...it does not excuse an argumentative approach that is abusive. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ok, but this is a philosophy forum, not a Catholic forum. And so when somebody types ugly words we might be focused on better understanding our own experience.

Somebody calls me a dirty dog. I get upset. Why did I get upset? What is actually happening inside my mind? Typically it goes something like this...

A poster claims that I'm just some stupid old half senile geezer wasting time on the Internuts because I have no life. This story conflicts with the more flattering story I have about myself, which is that I am a seasoned sage passing the wisdom of the ages on to a new generation. :smile:

To the degree I am attached to the "seasoned sage" story I'm likely to resent the "stupid old geezer" story, because that old geezer story diminishes my importance.

Why do I need to feel important, large, significant, useful? Why am I attached to the sage story?? Probably because somewhere inside I feel small and so I'm using the "seasoned sage" story to push that perceived smallness away.

Why do I feel small? Because I think. Thought operates by a process of division and it has divided my experience of reality in to "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small. "Everything else" is very very big. And so I attach "me" to some group, some cause, some story in an attempt to make myself feel bigger, less vulnerable, less alone.

I'm not suggesting the above analysis is perfectly correct, I'm just offering a sample of what kind of inquiry should be taking place.

If a members prefer to engage in a finger pointing blame and shame manipulation by guilt campaign designed to edit everyone else to our taste, ok, go for it. That's a fool's errand imho, but there's no law against it. But such a process is better pursued on websites that are all about moralism, such as a Catholic forum for example. Catholics (and many other Christians) love moralism, they can never get enough of it. Those who want to pursue a moralist strategy would feel quite at home there.

Love is the pinnacle, I really believe. I'd rather not be taken seriously, than give up on love! It takes much much more strength to love in the face of hatred than to hate. The proof is in the difficulty of it. Hate is easy, love is hard.

Thank you for the encouragement, it is much appreciated.

If a members prefer to engage in a finger pointing blame and shame manipulation by guilt campaign designed to edit everyone else to our taste, ok, go for it. That's a fool's errand imho, but there's no law against it. — Jake

Jake, it is a pleasure to meet you and I do appreciate and agree with your thoughtful response. My only pushback to you is that I don't believe for a minute that your inner "sage" would fall based on another persons opinion.

Jake, it is a pleasure to meet you and I do appreciate and agree with your thoughtful response. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

WTF?? You agree? You agree??? ATTENTION MODERATOR!! Clear violation of the rules!!!! :smile:

My only pushback to you is that I don't believe for a minute that your inner "sage" would fall based on another persons opinion. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, my experience has been that people who learn things learn those things because they need to learn them.

ATTENTION MODERATOR!! Clear violation of the rules!!!! — Jake

Releasing flying monkeys now!

There was a lot more to my post, that you cherry-picked, that establishes a different theme than what you seem to have gathered from it.

Nazis limited free speech. That is the similarity that your forum has, yes, but I was also referring to your "extremist" statements. Did you not argue that you should engage in extreme behavior to combat extreme behavior? That is what I was referring to in establishing a similarity between you and Nazis.

Sure, you have the right as a private owner of a website to establish certain rules and you don't throw people that break the rules into a concentration camp. That is obvious. It makes me think that you cherry-picked on purpose and misrepresented my post and me, to avoid having to address the meat of my post, or at least trying to insult my intelligence by thinking that I wouldn't know that difference.

You see, in a free society, where free ideas are allowed to compete and the winners are those that are coherent, reasonable and consistent, Nazism would never be able to gain a foothold. It is only when you allow a certain group or individual to gain a lot of power, that you run that risk. As long as true free speech and ideas are allowed to exist AND compete in the arena of reason (there must be a competition of ideas for progress to happen and to root out emotional ideologies like Nazism), then we don't really need rules for controlling it, do we?

Extreme reactions to extreme actions are not the answer. Reasonable reactions to extreme actions are the answer. You fight racism (hate) with reason, not reciprocal racism (hate). The emotions are not bearers of truth (other than the fact that you have them in certain situations). Reason is - and it is why reason always wins out when determining the truth. — Harry Hindu

Oh, I actually missed this post and only got notified of the one where you rhetorically expressed doubt about whether I was a pedophile (consider this a replacement response). Anyway, no, I didn't deliberately cherry pick though of course I may have misunderstood your intention (your post was relatively short and I addressed what appeared to be the substance of it); no, I don't own the site, jamalrob does; no, Nazism did actually take hold in a relatively free society (the Weimar Republic) and in any case we are talking about this forum—I'm not advocating for changes in free speech laws generally; no, it's not wrong to moderate Nazis, pedophiles and the like on an internet forum, it's a very sensible reaction that almost every forum employs; and no, reason demonstrably doesn't always "win" when determining the truth in that plenty of people are convinced by its opposite and ultimate agreement on what the truth is anyway, especially wrt moral issues, is rare.

