Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> > > (1) Humor is important, and ridicule can be an effective communication
> > > technique, especially in a medium such as this, where the person with
> > > whom you are directly responding is not the audience of your speech.
> > >
> > > (2) Probably the majority of what people find "offensive" was not
> > > intended to be by the speaker, merely misinterpreted as such by the
> > > listener. People /are/ often offended by simple honesty.
> >
> > The krap that I was the target of when I expressed unpopular
> > views on this list (for one) was most certainly intended to be
> > offensive.
>
> I agree. Again, you seem to be reading more than what I am writing.
OK. But I think I was reading what you wrote and responding as I
did
because I have seen it used at times to say that even what I
experienced
is not something we want to avoid on this list. I needed
clarification.
>
> > I am really running out of patience for this
> > over-intellectualizing ignoring of the obvious and the refusal
> > to say what sort of communication is and is not acceptable and
> > live by it.
>
> "Intellectualizing" is what I (and others) do. Philosophy
> matters. It's also important for us to examine ALL the assumptions
> our culture makes when we are dedicated to overthrowing many of
> them. Certainly some of that culture is useful, but we do have
> to examine it carefully to determine that.
>
Playing incessantly with words to the point of sometimes failing
to decide what ethical
behavior we will and will not be bound by is imho an abuse of
intellect. I have
no problem with careful examination.
> > What I received and what I have seen others receive
> > is not acceptable to me. Some of what I myself have said when I
> > have lost my patience with certain individuals is also not
> > acceptable to me. I will not be party to it by doing it myself
> > nor will I excuse, ignore or condone it when others do it.
>
> Sounds good to me. The only thing I generally object to is the
> creation of written policies without proper examination. Personal
> policies, commitments, and judgments are good things: if someone
> wants to killfile me or rebuke me, I won't object. But written
> policies can have the effect of limiting the scope of discussion,
> and it's important that those not be taken lightly, or based on
> purely cultural assumptions like "civility" without examining
> exactly what their costs and benefits are.
>
Written policies also form a basis of what we agree on coming in
the door. They can form group ground rules. I believe such
rules (minimal ones)
are important. I don't agree that a basic committment to avoid
ad hominem is purely or significantly (in this context) a
"cultural assumption".
We are a culture of our own. What will we assume and live by
dealing with
one another?
> I agree that politeness has considerable benefits. I completely
> reject the idea that is has no costs.
The costs of what I advocate in this context are not sufficient
to
not practice a reasonable civility with one another. The cost
of not practicing
it are much higher.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:26 MDT