[governance] Re: Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

[David Allen]

At 7:19 AM -0500 11/24/07, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote:
>Dear All --
>
>The problem with proposals to "moderate" 
>rudeness is that they are a form of censorship.
>
>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.
>
>Those who make excessive comments are more or 
>less automatically punished by having their 
>views disqualified in the minds of large numbers.
>
>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.
>
>"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 "quel 
>salaud l'a fait" -- "what bastard made it."
>
>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."
>
>I think les salauds should be allowed to be 
>salauds 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.
>
>If that position is liberalism run amok, so be it -- make the most of it.
>
>Bests, Rony Koven

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

What happens, when a discussion turns into 
attacks (of whatever form)?  Wolfgang 
Kleinwächter has just pointed out the shift from 
Cyberdemocracy into Cybersecurity, with 9/11. 
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.

I am so grateful to Kieren, that he took the 
trouble to spell this out, unmistakably, with an 
example we can see clearly:

>...
>  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.
>
>In response to a Jacqueline comment, Milton responded:
>
>"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. "
>
>
>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.
>
>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.

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.

Kieren points out how useful talk is stymied. 
Not very much productive gets done.

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?

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.

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 Norbert 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.

Which of course is the debate about (classical) 
liberalism, where this screed started.

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.

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071124/e19c4b0f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071124/e19c4b0f/attachment.txt>