Ruth Follow Trump's Twitter account for a few days and then come back and say which folks on the left rival his "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and ... employment of personal abuse." I'll wait.
Ruth Follow Trump's Twitter account for a few days and then come back and say which folks on the left rival his "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and ... employment of personal abuse." I'll wait.
I have no intention of following Trump's Twitter Account, but nor to recommend that his coarsening of political debate should be combatted in a similar tone, and nor do I intend to construct an index of culpability between left, right and centre, . What I do wish to promote is a greater civility and reasonable debate in political discourse. I would like to think that is reflected in the attitudes of shipmates towards their messmates.
Ruth Follow Trump's Twitter account for a few days and then come back and say which folks on the left rival his "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and ... employment of personal abuse." I'll wait.
I have no intention of following Trump's Twitter Account, but nor to recommend that his coarsening of political debate should be combatted in a similar tone
I do not believe that Ruth was proposing that other segments of political thought follow this example but if you want to complain about the coarsening of political discourse then it is a fact that where the right-wing media led first, right wing politicians have been happy to follow.
chrisstiles:........... but if you want to complain about the coarsening of political discourse then it is a fact that where the right-wing media led first, right wing politicians have been happy to follow.
I'm certainly no apologist for the right, and have neither reason, knowledge, nor desire to dispute your observation. What does worry me is your disinclination to dissociate yourself from the offensive language on this ship which seems exclusively to come from leftist contributors. In that company I exclude Thunderbunk for recognising he went over the top. It is the tolerance of those on the left using moderate tones themselves to those of a similar ideological position expressing themselves more crudely that worries me, because such modes of expression betray intolerant and closed minds that in other circumstances leads to authoritarian practice. (For what it's worth, I think Trump is a fascist, for that reason.) I recall that earlier in this discussion a number of would-be participants in these posts were discouraged by the deployment of personal abuse. Such bullying language is not necessary in debate, and although I can take it, it should have no place here from whatever political quarter- IMO, of course. Do you agree, Chris?
By "follow" I meant click the "follow" button on Twitter so you're fed all of Trump's tweets.
@Kwesi, you need to substantiate your claim that the left routinely indulges in "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and the employment of personal abuse" in ways that the right does not. Again, I'll wait.
All I said was that my comment was in the wrong thread. On any of the other five thread full of right wingers facile bullshit it would be perfectly at home.
chrisstiles:........... but if you want to complain about the coarsening of political discourse then it is a fact that where the right-wing media led first, right wing politicians have been happy to follow.
I'm certainly no apologist for the right, and have neither reason, knowledge, nor desire to dispute your observation. What does worry me is your disinclination to dissociate yourself from the offensive language on this ship which seems exclusively to come from leftist contributors. In that company I exclude Thunderbunk for recognising he went over the top. It is the tolerance of those on the left using moderate tones themselves to those of a similar ideological position expressing themselves more crudely that worries me, because such modes of expression betray intolerant and closed minds that in other circumstances leads to authoritarian practice. (For what it's worth, I think Trump is a fascist, for that reason.) I recall that earlier in this discussion a number of would-be participants in these posts were discouraged by the deployment of personal abuse. Such bullying language is not necessary in debate, and although I can take it, it should have no place here from whatever political quarter- IMO, of course. Do you agree, Chris?
Polite language is bullshit if the meaning behind one's word doesn't match the tone.
Ruth: @Kwesi, you need to substantiate your claim that the left routinely indulges in "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and the employment of personal abuse" in ways that the right does not. Again, I'll wait.
Very specifically my remarks were apropos a contribution from, Thunderbunk above:
The left is good at winning arguments; the right is good at winning power by undercutting those arguments with simplistic bullshit.
And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
It was, however, not untypical of a style of reasoning that has become increasingly common on the ship, so it seems to me, used by shipmates regarding themselves as socialist. It would appear they are justified in adopting this approach because their cause is morally superior to that of those holding more conservative opinions, which by definition are unworthy of serious consideration because they are responsible for all the world's evil. As lilbuddha has just opined, she has license to use abusive terms because, "Polite language is bullshit if the meaning behind one's word doesn't match the tone." Judge and jury in her own case, I guess. Given the experience of socialist societies in the twentieth century and in the present one, which have been hardly different from fascist states in the experience of their citizens, a somewhat lesser sense of moral superiority might be expected, not to mention a greater willingness to explore other points of view. and acknowledgement of the sincerity and integrity of those who hold them. We know only too well the monsters that have invaded the political sphere from stage left and right: the enemies of open societies. The plea for moderation of language is not about politeness but a recognition of the diversity of humanity, the desperately weak foundations of what we think we know, and respect for human dignity.
A final footnote: the reason, Ruth:, why I have not mentioned contributions from the right is that in regard to this ship they have not been among the transgressors- they wouldn't dare!
Ruth: @Kwesi, you need to substantiate your claim that the left routinely indulges in "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and the employment of personal abuse" in ways that the right does not. Again, I'll wait.
Very specifically my remarks were apropos a contribution from, Thunderbunk above:
The left is good at winning arguments; the right is good at winning power by undercutting those arguments with simplistic bullshit.
