Discussing ideas, not people

Theres no tone of voice on the internet. We’re all separated by distance and technology so its easy to pretend like youre so far above everyone else lol. However, in face to face interactions you know damn well theres a limit to how belligerent youll allow your tone of voice to become.

Because there is no tone one shouldnt assume the level of belligerence.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Manu wrote: But manners were meant for saving [strike]face[/strike] lives in a society where reputation is everything.

Fixed that for you. Look man, some people take respect very seriously. Life and death level seriously. Manners is just another word for respect and it allows serious people to interact with each other without anyone getting hurt.

Can you offer an example of such a "life and death" situation within TotJO?

Manners and respect are different words, for a reason. Manners are commonly-held protocols to convey respect. Exactly what these protocols are vary according to relationship, setting and culture. For example, politics and religion are traditionally taboo topics at the dinner table. But I am sure most can agree that this place is designed to talk about those topics. A drill sergeant might yell at new recruits as part of their training, but he won't do the same to his five year old daughter at home.

I do agree with the general idea that a smart person makes a point of at least "reading" the overall culture before making a decision on how to approach conversation. But if we are talking about accepting that some people are "well-mannered" in their conversations, we should also accept that some people are not... and that is OK.

Proteus wrote: I don't reckon that this temple is here to be a filter for "only the strong". I'm pretty sure there is an intention for helping those you might consider weak grow into being strong.

Ahh, yes I agree. You are right, our society is much more complex than simple survival of the fittest dynamics. We are a social species and we care for the well being of others. But by that same token we cant help everyone. Some are beyond help, others do not want help. What do we do with those? If we coddle those sorts of people it will only serve to drive our societies further into mediocrity rather than excellence. Promising economic security to those unwilling to work for it is just not a way forward. So those people must be let go. That's what I'm talking about, the acceptance of the natural social hierarchy every species on this planet participates in. There is a balance there that must be respected.

FollowerOfDeimos wrote: While we are indeed animals, as it would be most unwise to suggest otherwise, we are more complex and evolved than our lesser animal friends.

You do not understand evolution. Evolution has no goal and complexity is not its paramount. In fact we are not the most complex animal on earth. We have one of the most complex brain structures and it has allowed us to thrive in our niche. But emotionally speaking we are not the most complex. Dolphins and chimps also express as complex an emotional and intellectual prowess as we do. But were we to be thrown into nature naked and toolless most of us would not survive. As far as biological complexity actually the most complex animal on earth is a tiny water fly. It has 31,000 genes, which is about 25% more than ours and it can adapt its body to cope with stresses that it frequently undergoes by forming helmets as well as spines or teeth as a defense mechanism against other predators.

Stormcaller wrote:
Raeganomics is not the natural order of our species; science and other fields filled with people who actually know more than us on this basic concept consistently show, yeah, we like to compete and push ourselves and others, but we also didn't make it this far by eating each other or abandoning the weak.

Interesting comment from a person that told me not two days ago that they wanted me to just go away because I was a liar and full of shit.

Altruism and reciprocal altruism feature often in evolutionary behaviour models. If I recall correctly, vampire bats are known for sharing blood from hunts, but as a collective, will refuse to share with greedy bats who don't share.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Stormcaller wrote:
Raeganomics is not the natural order of our species; science and other fields filled with people who actually know more than us on this basic concept consistently show, yeah, we like to compete and push ourselves and others, but we also didn't make it this far by eating each other or abandoning the weak.

Interesting comment from a person that told me not two days ago that they wanted me to just go away because I was a liar and full of shit.

Indeed, I have specifically been nasty to you, but does that in itself invalidate my argument in this, a different discussion? (It certainly reminds me that an apology is in order; I hold my ground that you're misinformed and just plain wrong about a lot of things outside your actual area of knowledge, but you didn't actually deserve what I gave you, anymore than other people deserve what you give to them. That's the best olive branch you'll get from me, and the promise that I'm going to just leave you alone, going forward)

Stormcaller wrote: Indeed, I have specifically been nasty to you, but does that in itself invalidate my argument in this, a different discussion? (It certainly reminds me that an apology is in order; I hold my ground that you're misinformed and just plain wrong about a lot of things outside your actual area of knowledge, but you didn't actually deserve what I gave you, anymore than other people deserve what you give to them. That's the best olive branch you'll get from me, and the promise that I'm going to just leave you alone, going forward)

How very magnanimous of you. But I have a question, what exactly is it that I "give to them"? [others] I have had my moments on this board but I can honestly say I have never called another person on this board a liar or full of shit. So I would equate your behaviour far worse than anything I could ever muster.

As to the topic, not sure how you would even know what my area of knowledge is, but if you feel that I am wrong about things, I expect you to challenge me with that idea and in that challenge present facts and data to back it up. I do not expect things to devolve into ad hominem attacks on my person just because you have decided you don't like me for whatever reason I'm still hoping to understand. You can hate my ideas and you can hate my positions but you have no standing to hate me. You don't even know me nor have you ever bothered to get to know me. So I am baffled by all your hostility.

ironic turn of events... discussing people over ideas in a thread thats supposed to have the topic of discussing ideas, not people. :blink:

I don't know when 'discussing people' appeared. There's inherently nothing wrong about it.

