On manners (replying to selected offsite comments)

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
Post Reply
Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

On manners (replying to selected offsite comments)

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:36 pm

In the real world we adults use expletives all the time when talking to each other. But when we talk to children, we tend to carefully avoid the use of expletives.

That's why, when someone assumes you can't be an adult if you use insult him or foul language, it's highly likely that he's a child himself. After all, that's how children are accustomed to being treated by adults.
It strikes me as hypocritical that this individual would attack his opponents as being kids, say that "we" carefully avoid using expletives in front of children, and at the same time fail to do so either in front of his opponents, or the fairly large number of children on his own board.

Why do adults refrain from cursing in front of children? In some cases, such as those working with children, it's often a stated policy of their employers, but it's not as if these policies come out of the blue. Children are taught not to curse because language that is mostly polite is their ticket to being taken seriously.
It adds emphasis much quicker than buggering about with long winded bullshit like the snotling fondlers over at SF.retard.net. I don't know about you, but I occasionally feel the need for brevity when posting in situations like that.
Cursing neither adds much emphasis with endemic use nor is it universal to public discourse between adults. It is my experience that there are very few venues in which profanity laden speech is the most effective form of communication; instead, more often it interferes. Most important, however, is not the invective itself, but the style of thinking encouraged, which is to say highly simplistic.

Sure, when used sparingly, invective can add great weight and instantly draw attention. The man who says little and seems to never say a rude word can leave a serious impression with a single four letter word. And who actually listens carefully to what guests on the Jerry Springer show say?

When you curse constantly, it is simply noise that others learn to filter out when listening to you. Very few epithets are found in published discourse. You won't read many academic papers in which the author calls his detractors names and curses at them - if any. It's rare to hear or read cursing published by reporters and editors, or invective in stump speeches.

I've previously mentioned Ann Coulter as a particularly vitriolic public figure. There are others, but the primary mode of argument she and others offer is ad hominem - i.e., fallacious - and overly simplistic. You either agree with her, or you're a moron. The world is black and white, and nobody else's perspective is worth considering.

Perhaps the leading advocate on US television of "blunt speech" has been Bill O'Reilly, and I've seen some allege that he has one of the highest rates of potentially offensive statements, but it is difficult for me to believe he has been very successful in engaging in dialogue with those he disagrees with. I seriously doubt, for example, that O'Reilly managed to convince Senator Dodd of anything in that interview, and in fact, Dodd seems to get good reviews on account of holding his temper, remaining largely polite, and staying on track - precisely what I like to encourage here.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:45 pm

My opinion is it's true. Take american politics. Curse words used amongst congressman and the VP gets news, as does insulting war heroes that are members of congress by other congressmen, which gets more news attention. It gets the attention because the interaction between congressmen is supposed to be civil because what they do is supposed to be treated with a great deal of care and not like you're in a bar. The US congress is not supposed to be like the fisticuffs seen in some asian governments that breakout at a moment's notice.

Does anyone think that when OJ went back to Nevada and said 'I wasn't trying to tart any shit. I just wanted to make the fucker know that I don't think he's an ass.' that it'd be okay? I've given testimony in court before and all lawyers prep their witnesses by saying that you need to remember to be calm and respectful. Speak clearly. The point is efficiency. There's a lot that needs to get done, so you get to the heart of the matter fast.

That's what being civil does, even when you don't take a subject deathly serious. I'm not equating the vs debate as equal in importance to congress issues or court cases, but you get to the point much more quickly in one post than going back and forth for a few posts before people start talking specifics.

Kazeite
Bridge Officer
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: Polish Commonwealth

Post by Kazeite » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:45 pm

Um... so wait... is the author of this post accusing us of treating them as children? After all, most of the time we are refraining from using expletives when talking to warsies :D

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:30 pm

That's the logic.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:51 pm

consequences wrote:the basic perception is that only an utter fool wouldn't accept what is considered to be blindingly obvious over there.
This perception is a textbook marker of a low level of integrative complexity, which I also meant to open.

IMO, it seems that integrative complexity tends to drop when people are rude. Not that it always increases with politeness, but once you start yelling, it tends to drop to the lowest levels if it didn't start there.

I did say I meant to open the topic of integrative complexity in the context of the discussion of politeness above.

Post Reply