RE: flame wars

From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Jul 18 2003 - 11:18:22 MDT

  • Next message: Harvey Newstrom: "RE: flame wars"

    Spike wrote,
    > Ja, this list is indeed flamey, always has been. I
    > would suggest that it is possible to have totally
    > open and honest discussion of difficult topics while
    > maintaining diplomacy, good will and having some fun.

    I wish. But history has shown differently. For whatever reason, the
    Extropian List has not been able to do so.
     
    > We can maintain the spirit of Crocker's rules while
    > still being open, diplomatic, kind and honest.

    I find that most people quote Crocker's rules as an excuse to participate in
    insulting or ad hominem attacks in violation of the list rules. I am not
    sure if Crocker's rules and the current list rules are compatible.

    > As a thought experiment, think of the most honest
    > never-tell-a-lie person you can imagine, one who is
    > also a kind-hearted soul. Consider him in a typical
    > extropianesque no-win situation, translated into an old
    > familiar setting: "Jesus, do these pants make my butt look fat?"
    >
    > Now, he could use my usual technique of feigning an
    > epileptic seizure, but that in itself is a form of
    > dishonesty and they don't fall for it after the
    > fourth time. It would be perfectly honest for him to
    > answer with a simple "no", even if he is actually thinking:
    > "No, those pants dont make your butt look fat. Its your fat
    > butt that makes your butt look fat." Notice that a simple
    > "no" is true, is far more diplomatic,
    > spares feelings, follows the spirit of Crocker's rules
    > of internet exchange.

    This is a straw-man and has nothing to do with insulting behavior or
    personal attacks. The problem with arguing for "truth" and "honesty", is
    that all attackers are sure they are being truthful and honest in their
    attacks. Even the 911 terrorists claimed truth, honesty and integrity for
    their actions. Such a standard, while theoretically sound, is almost never
    useful in practice. Humans always seem to be able to justify their actions
    in their own minds such that they are the good guys.

    > We deal with some difficult topics on this list, but
    > I call on people to eschew heated argument in
    > favor of controlled argument.

    You can "call" for this all you want, but it never happens. Why would this
    call be any different? Seriously, do you think you have just solved our
    problems? If not, what would be a good solution to stopping flame wars. I
    think they are self-destructive behavior which nobody wants. But we do not
    seem to want to stop them either.

    > ExI's best days are yet before of us. Let us
    > cut down on rancor and fan the flames of progress.
    > We are on the eve of construction.

    OK, but let's not just say it as a matter of faith. Let's take real action.
    What exact changes do you propose to make that will cut down on rancor? If
    no changes are made, none will occur.

    -- 
    Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
    Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified
    InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC
    <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 18 2003 - 15:19:28 MDT