Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Politeness in Posting

Rate this topic


Dante

Recommended Posts

This thread is in response to a discussion that has arisen in the “Hiring Moderators” thread about the importance of politeness and professionalism on the part of the moderators of an internet forum. I wish to expand this discussion a bit, to the question of how anyone who is attempting in some part to represent and communicate Objectivism should behave, rather than restricting it to simply moderators.

The argument I present will be for the conclusion that, if one’s goals in participating on an internet forum include spreading the ideas of Objectivism to those unfamiliar with it, then one should retain a certain element of politeness in responses, even when one believes it is not deserved by the particular target of the comment(s). This is not an argument for a top-down policy change for OO.net, although the topic was sparked by the discussion of site policy.

To state the obvious, this is a public forum, and many people who come here are interested in learning about Objectivism, perhaps after reading Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead, but know very little of the structure of Objectivism itself. They will not have the background to make sense of many of the comments which they will encounter here. It is counterproductive to their understanding of Objectivism if they come here and see harsh responses to issues that they have never even thought about. Even if I believe that my negative response is completely warranted by an earlier post, if I do not make it clear why I my criticisms hit the mark, it will look to the uninitiated like I am merely being mean because I disagree with the earlier post. Of course those who possess a significant understanding of Objectivism might understand why my response is appropriate, but on a public forum (given that my goals include reaching out to newbies) I must also think about how my post would look to someone without that framework.

I would like to pick an example which I believe illustrates my point very well. In doing so, I do not mean to pick on the particular people involved. After beginning a thread in which Hermes posted various negative aspects of our criminal justice system in bullet point fashion, he responded to an inquiry about his point, in another thread, with “What if I have no "point" or thesis but am only cataloging facts in order to understand them?” The response by DavidOdden was the following: “Then you will have established, for all to see, that you are a conceptual savage, living at a purely concrete level, incapable of concept-formation or any other form of generalization.”

I do not wish to discuss the question of whether such a response was warranted by Hermes’ conduct (which is not limited to the elements included here, and included also reading threats into innocuous posts), but rather the effect such a comment might have on a newbie who read it. I choose this particular instance because I think that it is actually a very precise response to the situation by David. One of the major themes of Objectivism is the importance of integrating one’s knowledge within and across different spheres into one coherent whole. Because reality is consistent, all knowledge is interrelated, and one should strive always to make connections between different facts and different parts of one’s knowledge. Someone who notes various facts but makes no attempt to connect them is being irrational, and the practice of separating various parts of knowledge into hermetically sealed, separate spheres has done a great amount of damage to society. With all of that understood, the characterization of someone who characteristically fails to integrate their knowledge as a “conceptual savage, living at a purely concrete level” is quite precise and, frankly, accurate.

However, to someone who has never encountered the Objectivist position on the vital importance of knowledge integration, the subtleties of this response are not apparent, and all that can be discerned by that person is the extreme negative tone. My point is that it is precisely these people who most need to come to understand the issue at hand (in this case, the importance of knowledge integration). If they are presented with merely the end result, phrased harshly, they will not understand or accept the characterization and will respond only to the harsh tone. They may well leave the site never to come back, rather than pursuing their initial goal of understanding Objectivism. To anyone who cares about spreading the ideas of Objectivism, as I do, this result is tragic.

The conclusion I draw is not that every post should be treated with equal respect, or that one should not say what one thinks. Rather, I submit that if one’s goals include sharing Objectivism, one must always take a second to think about how a negative post would look to someone who does not understand the arguments that underlie the response, and make whatever changes are necessary to help such a person understand why the negativity is warranted.

Note: I wasn’t quite sure where to put this topic, so it’s in Miscellaneous. If someone would like to move it, feel free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument I present will be for the conclusion that, if one’s goals in participating on an internet forum include spreading the ideas of Objectivism to those unfamiliar with it, then one should retain a certain element of politeness in responses, even when one believes it is not deserved by the particular target of the comment(s). This is not an argument for a top-down policy change for OO.net, although the topic was sparked by the discussion of site policy.

I do not disagree with your conclusion. That is generally a good principle and one which I, and from my experience, many here including the moderators do employ.

I appreciate you taking the time to write this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument I present will be for the conclusion that, if one’s goals in participating on an internet forum include spreading the ideas of Objectivism to those unfamiliar with it, then one should retain a certain element of politeness in responses, even when one believes it is not deserved by the particular target of the comment(s).
My personal view of how one should respond is cause-and-effect based: polite and rational conduct should be rewarded with polite and rational conduct, and irrational or impolite conduct should not be rewarded with politeness. However, it is true that there is a cultural expectation that one will turn the other cheek until some undetermined point, and it may be shocking to outsiders to observe someone not turning the other cheek.

