Forum Rule Against Excess Sarcasm

[BurgessLau]

"As Ayn Rand's own writings show, a touch of sarcasm directed at issues is sometimes appropriate, after laying the groundwork in a particular piece of writing. However, a post laden with sarcasm is not appropriate, particularly when directed at a person's character." [Emphasis added.]

The paragraph above is from the Forum Rules, Intellectual Guidelines, Prohibited Behavior, item 2, paragraph 2.

I have been attempting to read the "Ayn Rands Smoking" [sic] thread. Posts from one participant are often so sarcastic that I cannot understand their meaning at any level. Attempting to read them is like trying to decipher convolutions of post-modernist "writings" -- irony within irony within irony.

What standards do the moderators in this forum use to decide whether posts are laden with sarcasm?

If I learn the answer to that question, then I -- and perhaps many others -- can use the REPORT button to alert moderators (if they aren't already participating in the thread!) to the problem.

[Phil Elmore]

Oh, like this is a useful topic. <-- shamelessly joking sarcasm

[JMeganSnow]

The part that should be in bold is "particularly when directed at a person's character".

Even vigorous snarling about ideas is fine; people SHOULD be passionate about their ideas. Personal accusations and insults are not fine.

If you think it borders on being against the rules, report it, it will at least get attention that way.

[jrs]

The part that should be in bold is "particularly when directed at a person's character".

... Personal accusations and insults are not fine.

Does this only apply to members of this forum?

Or does it apply to accusations against Ms.Rand as well?

[BurgessLau]

The part that should be in bold is "particularly when directed at a person's character".

Do you think "particularly" means "exclusively"? If not, doesn't that mean that the forum rules ban posts laden with sarcasm -- regardless of their target?

[softwareNerd]

Burgess, I have skimmed that thread, but have not read it. Could you point to a couple of examples of posts from that thread that you find particularly egregious, please. Alternatively, if you'd prefer to keep it private, use the "Report" button on the post that you find most egregious.

[DPW]

Burgess, I have skimmed that thread, but have not read it. Could you point to a couple of examples of posts from that thread that you find particularly egregious, please. Alternatively, if you'd prefer to keep it private, use the "Report" button on the post that you find most egregious.

See posts 38 and 40, which were replies to me and consisted of nothing except for misrepresentations and sarcasm. It doesn't bother me personally except in the sense that it makes it difficult to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion.

Don Watkins

[BurgessLau]

See posts 38 and 40, which were replies to me and consisted of nothing except for misrepresentations and sarcasm.

My list of examples of posts possibly "laden" with sarcasm are: 27, 28, 29, 31, 38, and 40 -- all from page 2.

It doesn't bother me personally except in the sense that it makes it difficult to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion.

Exactly. The purpose of etiquette -- the very rationale for having rules of etiquette -- is to promote trade among individuals. Sarcasm -- unless used merely as a highlighting touch after preparing the intellectual groundwork -- does not promote intellectual trade and is therefore improper.

P. S. -- In the thread (posts 25, 30, 33, and 36), two straight-forward (nonsarcastic) participants themselves noted that trade was not occurring, that is, that another participant was not, to put it politely, responding to questions and statements. Instead of direct responses to questions and statements, he offered, in great measure, sarcasm.

P. S. 2 -- If I have misidentified (misnumbered) any of the example posts, bear with me. I confess to becoming a little cross-eyed in going through the thread.

[BurgessLau]

Even vigorous snarling about ideas is fine [...]

I disagree. In my introspective and extrospective experience, snarling (vigorous or otherwise) is not fine. It is a product of hostility -- that is, of suppressed or repressed anger. Open anger is fine. It is an expression of passionately held values and it does not interfere with trade in communications. Snarling does interfere with that trade by shifting the interaction to a personal fight.

[DavidOdden]

Open anger is fine. It is an expression of passionately held values and it does not interfere with trade in communications. Snarling does interfere with that trade by shifting the interaction to a personal fight.