No, they're demonstrably not mutually exclusive. Neither rudeness nor arrogance etc. need prevent one from being analytical or logical. I've seen that combination plenty of times and I've been that combination plenty of times. I'm capable of analysing an argument, determining that it's fallacious, and then pointing that out in an arrogant or rude manner. And so are you. And so is anyone with the right knowledge and skill set.

ALL SIGHT - YOU ARE AN ORANGE POTATO!!! — Jake

:scream:

That's uncalled for.

I'm capable of analysing an argument, determining that it's fallacious, and then pointing that out in an arrogant or rude manner. — Sapientia

Ok, but what does the arrogant and rude manner have to do with analytical logic? Isn't it a completely separate agenda?

And, I believe All Sight is making the case that using a rude and arrogant manner makes one less persuasive, and thus such a manner is reasonably labeled illogical. If you were to now argue that the speaker is not interested in be persuasive, then what does "pointing that out" mean. Pointing out to who, for what purpose?

And so are you. — Sapientia

What? WHAT? How dare you accuse me of being capable of rudeness you ignorant peasant!!!! :smile: Seriously, ya, definitely capable of stepping on my own message with rude language. Would this be a good place for me to disclose that I've been banned from more forums than most of you ever thought of visiting? True story!

Ok, but what does the arrogant and rude manner have to do with analytical logic? — Jake

Exactly.

Isn't it a completely separate agenda? — Jake

I don't think that "agenda" is necessarily the most fitting word, but otherwise yes, they're two separate things. (Arrogance and rudeness are traits, mannerisms or characteristics first and foremost, and as such, they could simply be manifestations or expressions of mood or personality rather than being an agenda).

And, I believe All Sight is making the case that using a rude and arrogant manner makes one less persuasive, and thus such a manner is reasonably labeled illogical. If you were to now argue that the speaker is not interested in be persuasive, then what does "pointing that out" mean. Pointing out to who, for what purpose? — Jake

You might be right that it makes one less persuasive, but I think you'll find that that's not everyone's top priority here. Personally, I prefer to stick to a style that suits me, and leave it up to others as to whether they can pass muster and see past the superficial layer of tone or harshness of language and get down to business. Some people chose not to, and that's their prerogative. Others are unable to, and that's a weakness. I would much prefer a blunt and on point response to a sugar coated off point one.

What? WHAT? How dare you accuse me of being capable of rudeness you ignorant peasant!!!! :smile: Seriously, ya, definitely capable of stepping on my own message with rude language. Would this be a good place for me to disclose that I've been banned from more forums than most of you ever thought of visiting? True story! — Jake

Interesting. Well, I like you anyways, for whatever that's worth, despite clashing with you in your discussion on nuclear weapons. (There's nothin' like a good ol' clash, I say!). Turns out you're not as single-minded as I initially thought. :razz:

Love is the pinnacle, I really believe. I'd rather not be taken seriously, than give up on love! It takes much much more strength to love in the face of hatred than to hate. The proof is in the difficulty of it. Hate is easy, love is hard. — All sight

It’s hard to take someone who holds such a shallow and idealistic view of love seriously, not to mention the melodrama.

Love is not the pinnacle. Any idiot can love. Truth, reason, equanimity, wisdom, and so on, are no less valuable.

Love is not the pinnacle. Any idiot can love. — praxis

:up:

Any idiot can love. — praxis

Reminds me of Dostoyevsky's The Idiot.

It’s hard to take someone who holds such a shallow and idealistic view of love seriously, not to mention the melodrama. — praxis

Sounds more like cynicism than wisdom to me.

Reminds me of Dostoyevsky's The Idiot. — Sapientia

And that ended well. [said the cynic]

And that ended well. [said the cynic] — praxis

well played

And that ended well. [said the cynic] — praxis

Well, at least it all turned out well in the end for Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. I mean, eight years of hard labour in Siberia can't be that bad, right?

It’s hard to take someone who holds such a shallow and idealistic view of love seriously, not to mention the melodrama.
— praxis

Sounds more like cynicism than wisdom to me. — Rank Amateur

I'm not devaluing love and I didn't claim the difficulty of taking you seriously was wise. It's more of an intuitive estimation, I suppose. But maybe my estimation is wrong. Can you make an argument that 'love is the pinnacle'?