I firmly believe that clearly identifying purpose is mandatory, if one is to act morally. Here is the problem that I see which your premise. By looking at the matter in terms of a set of goals, and focusing on one of the goals, you ignore the remainder of the hierarchy. The reason why you have to consider goals hierarchically is that reality can sometimes present you with a mutual-exclusivity problem. If the actions required to achieve A are contrary to the actions required to achieve B, you must decide whether to work for A or B. In that vein, there is in my mind a real question whether the purpose of the forum is to facilitate trade, especially intellectual exchange, between Objectivists, or is it to serve as a center for spreading Objectivism to those unfamiliar with it. The two do not always conflict, but they do sometimes, and then the question is which should be primary. I have always understood the former to be the primary goal, but of course that is just my own understanding of the forum. Perhaps this is an assumption that I should check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respect begets respect. When I came here I knew nothing of Objectivism having only read AS. I was almost completely clueless about philosophy but in order to learn I conducted myself accordingly.

Having said that, you can issue a warning to an abrasive poster without ever being belligerent enough to cause someone to leave.

So in the end I think the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To state the obvious, this is a public forum, and many people who come here are interested in learning about Objectivism, perhaps after reading Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead, but know very little of the structure of Objectivism itself. They will not have the background to make sense of many of the comments which they will encounter here. It is counterproductive to their understanding of Objectivism if they come here and see harsh responses to issues that they have never even thought about.

(bold added)

I suggest that they take a position that they are here to observe and learn and leave their ego outside. Truth sometimes may feel unpleasant. Ask yourself where does your commitment lie - in actually being correct in your understanding and your logical skills and moving in that direction - or are you more concerned with appearing "right" . Are you just arguing for the argument sake or is your contribution moving the discussion in a positive direction?

When I first joined this forum despite having already read most of the Objectivist fiction and non-fiction my understanding still contained many loopholes and wrong assumptions. To this day I experience humbling encounters. For example, many here, and David is one of them, are better logicians.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling someone a conceptual savage does not prove the validity of any argument. It merely demonstrates which of the parties has class and manners.

If one takes your post to mean that you agree, at least in some part, with Dante's post regarding politeness in posting does that mean we can count on you discontinuing your habit of going on to posts just to declare that you think the topic is "stupid"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(bold added)

I suggest that they take a position that they are here to observe and learn and leave their ego outside.

An interesting if untenable suggestion to make to a group of fanatical individualists. Need I remind you of the all so important word that ended "Anthem"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally think that politeness is a good thing, but the more important issue to me is consistency and universal application of the rules. If I'm expected to be polite while a moderator and his buddies are allowed to be as insulting and degrading as they like, obviously there's a double standard, and, from what I've seen in other forums in the past, such double standards lead to more trouble than no moderation at all.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting if untenable suggestion to make to a group of fanatical individualists. Need I remind you of the all so important word that ended "Anthem"?

I seriously do not grasp what it is that you mean. Did you fail to understand my meaning?

Hanging on to a wrong position is not selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting if untenable suggestion to make to a group of fanatical individualists. Need I remind you of the all so important word that ended "Anthem"?

Ego as used by Ayn Rand in Anthem to indicate the importance of oneself is entirely appropriate in this forum. Ego in common usage (and Sophia's, I believe) indicates something different, a mindset which becomes personally offended when presented with arguments against that person's conclusions. There is a difference between holding oneself as supremely important and being unable to consider arguments one does not agree with, or take constructive criticism. The latter mindset is not appropriate to any search for truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

** Moderator Note **

We already have one thread where people are taking free swipes at moderators rather than discuss the topic. If anyone thinks they are going to derail Dante's topic in the same fashion, you too will see your post vanish as well. If you find this condition of posting in this thread unacceptable, I will politely say, tough cookies. Stay on topic by advancing your argument one way or the other and leave your personal grudges out of it.

This will be the only warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously do not grasp what it is that you mean. Did you fail to understand my meaning?

Hanging on to a wrong position is not selfish.

Forgive me. I really intended my comment as more of a joke. I did understand your colloquial use of Ego as opposed to Rand's use. I should have included a smiley.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that some of you think you are making a point here.

Point making- you're doing it wrong.

You are discontented with moderator policy on this forum so you are deliberately trashing the well thought out topic of conversation by someone who isn't even a moderator.

Hijacking this topic is clearly against forum rules.

We already have one lovely topic where you can trash the mods all you want.

The point of my insisting that you not use this one to do so is not a defense of the moderators but a point of respect for the original poster who is not a moderator and should not have his posts getting caught in the crossfire.