And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
It was, however, not untypical of a style of reasoning that has become increasingly common on the ship, so it seems to me, used by shipmates regarding themselves as socialist. It would appear they are justified in adopting this approach because their cause is morally superior to that of those holding more conservative opinions, which by definition are unworthy of serious consideration because they are responsible for all the world's evil. As lilbuddha has just opined, she has license to use abusive terms because, "Polite language is bullshit if the meaning behind one's word doesn't match the tone."
Not what I said, exactly. I think the insistance on polite language misses the horrible things said politely. If people engage honestly, then even a less than perfect POV merits polite response. But when the speaker is both apparently dishonest or consistently speaking harmful rubbish, why should "polite" rules of engagement be adhered to?
Given the experience of socialist societies in the twentieth century and in the present one, which have been hardly different from fascist states in the experience of their citizens,
Sweden isn't perfect, but I doubt to many of its citizens would call it fascist.
Ruth: @Kwesi, you need to substantiate your claim that the left routinely indulges in "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and the employment of personal abuse" in ways that the right does not. Again, I'll wait.
Very specifically my remarks were apropos a contribution from, Thunderbunk above:
The left is good at winning arguments; the right is good at winning power by undercutting those arguments with simplistic bullshit.
And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
It was, however, not untypical of a style of reasoning that has become increasingly common on the ship, so it seems to me, used by shipmates regarding themselves as socialist. It would appear they are justified in adopting this approach because their cause is morally superior to that of those holding more conservative opinions, which by definition are unworthy of serious consideration because they are responsible for all the world's evil. As lilbuddha has just opined, she has license to use abusive terms because, "Polite language is bullshit if the meaning behind one's word doesn't match the tone."
Not what I said, exactly. I think the insistance on polite language misses the horrible things said politely. If people engage honestly, then even a less than perfect POV merits polite response. But when the speaker is both apparently dishonest or consistently speaking harmful rubbish, why should "polite" rules of engagement be adhered to?
Given the experience of socialist societies in the twentieth century and in the present one, which have been hardly different from fascist states in the experience of their citizens,
Sweden isn't perfect, but I doubt to many of its citizens would call it fascist.
Not what I said, exactly. I think the insistance on polite language misses the horrible things said politely. If people engage honestly, then even a less than perfect POV merits polite response. But when the speaker is both apparently dishonest or consistently speaking harmful rubbish, why should "polite" rules of engagement be adhered to?
Not what I said, exactly. I think the insistance on polite language misses the horrible things said politely. If people engage honestly, then even a less than perfect POV merits polite response. But when the speaker is both apparently dishonest or consistently speaking harmful rubbish, why should "polite" rules of engagement be adhered to?
It is exactly what you said. A direct quotation.
WTF? Kwesi said I claimed or implied licence. That is incorrect.
It's also a Canada/US difference. During the days of Obama I was once at a bbq in Florida attended by a mix of Canadian snowbirds of varying stripes on one side, and US country club types on the other.
...
The US, being a large and fairly self-contained society, is not always aware of the inclination of discourse elsewhere.
How exactly did you get from "country club types" in Florida to the entire country? Do you have any idea of how many people in my working-class, left-leaning city talk with envy about how what we consider liberal is just common sense in the rest of the developed world?
I omitted, for sake of brevity, a half dozen academic conferences and God alone knows how many conversations over the years-- perhaps 150 or so- where precious few people had travelled or paid much attention to the rest of the planet. Most of my US friends (not the golfers with whom I associate out of filial piety) are people I have encountered on the Camino or through modern dance or dead languages and who would agree with you. They don't fit into the golf club set who, mind you, have a great deal of direction over how the US is run and governed.
I would rather turn the electoral college over to butoh dancers, polyglots, and baroque musicians and, as soon as I can, I will.
lilbuddha: But when the speaker is both apparently dishonest or consistently speaking harmful rubbish, why should "polite" rules of engagement be adhered to?
Not what I said, exactly. I think the insistance on polite language misses the horrible things said politely. If people engage honestly, then even a less than perfect POV merits polite response. But when the speaker is both apparently dishonest or consistently speaking harmful rubbish, why should "polite" rules of engagement be adhered to?
It is exactly what you said. A direct quotation.
WTF? Kwesi said I claimed or implied licence. That is incorrect.
Moreover, I think tone policing is unhelpful. It treats issues that are deeply painful as if they are some kind of academic game. The people on the receiving end of harm are less likely to keep their temper and more likely to be silenced by such a policy - which means you lose important parts of the argument.
Re an earlier comment, if someone advocates war crimes and the widespread killing of non-combatants in warfare - yes I would consider that a morally bankrupt position and those opposing it, of whatever political persuasion, to be taking a morally superior position on that specific issue.
I consider suffering to be a moral issue.
If you advocate polices I disagree with because you believe they will bring about a better result, that is one kind of disagreement. (I have heard it said, for example, that a globalised free market has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in human history and consider this a possible and powerful argument you can make about capitalism.)
If you advocate a policy because it will get you things you or a narrow interest group want in the short or long term - whilst knowing it is objectively harmful for the majority - that is a different kind of argument. (E.g. I want to promote the use of fossil fuels and therefore want vat removed from petrol car prices because I have shares in an oil company and I’ll be dead before climate change becomes a problem big enough to effect me.)
