RoR: Forum

Steve said:

""Idiot," "despicable person" and "moron" are not proper terms to use against another member of ROR"

Anyone can become a member of RoR simply by signing up so the above sentence is certainly not always true. I agree with Johns assessment of Chris Baker and sanctioned him for saying it in the hopes Chris will take his moronic remarks elsewhere.

Post 21

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 7:09am

Steve,

The press is going nuts in their Palin attacts. And their support of Obama, and their failure to report on him accurately is awful. This needs to be addressed - to put the media on the defensive and make them more cautious. The amount of harm they've done already is enormous.

When the arena becomes as partisan as it does in a presidential election, it becomes hard to find authoritative voices that can have any effect taking on the media.

I was listening to the BBC World News on NPR. The newswoman said that only 36 out of 2000 republican delegates were black. She interviewed a black gal who had backed Bush both terms, but went Obama this year -- I would say that she "went black" or that she went over to the Dark Side of the Force.

The newswoman asked directly if she switched to Obama in order to go black. She reponded that she wanted to be on the right side of history (with unspoken assumption that it would be moral progress for the US to elect a black president over a white one -- policies be damned). Then she said she liked Obama because he inspired her, politically. Not a lot to chew on, there. What else could she say, really? Here's a republican woman who's crossing-over for two apparent reasons:

(1) to be on the "right" side of history
(2) to feel "politically" inspired

But get this ... when the newswoman asked her why in the hell she was so down for Bush for eight years (with unspoken assumption that because she's black and because Bush hates black folks, then she's a traitor to her race -- an Aunt Tom, if you will -- for supporting a racist like Bush) when this British newswoman asked how in the hell could she be behind Bush in the first place, then she responded with a laundry list of things Bush did for black folks:

(1) more black cabinet appointments than any preceding president
(2) something about education for blacks (I wish I remembered the details)
(3) bucketloads of aid sent to "black" Africa (more than any other president?)
(4) something ...

... she was cut off! The newswoman -- already having a personal view of Bush as a racist -- cut off the woman who was answering her question! She didn't want to hear the answer (because she didn't like it)!

What kind of a journalist asks a question, but doesn't want to hear the answer (if she doesn't like it)???

Ed

Post 22

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 9:15am

Mike,

Your point that anyone can join ROR is well taken. But I'd invite you to reconsider your position for a couple of reasons.

One is that if a person really does prove themselves to be out of whack with Objectivist positions or severely deficient in their manner of posting, they can be moderated, or sent to the 'dissent' area, or kicked off all together. And that is a much more rational, objective, civilized way of handling those that shouldn't be here.

Second, we all share an understanding that words are important for the meaning they carry and that the ideas they represent are important. That means that pure ad hominim attacks that don't even make literal sense should be avoided. No one here knows that Chris is or isn't a 'despicable person' whatever the unstated standard would be. And both "idiot" and "moron" are obviously only insults since their literal meaning isn't applicable. If we truly value reason and logic, why throw them out the window when it comes to ad hominim attacks and not other fallacies.

Third, I think we all benefit by addressing the positions that are taken and not the person. Plastering labels all over a person is also somewhat insulting to all of the other readers - they are like pre-digested conclusions offered without supporting evidence. Better to say that a position makes no sense and that supporting it would be idiotic because of reasons x, y, and z. Presumably our intent is understand or to persuade and that ugly personal attacks are NOT effective towards those purposes.

Fourth, whatever standard of civility is recognized - out of common usage - here on ROR is what we will not only use as our guide when attacking, but also what we will experience when being attacked. Isn't our personal happiness of value? Or, is it that some people derive a pleasure from being abusive and the standards should accommodate that? And whatever defacto standard exists will set the high-water mark of the amount of abusive language sprinkled through every contentious thread for posterity - remember Ted's opinion poll on what factors harm the spread of Objectivism? Don't we care giving our ideas the best chance of entering the main-stream?