I am asking for some basic respect for your fellow forum users here, and some basic adult behavior. Don't give it to me since you haven't deemed me worthy of it. Do it because respecting Dante's post is the right thing to do both morally and according to the forum rules you all agreed to when you created your accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal view of how one should respond is cause-and-effect based: polite and rational conduct should be rewarded with polite and rational conduct, and irrational or impolite conduct should not be rewarded with politeness. However, it is true that there is a cultural expectation that one will turn the other cheek until some undetermined point, and it may be shocking to outsiders to observe someone not turning the other cheek.

I did not intend to base my argument on wider cultural expectations. Rather, my point was that curt responses on this forum are often not understandable without significant knowledge of Objectivism. This is rather obvious; in any area, comments from one knowledgeable person to another can't be understood by outsiders without that knowledge. Most times this is not a significant problem; people coming to this site should not expect to understand everything. If they take the time to learn enough about Objectivism, they will come to understand, and the fact that they don't understand everything shouldn't turn them off to the forum. However, curt negative responses are a particular case where, if not understood by an onlooker, will nonetheless be off-putting. Such comments may therefore be misconstrued as needlessly mean. I think it's possible in most cases to clearly get across one's viewpoint of a particular post without sharp language directed at the poster, and that this is a good goal to strive for if one places importance in both communicating with other Objectivists and welcoming newbies. If sharp remarks are warranted, making clear with a few words what the basis for criticism is (the importance of integration in the previous example) would be helpful to newbies lacking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante, I think you make a good point with respect to people who are not party to the original exchange, and who do not have the context to understand it. More than asking for politeness, are you asking for more explanation -- something that would explain the final conclusion to a reader who does not understand the conclusion. (Of course explanation may simply be the polite thing to do.) So you're saying that instead of writing:

Then you will have established' date=' for all to see, that you are a conceptual savage, living at a purely concrete level, incapable of concept-formation or any other form of generalization.[/quote']

one should write something like this:

Do you think something like the second is what you would like to see, or would that fall into the category of impolite as well?

<MOD NOTE>Since you started this thread, please feel free to tell me any posts above that you think do not meet your goal. I will either delete them or move them elsewhere.</MOD NOTE>

<Mod Note 2>I decided not to wait. This thread was getting as silly as the other one. I've trashed some posts.</Mod note 2>

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say that I have ever seen a knuckle-dragging neandrathal sugar-coated as sweetly.

In both politeness and demonstrating to others how to resolve legitimate honest disputes sets the tone for anyone evaluting this site as an Objective resource, to enrolling others into the possiblilities that Objectivism has to offer. There are many pages dedicated to Objective Bashing, the identification of Objectivism as a moral club used to beat others with whom you disagree, the use of descriptive adjectives such as rude, crude, and intolerant. Depending on what exposure people have had, when they arrive at this site, what sense of Objectivism does this site serve to assist in validating for them?

Objectivism is special. It is unique. For the first time, we have the ability to integtrate and objectively identify the link between the concepts and their referents, resolving the 'problem of universals' in a clear and concise manner. No one departs from reality on the perceptual level. When others see how we act and listen to what we have to say, are they encouraged to volitionally seek out why we find Objectivism so attractive, or do our actions speak so loudly that they cannot hear what we are saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante, I think you make a good point with respect to people who are not party to the original exchange, and who do not have the context to understand it. More than asking for politeness, are you asking for more explanation -- something that would explain the final conclusion to a reader who does not understand the conclusion.

Yeah, pretty much. Politeness isn't always appropriate; but deviating from it can also be counterproductive to one's other goals (like creating an environment where others can come to understand Objectivism) and a good way to minimize those effects is perhaps a quick summary in some cases. Obviously, sometimes the reason for rudeness should be clear to all, and rudeness can be appropriate and able to stand alone. Other times, some sort of note would help. I'm not recommending extensive forays into Objectivist theory at every turn; just something to think about when posting.

Thanks for cleaning up the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often, there's an explanation for the lack of explanation. For instance, in the example you chose, the person is as far from a newbie as one can get -- someone who would almost certainly understand the unwritten argument being implied.

Of course, your point on the larger impact is a good one. Many other people reading a post do not have the right context and may see it only as an unsupported assertion.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, at about 8:00 in, is Ayn Rand refusing to answer an insulting question in one of her

and giving as good as she got. No one, not even Donahue, understands her position.

I think the way Miss Rand answers the questions throughout the interview (including this harsh exchange) should be our standard of conduct here.

Warning: I am not sure of the copyright concerning this video. I don't believe ARI or anyone else is trying to profit from it, but if it is offensive to the owner of this site, then I ask the moderators to remove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...