Very often what I hear from ‘right-wing’ commentators seems to have little concern for the common good, coupled with the assumption people are poor because they are lazy and should be punished until they do more.
I also think Randian Objectivism has crept into the mainstream and poisoned public life.
Doublethink: The people on the receiving end of harm are less likely to keep their temper and more likely to be silenced by such a policy - which means you lose important parts of the argument.
In my experience loss of temper usually "means you lose important parts of the argument.," Doublethink. There is much to be said for: "Don't get mad, get even," isn't there?
Doublethink believes that being careful about arguments and technically right is liable to be read as pedantry and indifference.
And you know what? That's probably right. A faster and faster world is not interested in accuracy. What matters is being first and/or propagating a view through emotional response.
Doublethink believes that being careful about arguments and technically right is liable to be read as pedantry and indifference.
And you know what? That's probably right. A faster and faster world is not interested in accuracy. What matters is being first and/or propagating a view through emotional response.
Despite what Futurama may have you believe, technically correct is not the best kind of correct. Look, I'm as pedantic as the next person, but there are times when it's relevant and times when it's not, and the latter make you look insensitive at best and callous at worst.
Not what I said, exactly. I think the insistance on polite language misses the horrible things said politely. If people engage honestly, then even a less than perfect POV merits polite response. But when the speaker is both apparently dishonest or consistently speaking harmful rubbish, why should "polite" rules of engagement be adhered to?
It is exactly what you said. A direct quotation.
WTF? Kwesi said I claimed or implied licence. That is incorrect.
You claimed licence to be rude to those who in your opinion consistently speak harmful rubbish.
Seems to me that's part of what this thread is about.
Would you stick around on a site where your worldview was widely considered to be harmful rubbish and therefore everyone thought it OK to be rude to you ?
chrisstiles:........... but if you want to complain about the coarsening of political discourse then it is a fact that where the right-wing media led first, right wing politicians have been happy to follow.
I'm certainly no apologist for the right, and have neither reason, knowledge, nor desire to dispute your observation. What does worry me is your disinclination to dissociate yourself from the offensive language on this ship which seems exclusively to come from leftist contributors.
You appear to have shifted from arguing about 'the left' in general to 'leftists' on the ship (which you seem to conflate with 'socialists' later). I do not feel it incumbent upon me to do so because (among other things) I have no evidence that this standard is universally applied.
I've not been around for as long as some, but ISTR some fairly inflammatory threads on the old ship in which one particular individual went close to wishing personal harm on his interlocutors, I didn't see evidence that their fellow posters on 'the right' felt they spoke for anyone but themselves.
As a point of order, we can be as rude as we like about each other's arguments. We can treat polite support for a policy that would have half of us dead in a ditch with the utter contempt it deserves: we cannot be rude to the supporter (in Purgatory), no matter our feelings of righteous anger.
This is both a feature and potentially a bug, and why Hell exists.
chrisstiles:........... but if you want to complain about the coarsening of political discourse then it is a fact that where the right-wing media led first, right wing politicians have been happy to follow.
I'm certainly no apologist for the right, and have neither reason, knowledge, nor desire to dispute your observation. What does worry me is your disinclination to dissociate yourself from the offensive language on this ship which seems exclusively to come from leftist contributors. In that company I exclude Thunderbunk for recognising he went over the top. It is the tolerance of those on the left using moderate tones themselves to those of a similar ideological position expressing themselves more crudely that worries me, because such modes of expression betray intolerant and closed minds that in other circumstances leads to authoritarian practice. (For what it's worth, I think Trump is a fascist, for that reason.) I recall that earlier in this discussion a number of would-be participants in these posts were discouraged by the deployment of personal abuse. Such bullying language is not necessary in debate, and although I can take it, it should have no place here from whatever political quarter- IMO, of course. Do you agree, Chris?
Polite language is bullshit if the meaning behind one's word doesn't match the tone.
Nonsense, as millions of rugby union players down the centuries can confirm.
The players can - and are - polite and well-mannered to their opponents, but none of them on either side either give, or expect, any quarter during the violence of the game itself.
Were you not brought up to believe that politeness is important, that you can have debates and even wars conducted with good-manners?
English and German officers during both world wars invariably conducted themselves with politeness when coming into contact with each other after battles and capture. Of course they both probably knew each other's families before hostilities began, but nevertheless it proves one can be polite, especially during debates.
Orfeo: Doublethink believes that being careful about arguments and technically right is liable to be read as pedantry and indifference.ue
And you know what? That's probably right. A faster and faster world is not interested in accuracy. What matters is being first and/or propagating a view through emotional response.
I very much agree. Perhaps it's the influence of post-modernism, but we seem to have moved from an emphasis on the importance of rational argument to a stress on the importance of subjective feeling as a determinant of what is deemed to be true, and that the more forcefully a sentiment is expressed the more true it is. The problem with the employment of profanities as an expression of greater sincerity and justification, is that after an initial use in exceptional circumstances it rapidly loses its power. Frequent references to bovine excrement end up being little more than a reluctance to engage constructively in the point under discussion.