It seems to me that the main issue in that thread pertains not to hostility or anger, but to dishonesty (hostility is no doubt there, but it's secondary). An angry response like "You are completely wrong, and haven't got a shred of evidence on your side. I can't believe that you say such a stupid thing" is angry and hostile, and honest. In contrast, the posts in question were phrased with relative civility, but were fundamentally dishonest. The point is that whether or not someone is angry is less important than what they do with that anger. The only purpose I can see to such dishonest responses is that they are designed to engender anger in the person you're opposing, especially of that person is basing their argument on reason. Probably not very effective against Mr. Anger Management

[softwareNerd]

I've never given the forum's rule about sarcasm much thought. So, first, Burgess, thank you for bringing it up. Hopefully, the discussion will take me from "I know it when I see it", to a better (perhaps a "one layer of the onion") understanding.

As stated, the forum rule is quite clear and only leaves one issue open: what is sarcasm?

An essential element of sarcasm is the expression of scorn. Assuming that one is making a valid point, one can use various "tones": factual, righteous, angry, sarcastic, humorous, etc.

According to one dictionary, sarcasm is

1. "sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain" or

2. "a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual"

A sarcastic reply is like taking a reply with a flat tone and prefixing it with something like: "What you said is absurd, because..."

As some have pointed out, what is being objected to in this instance is not occasional sarcasm but routine sarcasm.

Sarcasm is almost always rude. I admit to using sarcasm myself occasionally, but I try not to do so unless I judge a member to be a troll who has no intention of staying long, but merely wants to "spit on our sidewalks" (i.e., as someone who deserves rudeness). I will not even use it against some I judge to be "honest Kantianistas" or "resident religious check 'n balance guy" .

However, in a discussion with "regular" members, I think sarcasm should be used very, very rarely. Only if you really want to prefix your post with "What you said is aburd because...".

I like the HBL guideline which advises members to maintain a "collegial 19-century attitude toward other posts and other posters".

Does anyone think the forum-rule can be made more clear? If so, any suggestions?

[DavidOdden]

the forum rule is quite clear and only leaves one issue open: what is sarcasm?

An essential element of sarcasm is the expression of scorn.

I suggest that the focus should be on the dishonesty of sarcasm (unsurprisingly, I suppose). I do not believe that scorn alone properly characterises sarcasm, and that it is not the sharpness of the comment, but its nearly unanswerable dishonesty that makes persistent sarcasm so infuriating. For example, for a person with knowledge of Objectivism (and the real world) to say 'Hmm, I suppose "adding context" would be an inappropriate thing to do on an Objectivist forum' or 'Hmm. There is no causal connection between walking alone outside the Green Zone in Baghdad and being killed or kidnapped,' or 'Sure, just think of the rewards smoking offers to the rational person' are clearly dishonest statements -- the epitome of sarcasm. I'm telling you, I don't think it's the tone, it's the (dis)honesty. Look at the particular cases and ask "Is this a statement that he really believes?".

[softwareNerd]

David,

I understand what you are saying about dishonesty as an essential element. I see that as being the essence of irony (which one dictionary defines as , "a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the words used").

I think sarcasm is a form of irony. Therefore, the dishonesty (i.e., "where the real meaning is contradicted...") is part of the genus rather than the differentia. Perhaps in the context of a philosophical argument, irony will always come across as being sarcastic.

[Aside: Already, I find this thread more valuable than the one on smoking.]

Either way, as concerns the specific thread being discussed, I see obvious repetition of this type of "dishonesty" combined with scorn.

[DPW]

I'm telling you, I don't think it's the tone, it's the (dis)honesty. Look at the particular cases and ask "Is this a statement that he really believes?".

I agree. As you can probably attest from our days on HPO, I have no problem with scorn and insults (I can dish them out as well as I can take them), but persistent sarcasm of the type being discussed here is frustrating precisely because it is dishonest.

Don Watkins

[jrs]

Eric Mathis (with 287 posts) was recently banned. I think that he was the person against whom the complaints in this thread were directed.