No one is asking you to give up on love, incidentally.

It takes much much more strength to love in the face of hatred than to hate. — All sight

Love may or may not be the best response to hatred, depending on the situation and the the desired outcome.

Hate is easy, love is hard. — All sight

You find it hard to love people but easy to hate them?

The idea that 'niceness' must be maintained at all costs in the face of the hurt, abuse, and injustice is insane. It's an argument for coddled schoolchildren unexposed to the threats and reality of violence, poverty, and real pain that pervade all corners of the world. Or else it's the argument of those who are utterly blind to power relations and think that everyone speaks on an equal playing field as though the stakes of discussion are nothing more than parlour games in a gentlemen's club, and not, in some cases, lives. 'Niceness' is not some transcendental principle of discourse; it is a strategic tool to be employed in the right contexts - as is venom, abuse, and 'unpleasantness', each of which has its rightful and important place in all discussion. Trivial cordiality is a contributor, and not a panacea, to misery. — StreetlightX

:up:

Isn't that a big brother attitude or is it parental prerogatives? Are you saying some ''children'' need spanking?

I guess you're right but we all hope for a better world.

What resonates with me from Street's post is that there's a meta-battle for framing going on above and beyond any particular debate. Those who tend towards a more aggressive form of argumentation are likely to describe themselves as 'passionate' and 'forceful' whereas those who don't will probably condemn that style as 'arrogant' and 'bullying'. On this level of framing then the gloves are off for the "nice" interlocutors too as they become the primary aggressors. The only difference really being that they want to have their moral-high-ground cake and eat it too. So, there's no inherent moral superiority of either style. That's just smoke and mirrors. They're strategies that can only be judged in terms of their moral appropriateness with regard to the contexts in which they are applied. For example, a parent bullying their child into doing what they want with harsh language is generally wrong, but a forceful verbal pushback against the purveyors of vile ideologies is very often appropriate.

Isn't that a big brother attitude or is it parental prerogatives? — TheMadFool

there's a meta-battle for framing going on — Baden

'A meta-battle for framing' is a nice way to put it; and the challenge here is to avoid - at all costs - fixing the value of this meta-framing once and all: as if all aggression is only never negative and debilitating, as if all cordiality is only ever positive and helpful. But none of these meta-framings can be given in advance, and it's only with attention to - as you said - their context of deployment, that one can start talking, with any seriousness at all, about 'big brother attitudes' and so on.

and no, reason demonstrably doesn't always "win" when determining the truth in that plenty of people are convinced by its opposite and ultimate agreement on what the truth is anyway, especially wrt moral issues, is rare. — Baden

Wha-What?

What other method has provided access to truth better than reason? What other method, other than reason, has provided actual answers to anything?

The ironic thing is that everyone uses their reason to find answers to solutions. It is ONLY when they don't like the answer do they suddenly say, "reason doesn't provide all the answers." Reason itself dictates that your feelings are nothing when it comes to determining truth. We were never guaranteed answers that we like or are consolable.

When it comes to moral issues, you are in agreement with me without even knowing it. There are no answers to moral issues, because morality isn't objective. Morality has to do with our individual goals and how they are either inhibited or promoted by others. The best "answer" you can come up to any moral dilemma is whose goals get to be imposed on others?

Harry Hindu has every right to label the mod team Nazis (in whatever sense) if he wants (here in feedback anyway). It's up to us then to argue back if we want. It wouldn't be sensible for either of us to take any of that personally, and I wouldn't even bother calling it "abusive" as that in itself could be deemed just another label. Come to think of it, aren't we in danger of labelling the labelers, "labelers"! — Baden

Exactly. That is why I said that we need to dispense with the labeling and engage in reasoning your way through arguments. Labeling does nothing other than reinforce your already deeply held beliefs (beliefs with emotional attachments).

I'm making the pragmatic point that many people are fairly impervious to reason and more swayed by rthetoric, so if "winning" in the marketplace of ideas really was just down to using reason, I'd agree with you, but I'm saying it's demonstrably not.

So, I'm rejecting the implication as put here:

You see, in a free society, where free ideas are allowed to compete and the winners are those that are coherent, reasonable and consistent, Nazism would never be able to gain a foothold. — Harry Hindu

that the winners in the marketplace of ideas will be the ideas that are coherent, reasonable and consistent. It's more like the winners in the marketplace of ideas will be those of whoever is in power. To paraphrase Marx, the ruling ideology is the ideology of the rulers. And wrt to extremism, what determines whether it flourishes or not tends to relate more to the presence of social and economic turmoil that upsets the hegemony of the ruling class than levels of censorship etc. The power of the prevalent ideology tends to wane in proportion to how difficult it gets to put food on the table.

