Joeman
There's a few ways of looking at it, I think:
But if we look back to one of the other phrases I posted, the idea of "being ourselves" is suddenly a little less recommendable.
• It is by bashing that we separate the wheat from the chaff. It is by bashing that we progress to the truth.
It's over three months since this response was offered to me when I pointed out the lack of merit to come in bashing for the sake of bashing. Sadly, such a tactic seems to predominate in the Religion forum, at least, and seems to thrive in the political fora.
Now, I grant you yourself; in fact, it's not even mine to grant. But I won't protest that in essence.
However, as you look around, go ahead and make a qualitative assertion to yourself; I am posting better posts than ____ or I am posting not as well as _____ in terms of the issues included in this topic. It's fairly easy to do. I'd like to think, for instance, that I post better posts than one of our religious defenders who had a penchant for using the word "jackass" as the basis of all arguments.
And that includes the idea that I'm not posting as well as others, and I tend to think I know who those posters are and what they're posting.
The end result, though, being that whenever one accommodates a specific range of diversity, that accommodation must meet the lowest common denominator.
So in the being of ourselves, we see diverse standards for the selves. Your honesty, someone else's technical standard, and yet someone else's need to bash. All these things are accommodated, and some are less civil than others.
So I would hope to demonstrate to you by that process that the being of ourselves necessarily involves accommodating the other selves that are less civil than the self in question.
Beyond that, a couple of side issues:
It has been a growing trend in my life that the people I know resort more and more to insult. To be honest, I found more civility hanging out with strippers than I did in the insurance industry.
And if I have less friends, it's probably because I define the word more conservatively than others. I listen to other people talk about their friends, though, and I get a feeling that what I call "acquaintances" often qualify as "friends" to them.
Think of what teenagers (of all eras) do to the concept of "love". It's sort of the same thing.
But by and large, people generally insult each other regularly. The difference is that because it's a "friend" and not a stranger, the insults are acceptable.
Hell, I went out with some "friends" of one of my relatives. All night it was nothing but people cussing each other out. If you spoke to anyone but a friend that way, it would be disastrous. Hell, the law says you can't talk to your wife that way.
To drop our façades entirely would eventually force us to civility, but I don't see that as any more realistic than getting a certain of my friends to look at herself honestly.
In the meantime, being the "ourselves" of our personalities will bring about a necessary reduction in the general civility of the forums. Some people demonstrably set lower standards than you do, Joeman, and the idea of being ourselves must necessarily include them.
thanx much,
Tiassa
There's a few ways of looking at it, I think:
This is the part of your post I extracted earlier. Now, perhaps "yourself" is more civilized than the next person. I have no need to argue such specifics.
But if we look back to one of the other phrases I posted, the idea of "being ourselves" is suddenly a little less recommendable.
• It is by bashing that we separate the wheat from the chaff. It is by bashing that we progress to the truth.
It's over three months since this response was offered to me when I pointed out the lack of merit to come in bashing for the sake of bashing. Sadly, such a tactic seems to predominate in the Religion forum, at least, and seems to thrive in the political fora.
Now, I grant you yourself; in fact, it's not even mine to grant. But I won't protest that in essence.
However, as you look around, go ahead and make a qualitative assertion to yourself; I am posting better posts than ____ or I am posting not as well as _____ in terms of the issues included in this topic. It's fairly easy to do. I'd like to think, for instance, that I post better posts than one of our religious defenders who had a penchant for using the word "jackass" as the basis of all arguments.
And that includes the idea that I'm not posting as well as others, and I tend to think I know who those posters are and what they're posting.
The end result, though, being that whenever one accommodates a specific range of diversity, that accommodation must meet the lowest common denominator.
So in the being of ourselves, we see diverse standards for the selves. Your honesty, someone else's technical standard, and yet someone else's need to bash. All these things are accommodated, and some are less civil than others.
So I would hope to demonstrate to you by that process that the being of ourselves necessarily involves accommodating the other selves that are less civil than the self in question.
Beyond that, a couple of side issues:
Actually, watch carefully. You might be amazed. Of course, it might be that your friends don't adhere to this standard, but wherever I've gone, whomever I've known, with trust brings a lowering of civility. The thing is, though, that among common associations, people forgive a lack of civility.
It has been a growing trend in my life that the people I know resort more and more to insult. To be honest, I found more civility hanging out with strippers than I did in the insurance industry.
And if I have less friends, it's probably because I define the word more conservatively than others. I listen to other people talk about their friends, though, and I get a feeling that what I call "acquaintances" often qualify as "friends" to them.
Think of what teenagers (of all eras) do to the concept of "love". It's sort of the same thing.
But by and large, people generally insult each other regularly. The difference is that because it's a "friend" and not a stranger, the insults are acceptable.
Hell, I went out with some "friends" of one of my relatives. All night it was nothing but people cussing each other out. If you spoke to anyone but a friend that way, it would be disastrous. Hell, the law says you can't talk to your wife that way.
I occasionally wonder whether he's got the balls to come to Seattle and threaten me to my face.
I'm perfectly happy to treat everyone in the world as drinking buddies. But I've found that at Sciforums such an approach does not work. Even without flaming and insults, I seem to upset people in the virtual community more often than I do people in the real world. I tend to think this has more to do with reading comprehension in the sense that you can't hear my tone or facial expressions. And, with a few of our posters, I've decided it's reading comprehension in general.
To drop our façades entirely would eventually force us to civility, but I don't see that as any more realistic than getting a certain of my friends to look at herself honestly.
In the meantime, being the "ourselves" of our personalities will bring about a necessary reduction in the general civility of the forums. Some people demonstrably set lower standards than you do, Joeman, and the idea of being ourselves must necessarily include them.
thanx much,
Tiassa