................
chrisstiles I've not been around for as long as some, but ISTR some fairly inflammatory threads on the old ship in which one particular individual went close to wishing personal harm on his interlocutors, I didn't see evidence that their fellow posters on 'the right' felt they spoke for anyone but themselves.
Chris, if your argument is that some shipmates on the right can be as culpable for their silence regarding infractions on their own side as some shipmates on the left are towards their fellow travellers then I have no issue with you whatsoever. My beef is with all those who turn a blind eye, and the partisanship of "No enemies on the [Left, Right, Centre]."
Orfeo: Doublethink believes that being careful about arguments and technically right is liable to be read as pedantry and indifference.ue
And you know what? That's probably right. A faster and faster world is not interested in accuracy. What matters is being first and/or propagating a view through emotional response.
I very much agree. Perhaps it's the influence of post-modernism, but we seem to have moved from an emphasis on the importance of rational argument to a stress on the importance of subjective feeling as a determinant of what is deemed to be true, and that the more forcefully a sentiment is expressed the more true it is. The problem with the employment of profanities as an expression of greater sincerity and justification, is that after an initial use in exceptional circumstances it rapidly loses its power. Frequent references to bovine excrement end up being little more than a reluctance to engage constructively in the point under discussion.
................
chrisstiles I've not been around for as long as some, but ISTR some fairly inflammatory threads on the old ship in which one particular individual went close to wishing personal harm on his interlocutors, I didn't see evidence that their fellow posters on 'the right' felt they spoke for anyone but themselves.
Chris, if your argument is that some shipmates on the right can be as culpable for their silence regarding infractions on their own side as some shipmates on the left are towards their fellow travellers then I have no issue with you whatsoever. My beef is with all those who turn a blind eye, and the partisanship of "No enemies on the [Left, Right, Centre]."
Kewse I don’t see the last part of behaved your post actually happen. If someone who agrees with me is being an idiot I will tell them so.
I genuinely cannot see how Conservatives policies are best for the country, but if a fellow lefty behaved badly I would ask them to stop. I really don’t see the conspiracy you point out.
As well said this is a current phase things will change
Hugal I genuinely cannot see how Conservatives policies are best for the country, but if a fellow lefty behaved badly I would ask them to stop. I really don’t see the conspiracy you point out.
You have every right to express your disapproval of the present Conservative administration, sentiments with which I mostly agree. In the context of this discussion, however, your caveat: "but if a fellow lefty behaved badly I would ask them to stop" is even more pertinent. I am not, however, suggesting there is a conspiracy behind a reluctance to call out bad behaviour on one's own side, unlike yourself, but the lack of courage to do so.
English and German officers during both world wars invariably conducted themselves with politeness when coming into contact with each other after battles and capture. Of course they both probably knew each other's families before hostilities began, but nevertheless it proves one can be polite, especially during debates.
So when POWs were shot, you think the soldiers did that politely ?
Doublethink believes that being careful about arguments and technically right is liable to be read as pedantry and indifference.
And you know what? That's probably right. A faster and faster world is not interested in accuracy. What matters is being first and/or propagating a view through emotional response.
I rarely quote the bible, but I believe what I suggest folk avoid is captured in the metaphor of Mathew 23:24.
Doublethink: The people on the receiving end of harm are less likely to keep their temper and more likely to be silenced by such a policy - which means you lose important parts of the argument.
In my experience loss of temper usually "means you lose important parts of the argument.," Doublethink. There is much to be said for: "Don't get mad, get even," isn't there?
At best, that only works if you believe it is a thing. Typically, IME, it is used to dismiss a point without actually dealing with it. An argument's tone doesn't change its validity.
....
English and German officers during both world wars invariably conducted themselves with politeness when coming into contact with each other after battles and capture. Of course they both probably knew each other's families before hostilities began, but nevertheless it proves one can be polite, especially during debates.
And those officers who were so polite to each other still sent thousands of soldiers to kill or be killed, to suffer the horrors of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, to rape and murder civilians, and to destroy their homes and property. ISTM that's a pretty good example of a veneer of politeness over utter contempt for the lives of others.
If they were all so fucking polite and knew each other so well, why did they have a war in the first place?
Shakespeare nailed it: a man may smile and smile and be a total douchebag, and now he's all like, "What's your problem? I was smiling the whole time. You're so rude!"
Despite what Futurama may have you believe, technically correct is not the best kind of correct. Look, I'm as pedantic as the next person, but there are times when it's relevant and times when it's not, and the latter make you look insensitive at best and callous at worst.
I think I'm on orfeo's side here. Accuracy is important. If you assert something as truth, and it is not truth, you devalue your argument. You can emote all you like, and that tells me that you're upset about something. That's fine - there's nothing wrong with being upset about something, and if what you want is a shoulder to cry on, then you can come and emote at me, and I'll give you a hug, a cup of tea, and a box of tissues, and let you tell me how you feel.
I have kids come to me in righteous indignation all the time, as do most other parents. They're genuinely upset about some perceived injustice at the hands of a sibling. Sometimes, the kid is 100% in the right, sometimes they're detailing the latest episode in some ongoing tit-for-tat squabble, and sometimes, they're the one mostly at fault and they're getting their grievance in first in the hope that it takes priority. But in all cases, what comes first is the outraged emoting, and you can't get to the bottom of the actual problem until they've calmed down a bit and can actually think and articulate.