Of course, none of that is incompatible with the more philosophical point that, all other things being equal, the use of reason is, theoretically, the best way for each individual to search for truth. That's hardly more than a truism. And in any case, I'm in agreement with the principles of public free speech (with some minor limitations). What I reject is the idea that because it is desirable to apply this to society as a whole, it is desirable to apply it to every micro-environment in that society. What is more desirable in my view is that people are given a choice of environments of varying levels of free speech which they can freely choose to frequent in so far as it suits them to do so. What posters can't get here, they can get somewhere else, but if we all acquiesced to full free speech then this type of controlled environment, which is many people's preference, would be unavailable anywhere.

Exactly. That is why I said that we need to dispense with the labeling and engage in reasoning your way through arguments. Labeling does nothing other than reinforce your already deeply held beliefs (beliefs with emotional attachments). — Harry Hindu

But again, we're in a battle for framing as I've already alluded to. And labelling is to some degree unavoidable. So, the label you seem to want to put on someone like me is an "enemy of reason" or an "enemy of free speech". On those terms, you already win. And yes, it's true if I successfully label someone a Nazi or a racist, I already win (among the vast majority of people). So, if you can deprive me through an effort at framing of the legitimacy of taking advantage of explicit labels while you take advantage of implicit ones, you put me at a disadvantage (I'm using "you" and "I" in a generalized way here btw). All of that is just a matter of argumentative strategy. Where the ethical comes in is in terms of goals. What is the strategy aimed at achieving?

Where the ethical comes in is in terms of goals. What is the strategy aimed at achieving? — Baden

(For example, am I labeling someone a Nazi just to disparage and hurt them because I don't like them personally, and/or because I have no other argumentative tools at my disposal (unethical). Or am I labeling someone a Nazi because they have demonstrated themselves to be so, and I think it's important people know, so that the Nazi be marginalized and deprived of some opportunity to spread their dangerous ideology (ethical)).

Listen up you brainless bumbling bovines, and learn how rudeness can be a form of kindness.

Many or most forums can be described as mutual validation societies. You know, like minded people gather together to build a self flattering group consensus. "We are the chosen holy people", or "we are the laser sharp logic masters", and so on.

If we enter such a community and challenge the group consensus that may be welcomed because the challenge gives the community the opportunity to reinforce their self flattering story by rising to meet the challenge. If the challenge presented is ineffective the group will revel in their defeat of the outsider, and all will be well.

Problems will soon arise if the challenge presented is an effective challenge. There are two ways to present an effective challenge, the kind way, and the ruthless way.

KIND: The kind way to present an effective challenge is to do so rudely. This allows the threatened community to change the subject from the post to the poster, and gives them an out, an excuse to ban us without having to admit they are doing so to escape from the threat.

RUTHLESS: The ruthless way to present to present an effective challenge is to do so with impeccable manners, because now all doors of escape are closed.

So obviously it is in the spirit of love and compassion that I scream in your faces that all of you are a bunch of BRAINLESS BUMBLING BOVINES!!!

Is this the best rationalization you've read all day, or what? :smile:

Oops, gotta go, the nurse is bringing my medications...

On the subject of Nazis....

I won't do so here, but a case can be made for Nazism. Should the mods be willing to conduct such an experiment I'll start a new thread for it. The point of such an exercise might be to illustrate that in the right hands any idea can be defended or destroyed, which may tend to illustrate the limitations of thought, reason and philosophy etc.

There's nothing to lose really, if you wind up not liking the thread you can always delete it.

Devil's advocate type thing? Let us think about it.

Anyway, to add another couple of cents concerning this discussion: Part of the problem here is, I think, that we're always looking for simple narratives/injunctions to guide our behaviour. We're built that way. Two such on display here are:

1: Be nice (That's good)!
2: Don't label (That's bad)!

I think those injunctions need to be problematized and rejected in favour of (if we need some relatively simple principles):

1: Argue on the basis of the desire for a justifiable outcome (That's good!)
2: Don't be insincere (That's bad)!
3: Be aware of the distinction between strategy and morality and the various levels at which they are employed (That's good!).

Devil's advocate type thing? — Baden

Yes, I'm not a Nazi.

Let us think about it. — Baden

If you agree to the proposal, I'll pass the word on down the chain of command to my stooges to make sure they don't haul you off to the camps.

Hah, thanks. (And I knew you weren't a Nazi, honest :) )