This raises the question: What happens to members who are banned?

If Eric Mathis tries to use this forum again, which of the following would happen?:

(1) It would appear to him that this website is down.

(2) He would see a message saying something like "You are banned from this site.".

(3) He could look at the forum, but when he tried to log-in he would get the message.

(4) He could log in and view new messages, etc.; but would not be allowed to post messages himself.

(5) Other (please specify).

[Grieg]

Most likely #3. He could just make a new nick and post again though. Was he banned as a result of this thread?

To the point, I agree with David and DPW that dishonesty is what's wrong with sarcasm. It's completely unnecessary and it detracts from the true meaning of what's being said.

[BurgessLau]

Eric Mathis (with 287 posts) was recently banned.

How did you learn this? Is there a list somewhere?

[BurgessLau]

[...] dishonesty is what's wrong with sarcasm.  It's completely unnecessary and it detracts from the true meaning of what's being said.

Since this forum is dedicated, in part, to a study of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, you might want to consider her comments on using sarcasm. See The Art of Nonfiction, pp. 124-125. There she recommends using sarcasm, but only under very limited conditions.

Sarcasm itself is not dishonest, but it comes to hand easily for dishonest people. It is, for example, a tool that can be used both to demean other individuals and to cover up the lack of an argument. The main fallacy, in this use, I believe, is a form of the fallacy of equivocation. In effect, improper use of sarcasm diverts a discussion or debate from the topic into another path, the path of vitriol. I think this is what you have recognized in your perceptive comment about sarcasm detracting from the discussion.

[jrs]

Eric Mathis (with 287 posts) was recently banned.

How did you learn this? Is there a list somewhere?

If there is a list, I do not know how to access it.

I got the information by looking at Eric Mathis's last message posted in the "Ayn Rand's Ought-From-Is" thread of the "Questions about Objectivism" subforum.

For example, look at your own message in this thread.

On the left, under your user name is the following information:

Advanced Member

Group: New Intellectual

Posts: 997

Joined: 9-August 04

From: Portland, Oregon USA

Member No.: 750

Name: Burgess Laughlin

This information is updated constantly whereas my quote will not be updated, so they will soon diverge.

Let me repeat -- I would like an official statement of what happens to banned members.

[BurgessLau]

If there is a list, I do not know how to access it.

I got the information by looking at Eric Mathis's last message posted in the "Ayn Rand's Ought-From-Is" thread of the "Questions about Objectivism" subforum.

I don't understand. Are you saying you looked at the date of his last post -- and then concluded that the administrators of this forum had banned him? If so, I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise.

[HaloNoble6]

The information on the left under your username and avatar is live, meaning it is up to date to the very second.

Yes, Eric Mathis has been banned.

Banned members are not allowed to post on the forum, though they may still read any and all public content.

[DavidV]

How did you learn this? Is there a list somewhere?

There is no list or public notification, but the member status is listed next to each post and on their profile page next to the "Member Group" field. Banned users are listed as "banned."

[jrs]

Eric Mathis  Jun 13 2005, 11:59 AM Post #84

Member

Group: Banned

Posts: 287

Joined: 3-May 05

Member No.: 1,517

Name: Eric Mathis

Are you saying you looked at the date of his last post -- and then concluded that the administrators of this forum had banned him?

If so, I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise.

OK, let me tell you what I remember about how I reached the conclusion that he had been banned.

First, I noticed the complaints in this thread about his excessive use of sarcasm.

Second, a member (I do not remember who or where) asked other members to use the report button to report Eric's messages.

Third, I saw several of his messages had been dumped in the trashcan when I was reading the new messages.

Fourth, I saw a message by Felipe (which has subsequently disappeared) telling IdeaSave that it was pointless to respond to Eric's last message in "Ayn Rand's Ought-from-Is" because Eric had been banned.

Fifth, I went back to Eric's last surviving message in that thread and I saw that his group had been changed from "member" to "banned".

Banned members are not allowed to post on the forum, though they may still read any and all public content.

Thank you for clarifying that.