Post 23

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 10:05am

Sarah Palin: it's go west, towards the future of conservatism

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?�
�One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.
�The other kills her own food.�

Now we know, thanks to her triumphant debut at the Republican convention on Wednesday, that Mrs Palin not only slaughters her prey. She impales its head on a stick and parades it around for her followers to jeer at. For half an hour she eviscerated Mr Obama in that hall and did it all without dropping her sweet schoolmarm smile, as if she were handing out chocolates at the end of a history lesson.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00393/PeterBrookes385_393721a.jpg

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/05, 10:17am)

Post 24

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 10:20am

Sam, that's a good column you linked to - Thanks. (and a funny cartoon)

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/05, 10:21am)

Post 25

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 4:51pm

Steve,

I agree with your Post 22 and sanctioned it. One of the reasons Claude Shannon was moderated, even in the Dissent forum, was his use of insulting and demeaning rhetoric. Let's not descend to his level of discourse.

Also, John, you disagreed with Rand and Objectivism on this very forum when you argued in favor of taxation. I could have called you a "troll," an "idiot" and a "moron," but I stuck to the issues and debated you on that level. I think you can do the same with Chris and the others on here whom you labeled "trolls." Also, do you really think you're going to win someone over by insulting him?

Btw, John Howard is not a troll. I know that for a fact, because I've known him for over 40 years. Not everyone who disagrees with certain key Objectivist positions is a troll. I think Claude Shannon is, because he goes out of his way to insult Objectivists and Objectivism. Thankfully, he's no longer with us.

- Bill

Post 26

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 5:23pm

Bill:

Also, John, you disagreed with Rand and Objectivism on this very forum when you argued in favor of taxation. I could have called you a "troll," an "idiot" and a "moron," but I stuck to the issues and debated you on that level. I think you can do the same with Chris and the others on here whom you labeled "trolls."

Bill I certainly respect you, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. Regarding our discussion over taxation all those months ago, the difference there was that you did not insult me so I did not insult you. We both had different positions but you were interested only in honestly discussing the issue, which I value as I have seen the merits of your arguments, the difference is with Chris is that he does not want to honestly discuss issues. You take my latest posts to him in this thread in a vacuum, which isn't fair, he has consistently made morally relativistic arguments laced with conspiracy theories and general anti-American vitriol, things that you or I never engage in, and Chris never bothers to explain his positions, a few posts later he just reiterates the same vitriolic positions. It demeans those discussions Bill that we had with each other to compare it to discussions with Chris, actually I wouldn't even call Chris's posts as discussions, just a vomit of sentences.

As far as Claude, the ONLY reason he was finally sent to the dissent section was because *I* let Joe know he was insulting you. Only after reading all the insulting comments he made to you, *I* informed Joe and *only then* was he booted to the dissent section. I don't normally like to complain to moderators but I felt he went way too far and it was something Joe would probably not tolerate. I wonder why it took *me* to finally say enough is enough, this guy is so out of whack he shouldn't be allowed to post here?

Also, do you really think you're going to win someone over by insulting him?

You are assuming two things, that trolls like Chris are capable of winning over, and two that I am attempting to win him over to my argument. My only intent is to tell him to fuck off, I hope he goes away. That's all the intent there is to that.

And on that note, I have reached the limit on how much energy I want to devote to this.

(Edited by John Armaos on 9/05, 10:09pm)

Post 27

Friday, September 5, 2008 - 6:41pm

I've restricted Chris to the Dissent board. It had been suggested frequently in the past. My apologies for waiting for so long. I actually thought he stopped posting awhile ago. Oops.

Great quote, by the way. Thanks for posting it, Ted.

Post 28

Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 9:53pm

John,

You're right, I've seldom read Chris's posts, so I wasn't aware that he's been persistently critical of Objectivism. I still don't like to engage in flame wars or an exchange of insults even if the other person started them. I think it cheapens the discourse and is unbecoming of an intellectual forum like RoR.

- Bill

Post 29

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 2:31pm

This is still my all-time favorite Chris Baker quote:

"My biggest regret is that I haven't figured out a way to do hypnosis on message boards. Hypnosis is much more fun and fruitful than trying to reason with people."

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1573_1.shtml#29

Honestly, what more needs to be said?

;-D

Post 30

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 2:37pm

Erica:

Thanks for the quote. A classic! I hadn't seen it since I don't read most of Chris' posts.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 31

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 2:42pm

Erica, I had forgotten about that! It was that bizarre business about seduction approaches. I remember now... I hadn't been here long at that time and wondered, "What the hell is this?"

Post 32

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 3:00pm