That's my problem with trying to have emotional "arguments". The emoting certainly lends weight to the hurt that someone feels about the problem, but people in the grip of their emotions don't reason as well, so it's hard to have a constructive discussion.
Chris, if your argument is that some shipmates on the right can be as culpable for their silence regarding infractions on their own side as some shipmates on the left are towards their fellow travellers then I have no issue with you whatsoever. My beef is with all those who turn a blind eye, and the partisanship of "No enemies on the [Left, Right, Centre]."
As a matter of principle I don't feel that I have the responsibility to police the expressions of those with somewhat overlapping beliefs, unless I have some kind of relationship with or authority over them. Practically speaking this is something the hosts rightly assume for themselves.
Observationally, there are those in this thread addressing the OP's OP while studiously ignoring subsequent posts (and there are two threads on similar issues in the hotter place where you could have made a contribution), so I'm not sure whether you actually hold to this argument yourself.
Shakespeare nailed it: a man may smile and smile and be a total douchebag, and now he's all like, "What's your problem? I was smiling the whole time. You're so rude!"
Despite what Futurama may have you believe, technically correct is not the best kind of correct. Look, I'm as pedantic as the next person, but there are times when it's relevant and times when it's not, and the latter make you look insensitive at best and callous at worst.
I think I'm on orfeo's side here. Accuracy is important.
Communication is important, accuracy only when it enhances communication.
Communication is important, accuracy only when it enhances communication.
If you communicate lies, your words are of no value.
Life isn't truth or not truth, logic or emotion.
I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you trying to suggest that the quality of your argument doesn't depend on whether you're actually right about the facts?
Despite what Futurama may have you believe, technically correct is not the best kind of correct. Look, I'm as pedantic as the next person, but there are times when it's relevant and times when it's not, and the latter make you look insensitive at best and callous at worst.
I think I'm on orfeo's side here. Accuracy is important.
I agree that accuracy is important. Precision isn't always. I think it's accurate to say that withholding wages is theft, even if it doesn't meet the precise definition of one of the offences within the Theft Act 1968.
I agree that accuracy is important. Precision isn't always. I think it's accurate to say that withholding wages is theft, even if it doesn't meet the precise definition of one of the offences within the Theft Act 1968.
That depends on context. "Theft" has both a colloquial use, and a technical legal use. I think it's a reasonable statement in a colloquial sense, and indefensible in a legal sense. One of the features of the Ship is that we tend to blend technical and colloquial uses.
Communication is important, accuracy only when it enhances communication.
If you communicate lies, your words are of no value.
Something can be inaccurate and yet not a lie.
Black¹ is a term used inaccurately 99.99999999999%² of the time. And yet it is rarely used to deceive.
¹Black is the absence or complete absorption of visible light. Nearly, if not everything, you call black is actually technically grey. Or a very dark variant of a particular colour.
²See what I did there? That is unlikely to be completely accurate, because I randomly chose a number. But it isn't a lie and it represents what I am communicating.
Life isn't truth or not truth, logic or emotion.
I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you trying to suggest that the quality of your argument doesn't depend on whether you're actually right about the facts?
[/quote]I'm suggesting that many things contain elements of truth, but are not completely true.
Take your example of children. I have observed enough conflicts amongst children to know things can be said which are trueish, rather than completely true. For instance, after a fight, child A might truthfully say child B hit her first. However, child B might easily have instigated that swing in a number of ways, so who started the fight is not a matter of one child or the other.
I've often seen older children wish to do something, but also not be punished and so encourage their younger siblings to do the thing. The older can say they did not do the thing, but the truth is that it would not have happened except for their intervention.
I agree that accuracy is important. Precision isn't always. I think it's accurate to say that withholding wages is theft, even if it doesn't meet the precise definition of one of the offences within the Theft Act 1968.
That depends on context. "Theft" has both a colloquial use, and a technical legal use. I think it's a reasonable statement in a colloquial sense, and indefensible in a legal sense. One of the features of the Ship is that we tend to blend technical and colloquial uses.
Although, in the vast majority of instances, the colloquial is the most appropriate. There maybe specific threads discussing particular trials where it becomes important that technical legal use is adhered to, but in the vast majority of instances it's not only unnecessary to use technical legal language but can also be something that has the effect of killing a conversation. If I was to start a thread on nuclear power and then insist that everyone adhere strictly to technical language in discussing the subject it will be a discussion with very few people, and will exclude the vast majority of people with important things to say who don't happen to know or appreciate the technical language.
. chrisstiles: As a matter of principle I don't feel that I have the responsibility to police the expressions of those with somewhat overlapping beliefs, unless I have some kind of relationship with or authority over them. Practically speaking this is something the hosts rightly assume for themselves.
A fair point. My main concern is the culture within which shipmates share their opinions and discuss their differences. There is no reason, however, why strongly-held positions cannot be debated within a context of civility because that is related to mutual respect. The employment of abusive language is not designed to strengthen an argument but to close it down. It concerns me that there is a seeming reluctance to call out verbal bullying when it comes from an ideologically ally. It is little wonder that new or would-be contributors are reluctant to participate. I agree that formal 'policing' should be the province of the hosts, but it would be nice to think it is within the context of 'policing with consent'.
