in the
discussion, rather than the supposed topic itself, become the target.
(And disagreements late at night in a bar commonly spill over into
fisticuffs or worse, in the street outside - of course, the physical
violence that may follow political legerdemain in the idea space can
be oh so much uglier.)</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">What happens, when a discussion turns into
attacks (of whatever form)? </font> Wolfgang Kleinwächter has
just pointed out the shift from Cyberdemocracy into Cybersecurity,
with 9/11.<font face="Arial"> This was in response to an attack,
and of course on a global scale. Groups trying to discuss also
shift in an entirely similar way, when the would-be hegemonist mounts
an attack in the discourse. The scale is micro, not global; but
the human response is entirely the same - the defensive
crouch.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">I am so grateful to Kieren, that he took the
trouble to spell this out, unmistakably, with an example we can see
clearly:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080">...</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080"> I will refer to a comment inserted by Milton
this morning as a perfect example of the sort of rudeness that this
list could well do without.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080">In response to a Jacqueline comment, Milton
responded:</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080">"</font><font face="Arial" size="-1">Well, all I can
say is that the reason most American business people are terrified of
such voting is that they conclude (more accurately than you, I am
afraid) that such a mechanism would empower the "new Internet
world" of tens of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in
relative terms, erode their current power. "</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080">The "more accurately than you, I am afraid" was
deliberately provocative, added nothing to the discussion, came with
no evidence or reasoned analysis, and both mocked Jacqueline and
dismissed her honestly held viewpoint.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080"> </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"
color="#000080">It has no place in reasonable discussions. Which is a
shame because Milton then went on to raise some interesting ideas
about ALSes which I personally would be happy to discuss but which I
won't respond to because of the unpleasantness earlier in the
email.</font></blockquote>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">I quote Kieren at length, because he spells
out the unfortunate denouement, from hunkering down: otherwise
useful discussion is shut off, in a defensive response. No
longer is there the sort of discussion we need, particularly sensitive
explorations of honestly held differences. Which are the only
ways forward, to find new wisdom, even consensus. Instead,
further exchange is only on defense, or perhaps
counter-attack.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Kieren points out how useful talk is stymied.
Not very much productive gets done.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">And worse, just the folks who we might wish to
join will have more-than-second thoughts about continuing to engage.
Life is about finding (quality) playmates, and folks tend to gravitate
to more successful venues. Why spend time where useful talk is
smothered under defensive silence and the satisfactions circle around
wounded prey?</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Of course - harking back a moment to the wider
perspective - there are a myriad human responses to this fundamental
dilemma. History and some perspective make that
clear.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">What I believe is also clear is a basic trade,
in the choices made. On the one side is letting it all hang out;
on the other side are the sort of community standards made real
through sanctions as for instance</font> Norbert<font face="Arial">
spells out. The first enjoys the classical freedoms, but a good
bit less gets done (as is the perennial complaint here). The
latter does the hard work of forming community with enforced
standards, but some attack artists have their wings clipped. And
there is always the danger of inbred insularity, as any now-defined
regime tracks forward.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Which of course is the debate about
(classical) liberalism, where this screed started.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Here is not the place ... that discussion goes
on in detail elsewhere for those concerned ... but suffice it, here:
My own view sees classical liberalism in some retreat, if viewed
against any scale. The precipitous decline of US stature has not
helped the cause. But other forces have long militated for an
ideology more nuanced and thus more realistic. Then we really
get into the tradeoffs above.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">David</font></div>
</body>
</html>