In my rather old post in the journals section, I mention the golden rule of discussing ideas, not PERSONALITIES.

Nice call ren. I think the inherant flaw in the "ideas not people" mantra is that it's just impossible to maintain. How do you even get to know another person without discussing people? I see no way. The way this thread has evolved is proof positive enough of this for me. We will never resolve differences if we are not allowed to discuss people. Plus its used as a weapon as much as anything by those on a mission to squash any conversation or individual not liked by them. I have had it shoved down my throat so many times by individuals I'm no longer allowed to address that I now have the ability to deep throat it without so much as a gag.

I dunno. Pretty easy to get to know people outside a public setting such as a forum post.

Private Messages.

Discord (Voice does wonders for getting to know a person)

Real Life...

But resorting to statements such as

Interesting comment from a person that told me not two days ago that they wanted me to just go away because I was a liar and full of shit.

Does not exactly help with discussing an idea with a person, rather it is discussing a person...

Thank you in advance and posthumously...

Arisaig wrote:
Kyrin Wyldstar. I hereby revoke your right to message me, comment on any of my journals, quote me, or @ me. Any attempt to do so will be viewed as a potential attack.

Potential attacks are fitting with Behaviour Unbecoming, and will be dealt with accordingly.

I will also return the favour by not interacting with you

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Thank you in advance and posthumously...

Arisaig wrote:
Kyrin Wyldstar. I hereby revoke your right to message me, comment on any of my journals, quote me, or @ me. Any attempt to do so will be viewed as a potential attack.

Potential attacks are fitting with Behaviour Unbecoming, and will be dealt with accordingly.

I will also return the favour by not interacting with you

I don't care. That post was made, obviously, in anger. And its not like its stopped anyone from half handedly referring to me.

Posthumously? Is that a threat against my life?

EDIT: Because it wasn't blatantly clear...

The phrase 'ideas, not people' is an abbreviation for a concept more properly defined in the ToS as 'Dialogue about ideas and do not attack people.'

No need to dilute the problem to hedge out from it, if you want to attack people give a reason why it should be allowed, or the rules will be enforced as they stand. But it better be a good reason because the rule makes sense to most people AFAIK.

Arisaig wrote: All of them... for the algebra problem. This is a false equivalency fallacy.

You say “false equivalency” and i say “allegory”.

Im pretty sure youre thinking of you and Kyrin when reading these posts. Im thinking of culture in general.

Heres a great example from recent current events: the NZ shooter was of the opinion that massive immigration of Muslims from countries where violence and repression are common (so called “honor killings” , for exampe) presents a sort of cultural threat to many of the nations of Europe. It should be blatantly obvious why a huge influx of people from a culture with vastly different social norms would constitute a serious disruption to a democratic society.

But he was obviously a terrorist and a murderer. Its perfectly reasonable to consider him morally repugnant; evil, even, though the word is not well recieved in this setting. So what do you do? Do you dismiss the logical and useful part of his belief structure because you disapprove of his moral fiber? Theres at least two immediate problems that appear when people dismiss arguments because of their own “holier than thou” sense of moral outrage: this: when a the ideas are good and/or have some merit, the holier than thou person deprives themselves of someting useful.
When the ideas sre bad ideas, the holier than thou person fails to offer a rational counter to them. Neither odf these problems are that big of a deal on the small scale of individual philosophies. But when they happen on the large scale civilizations, of trends and social movements in real society, they rsesult in serious problems.

Khaos wrote:

Because there is no tone one shouldnt assume the level of belligerence.

Agreed. But this principle shouldnt be used as a defense for being belligerent.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Arisaig wrote: All of them... for the algebra problem. This is a false equivalency fallacy.

You say “false equivalency” and i say “allegory”.

Im pretty sure youre thinking of you and Kyrin when reading these posts. Im thinking of culture in general.

I've said this multiple times and this is bordering on harassment.

I WAS TALKING TO YOU. I was not talking to, nor thinking about, a person I was NOT talking to. Stop drawing this damn imaginary line between myself and Kyrin.

It serves as nothing more than to belittle my entire opinion and identity down to nothing.
I've told you this before. Last warning.

Does anyone remember when the focus of jediism was serving our communities and selflessness instead of forum ego measuring?

Manu wrote: Can you offer an example of such a "life and death" situation within TotJO?

I understand that your post was made in the context of TOTJO but your statement that ”...manners were meant for saving face in a society where reputation is everything” was phrased in a way that seemed to transcend the TOTJO context and i was responding to that, specifically. I wanted to convey that there are social circles where manners are much more important than mere ego defense- circles where violence isnt seen as something extraordinary and where bad things tend to happen to people who fail to mind their manners.