Perhaps it's the influence of post-modernism, but we seem to have moved from an emphasis on the importance of rational argument to a stress on the importance of subjective feeling as a determinant of what is deemed to be true
I think a lot of that is down to the movement against “offensive” speech or actions, where “offensive” has been defined purely in terms of the subjective reaction of the offended party (e.g. if a BAME person feels that something said to them was racist, it was. No further examination necessary). See, for example, the way completely non-racist words like “niggardly” can no longer be used because of incorrect subjective perceptions based on how they happen to sound.
It was inevitable that once subjective emotional responses were accepted as the definers of truth in one area, the same would happen in others. And now we have a political situation where significant numbers of people aren’t interested in facts or experts because those things are at variance with how they feel about the matter.
A fair point. My main concern is the culture within which shipmates share their opinions and discuss their differences. There is no reason, however, why strongly-held positions cannot be debated within a context of civility because that is related to mutual respect.
Depending on the position being held, this is not true. Expressing the opinion, with or without swear words, that your interlocutor should not or does not exist as a human being is not indicative of respect.
Secondly, people’s standards for civility vary.
The employment of abusive language is not designed to strengthen an argument but to close it down.
You present this assertion without evidence. Adjectival swearing, for example, is often used as an intensifier in speech and text. Nor do you define what you consider “abusive language”.
It concerns me that there is a seeming reluctance to call out verbal bullying when it comes from an ideologically ally.
Whilst I agree this can be a concern, I also think their is a simplistic portrayal involved. Passive aggression and contempt expressed without the use of slang can still comprise part of the process of bullying.
Marvin the Martian .... (e.g. if a BAME person feels that something said to them was racist, it was. No further examination necessary)
You might have added that the "offender" might protest that he/her is not racist, when an impartial observer might want to say: "Well, given what you've done/said indicates you are!' As you say, further examination is necessary. I leave aside the issue of self-assigned sex/gender. The problem, of course, is that if objectivity is rejected so is rational debate.
Comments
I have no intention of following Trump's Twitter Account, but nor to recommend that his coarsening of political debate should be combatted in a similar tone, and nor do I intend to construct an index of culpability between left, right and centre, . What I do wish to promote is a greater civility and reasonable debate in political discourse. I would like to think that is reflected in the attitudes of shipmates towards their messmates.
I do not believe that Ruth was proposing that other segments of political thought follow this example but if you want to complain about the coarsening of political discourse then it is a fact that where the right-wing media led first, right wing politicians have been happy to follow.
I'm certainly no apologist for the right, and have neither reason, knowledge, nor desire to dispute your observation. What does worry me is your disinclination to dissociate yourself from the offensive language on this ship which seems exclusively to come from leftist contributors. In that company I exclude Thunderbunk for recognising he went over the top. It is the tolerance of those on the left using moderate tones themselves to those of a similar ideological position expressing themselves more crudely that worries me, because such modes of expression betray intolerant and closed minds that in other circumstances leads to authoritarian practice. (For what it's worth, I think Trump is a fascist, for that reason.) I recall that earlier in this discussion a number of would-be participants in these posts were discouraged by the deployment of personal abuse. Such bullying language is not necessary in debate, and although I can take it, it should have no place here from whatever political quarter- IMO, of course. Do you agree, Chris?
@Kwesi, you need to substantiate your claim that the left routinely indulges in "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and the employment of personal abuse" in ways that the right does not. Again, I'll wait.
Very specifically my remarks were apropos a contribution from, Thunderbunk above:
It was, however, not untypical of a style of reasoning that has become increasingly common on the ship, so it seems to me, used by shipmates regarding themselves as socialist. It would appear they are justified in adopting this approach because their cause is morally superior to that of those holding more conservative opinions, which by definition are unworthy of serious consideration because they are responsible for all the world's evil. As lilbuddha has just opined, she has license to use abusive terms because, "Polite language is bullshit if the meaning behind one's word doesn't match the tone." Judge and jury in her own case, I guess. Given the experience of socialist societies in the twentieth century and in the present one, which have been hardly different from fascist states in the experience of their citizens, a somewhat lesser sense of moral superiority might be expected, not to mention a greater willingness to explore other points of view. and acknowledgement of the sincerity and integrity of those who hold them. We know only too well the monsters that have invaded the political sphere from stage left and right: the enemies of open societies. The plea for moderation of language is not about politeness but a recognition of the diversity of humanity, the desperately weak foundations of what we think we know, and respect for human dignity.
A final footnote: the reason, Ruth:, why I have not mentioned contributions from the right is that in regard to this ship they have not been among the transgressors- they wouldn't dare!
Considering what is happening in Portland, OR.
It is exactly what you said. A direct quotation.
I omitted, for sake of brevity, a half dozen academic conferences and God alone knows how many conversations over the years-- perhaps 150 or so- where precious few people had travelled or paid much attention to the rest of the planet. Most of my US friends (not the golfers with whom I associate out of filial piety) are people I have encountered on the Camino or through modern dance or dead languages and who would agree with you. They don't fit into the golf club set who, mind you, have a great deal of direction over how the US is run and governed.
I would rather turn the electoral college over to butoh dancers, polyglots, and baroque musicians and, as soon as I can, I will.
Because you are not like that.
Ah, well......
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
It is not simply “bad language”
Moreover, I think tone policing is unhelpful. It treats issues that are deeply painful as if they are some kind of academic game. The people on the receiving end of harm are less likely to keep their temper and more likely to be silenced by such a policy - which means you lose important parts of the argument.
Re an earlier comment, if someone advocates war crimes and the widespread killing of non-combatants in warfare - yes I would consider that a morally bankrupt position and those opposing it, of whatever political persuasion, to be taking a morally superior position on that specific issue.
I consider suffering to be a moral issue.
If you advocate polices I disagree with because you believe they will bring about a better result, that is one kind of disagreement. (I have heard it said, for example, that a globalised free market has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in human history and consider this a possible and powerful argument you can make about capitalism.)
If you advocate a policy because it will get you things you or a narrow interest group want in the short or long term - whilst knowing it is objectively harmful for the majority - that is a different kind of argument. (E.g. I want to promote the use of fossil fuels and therefore want vat removed from petrol car prices because I have shares in an oil company and I’ll be dead before climate change becomes a problem big enough to effect me.)
Very often what I hear from ‘right-wing’ commentators seems to have little concern for the common good, coupled with the assumption people are poor because they are lazy and should be punished until they do more.
I also think Randian Objectivism has crept into the mainstream and poisoned public life.
In my experience loss of temper usually "means you lose important parts of the argument.," Doublethink. There is much to be said for: "Don't get mad, get even," isn't there?
And you know what? That's probably right. A faster and faster world is not interested in accuracy. What matters is being first and/or propagating a view through emotional response.
Despite what Futurama may have you believe, technically correct is not the best kind of correct. Look, I'm as pedantic as the next person, but there are times when it's relevant and times when it's not, and the latter make you look insensitive at best and callous at worst.
You claimed licence to be rude to those who in your opinion consistently speak harmful rubbish.
Seems to me that's part of what this thread is about.
Would you stick around on a site where your worldview was widely considered to be harmful rubbish and therefore everyone thought it OK to be rude to you ?
You appear to have shifted from arguing about 'the left' in general to 'leftists' on the ship (which you seem to conflate with 'socialists' later). I do not feel it incumbent upon me to do so because (among other things) I have no evidence that this standard is universally applied.
I've not been around for as long as some, but ISTR some fairly inflammatory threads on the old ship in which one particular individual went close to wishing personal harm on his interlocutors, I didn't see evidence that their fellow posters on 'the right' felt they spoke for anyone but themselves.
This is both a feature and potentially a bug, and why Hell exists.
Nonsense, as millions of rugby union players down the centuries can confirm.
The players can - and are - polite and well-mannered to their opponents, but none of them on either side either give, or expect, any quarter during the violence of the game itself.
Were you not brought up to believe that politeness is important, that you can have debates and even wars conducted with good-manners?
English and German officers during both world wars invariably conducted themselves with politeness when coming into contact with each other after battles and capture. Of course they both probably knew each other's families before hostilities began, but nevertheless it proves one can be polite, especially during debates.
I very much agree. Perhaps it's the influence of post-modernism, but we seem to have moved from an emphasis on the importance of rational argument to a stress on the importance of subjective feeling as a determinant of what is deemed to be true, and that the more forcefully a sentiment is expressed the more true it is. The problem with the employment of profanities as an expression of greater sincerity and justification, is that after an initial use in exceptional circumstances it rapidly loses its power. Frequent references to bovine excrement end up being little more than a reluctance to engage constructively in the point under discussion.
................
Chris, if your argument is that some shipmates on the right can be as culpable for their silence regarding infractions on their own side as some shipmates on the left are towards their fellow travellers then I have no issue with you whatsoever. My beef is with all those who turn a blind eye, and the partisanship of "No enemies on the [Left, Right, Centre]."
Kewse I don’t see the last part of behaved your post actually happen. If someone who agrees with me is being an idiot I will tell them so.
I genuinely cannot see how Conservatives policies are best for the country, but if a fellow lefty behaved badly I would ask them to stop. I really don’t see the conspiracy you point out.
As well said this is a current phase things will change
You have every right to express your disapproval of the present Conservative administration, sentiments with which I mostly agree. In the context of this discussion, however, your caveat: "but if a fellow lefty behaved badly I would ask them to stop" is even more pertinent. I am not, however, suggesting there is a conspiracy behind a reluctance to call out bad behaviour on one's own side, unlike yourself, but the lack of courage to do so.
So when POWs were shot, you think the soldiers did that politely ?
I rarely quote the bible, but I believe what I suggest folk avoid is captured in the metaphor of Mathew 23:24.
Is part of the issue when people don't care if they're technically wrong because they're emotionally right ?
Not sure if it's possible to have a constructive discussion on that basis.
Not round here, you're not...
And those officers who were so polite to each other still sent thousands of soldiers to kill or be killed, to suffer the horrors of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, to rape and murder civilians, and to destroy their homes and property. ISTM that's a pretty good example of a veneer of politeness over utter contempt for the lives of others.
If they were all so fucking polite and knew each other so well, why did they have a war in the first place?
Shakespeare nailed it: a man may smile and smile and be a total douchebag, and now he's all like, "What's your problem? I was smiling the whole time. You're so rude!"
I think I'm on orfeo's side here. Accuracy is important. If you assert something as truth, and it is not truth, you devalue your argument. You can emote all you like, and that tells me that you're upset about something. That's fine - there's nothing wrong with being upset about something, and if what you want is a shoulder to cry on, then you can come and emote at me, and I'll give you a hug, a cup of tea, and a box of tissues, and let you tell me how you feel.
I have kids come to me in righteous indignation all the time, as do most other parents. They're genuinely upset about some perceived injustice at the hands of a sibling. Sometimes, the kid is 100% in the right, sometimes they're detailing the latest episode in some ongoing tit-for-tat squabble, and sometimes, they're the one mostly at fault and they're getting their grievance in first in the hope that it takes priority. But in all cases, what comes first is the outraged emoting, and you can't get to the bottom of the actual problem until they've calmed down a bit and can actually think and articulate.
That's my problem with trying to have emotional "arguments". The emoting certainly lends weight to the hurt that someone feels about the problem, but people in the grip of their emotions don't reason as well, so it's hard to have a constructive discussion.
As a matter of principle I don't feel that I have the responsibility to police the expressions of those with somewhat overlapping beliefs, unless I have some kind of relationship with or authority over them. Practically speaking this is something the hosts rightly assume for themselves.
Observationally, there are those in this thread addressing the OP's OP while studiously ignoring subsequent posts (and there are two threads on similar issues in the hotter place where you could have made a contribution), so I'm not sure whether you actually hold to this argument yourself.
Life isn't truth or not truth, logic or emotion.
I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you trying to suggest that the quality of your argument doesn't depend on whether you're actually right about the facts?
I agree that accuracy is important. Precision isn't always. I think it's accurate to say that withholding wages is theft, even if it doesn't meet the precise definition of one of the offences within the Theft Act 1968.
That depends on context. "Theft" has both a colloquial use, and a technical legal use. I think it's a reasonable statement in a colloquial sense, and indefensible in a legal sense. One of the features of the Ship is that we tend to blend technical and colloquial uses.
Black¹ is a term used inaccurately 99.99999999999%² of the time. And yet it is rarely used to deceive.
¹Black is the absence or complete absorption of visible light. Nearly, if not everything, you call black is actually technically grey. Or a very dark variant of a particular colour.
²See what I did there? That is unlikely to be completely accurate, because I randomly chose a number. But it isn't a lie and it represents what I am communicating.
I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you trying to suggest that the quality of your argument doesn't depend on whether you're actually right about the facts?
[/quote]I'm suggesting that many things contain elements of truth, but are not completely true.
Take your example of children. I have observed enough conflicts amongst children to know things can be said which are trueish, rather than completely true. For instance, after a fight, child A might truthfully say child B hit her first. However, child B might easily have instigated that swing in a number of ways, so who started the fight is not a matter of one child or the other.
I've often seen older children wish to do something, but also not be punished and so encourage their younger siblings to do the thing. The older can say they did not do the thing, but the truth is that it would not have happened except for their intervention.
A fair point. My main concern is the culture within which shipmates share their opinions and discuss their differences. There is no reason, however, why strongly-held positions cannot be debated within a context of civility because that is related to mutual respect. The employment of abusive language is not designed to strengthen an argument but to close it down. It concerns me that there is a seeming reluctance to call out verbal bullying when it comes from an ideologically ally. It is little wonder that new or would-be contributors are reluctant to participate. I agree that formal 'policing' should be the province of the hosts, but it would be nice to think it is within the context of 'policing with consent'.
I think a lot of that is down to the movement against “offensive” speech or actions, where “offensive” has been defined purely in terms of the subjective reaction of the offended party (e.g. if a BAME person feels that something said to them was racist, it was. No further examination necessary). See, for example, the way completely non-racist words like “niggardly” can no longer be used because of incorrect subjective perceptions based on how they happen to sound.
It was inevitable that once subjective emotional responses were accepted as the definers of truth in one area, the same would happen in others. And now we have a political situation where significant numbers of people aren’t interested in facts or experts because those things are at variance with how they feel about the matter.
Depending on the position being held, this is not true. Expressing the opinion, with or without swear words, that your interlocutor should not or does not exist as a human being is not indicative of respect.
Secondly, people’s standards for civility vary.
You present this assertion without evidence. Adjectival swearing, for example, is often used as an intensifier in speech and text. Nor do you define what you consider “abusive language”.
Whilst I agree this can be a concern, I also think their is a simplistic portrayal involved. Passive aggression and contempt expressed without the use of slang can still comprise part of the process of bullying.
You might have added that the "offender" might protest that he/her is not racist, when an impartial observer might want to say: "Well, given what you've done/said indicates you are!' As you say, further examination is necessary. I leave aside the issue of self-assigned sex/gender. The problem, of course, is that if objectivity is rejected so is rational debate.