"Polite": what does it mean?

[perplexity]

It has recently been suggested to be more polite,

Re: May I say "more friendly please"?

but what does it mean?

This is an issue that I have struggled with for as far back as I remember, primarily because the usual way to be polite is to be dishonest, to refrain from telling the whole tuth and nothing but, in order to accommodate the addiction to ignorance that a subject is known to be afflicted with.

If then philosophy is anything to do with knowing the whole truth and nothing but, this tends to be problematic from the start, to be forced in effect to abandon a personal moral philosphy of "do as would be done to", in favor of "do as he wants to be done to, even if he is not going to do the same for you"

In practice, on a forum such as this, there is then a terrible tendency toward a precarious game of moderator roulette, to second guess what a moderator may consider to be polite or not polite, with posters pushing to the brink of acceptability for want of a sufficiently clear rule to show them where the limit is, for in practice this is inevitably, a question of perception and personal values.

A moderator may be more impressed by style, or more concerned with content. With others one never gets to know what was going on, with no explanation provided. Moderators too may be prone to childish tantrums when shown to be wrong. Moderators, strangely enough, may be just as annoyingly inconsistent as the rest of the World we have to cope with.

If it is simply that criticism per se is unwelcome, then for me at least it ceases to be worthwhile to post. If it is more a matter of being pertinent to a topic, to exclude the ad hominems and straw men arguments, that again is a notoriously grey area, and not least when the postings of a moderator happen to have displayed an attitude that posters would think unworthy of itself, but with no names mentioned for the sake of being polite.

I could go on at some length about this already, with an abundance of anecdotal experience to cite, but I would rather see an intelligent analysis of it in philosophical terms, in so far as it may be polite to venture the attempt.

Possibly somebody really does have something enriching to say about it, please, and not least for the sake of the moderator, whose job is anything but easy.

Constructively, what would the rule book consist of?

-- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

Just to add my two pence on the topic, it would seem in a philosophy forum at least it would be full of opinions but not the same ones. There is possibly no actual answer to anything here just maybe schools of thought that an individual may prefer and insight that somebody may deem to be a progressive step forward. Even science holds hardly any truth in a forum that questions even that. So my conclussion would be to listen to others regardless, and put forward your own views ultimately to at least try and understand what the other person thinks. This would provide a good debate that could cover all known angles, but wheather a conclussion is met, that will always be for the individual to deside. But nobody can say they have the truth and understand anything to the definitive zenith.

[perplexity]

That reminds me of a quote I saw somewhere recently:

"Those who think they know everything are terribly annoying to those of us who really do"

For me the crucial issue is hypocrisy. If that is is what somebody really thinks of himself, then I'd rather hear it straight out. The polite versions give me the creeps.

Thanks for the comment.

--- RH.

[Justin]

Polite is quite easily defined in a Dictionary.

In practice, on a forum such as this, there is then a terrible tendency toward a precarious game of moderator roulette, to second guess what a moderator may consider to be polite or not polite, with posters pushing to the brink of acceptability for want of a sufficiently clear rule to show them where the limit is, for in practice this is inevitably, a question of perception and personal values.

Simply put, there will be no games of moderator roulette in this forum. They too will have a code of conduct and if they cannot provide moderation under those, then they should probably not be a moderator.

Forum guidelines have been written and this provides a foundation for the Philosophy Forum. While other forums may have different philosophies of rules and guidelines, this forum has provided the essential foundation in the FAQs. Those of course will be adapted and changed over time on an as needed basis but for the most part, they are to act as a guide.

As far as Moderators go, they have a tough job in a forum such as this. Moderating isn't for everyone. I'm in the process of writing a moderators code of conduct so things like this aren't misunderstood.

The rules in here and Moderator rules are something I'd rather not spend my time on however, it's important that there is documentation provided that covers this.

Constructively, what would the rule book consist of?

It's already available. Please take a look at the FAQs of the forum and the Philosophy Forum Guidelines.

Be as polite as you can! That's all. Each and everyone of us are different. Some of us were raised with manners and some of us weren't. The bottom line is to do our best to make this a community where anyone can ask a question and post a thread without being jumped on and beaten up with words. Stuff like this in other forums make people reluctant to post. That's not the purpose of this forum.

"Those who think they know everything are terribly annoying to those of us who really do"

I cannot seem to find the above quote in forum search, if you'd be so kind as to link us to this quoted post, it would be appreciated.

[perplexity]

Google.com is quite helpful, as usual.

I do not recall on which forum I saw the version I quote, but the orginal that did the rounds appears to have been this:

http://www.google.com/search?&as_epq=Those+who+think+they+know+everythin g+annoy+those+of+us+that+do&num=100

-- RH.

[Justin]

Oh, I thought it was on this forum. Google is great for search isn't it! Thanks!

[Aristoddler]

Abusive speech is a sign of lacking control.
If someone cannot think of anything more constructive or elusive than, "you're stupid, you stupid-head, F**k you you stupid ****ing **** of **** moron...Bush was right, you should all be ****ing executed, you ****."

Then yes...they need to be banned for obvious reasons.


For the same reason; people who enter into a philosophical debate, should be somewhat intellectual and above such foul language, or lack of respect for their fellow man.

This is why we need to relax, and lose the abuse without moderators to police us.
This is not a site that needs monitors, I would hope.

[perplexity]

But is that sort of overt abuse really so much of an annoyance? I rather tend to pity the poverty of the intellect. Sheer vulgarity is tedious when it goes on endlessly, for want of anything better to say, but ocassional instances have actually amused me, especially when deliberately overdone for dramatic effect, to counter an unfortunately aggressive disposition. Real people do have feelings. It all depends upon the context.

What gets to me is the subtle abuse, the misinterpretations of what I have written as if to impugn my motivation for doing so. The accusation of attempting to detract or destroy when I was sincerely attempting to enrich, that is what hurts the most, especially on the occasion when it comes from a moderator who one should hope would know better.

F**k you you stupid ****ing **** of **** moron, I would not even be bothered to respond to; it defeats itself. The stuff that a naive reader would otherwise be taken in by, that is what bothers me, because on occassion I have had to sit at the computer screen all day long, literally, in order to reply to posting after posting to the effect of "no, what you place there in quotation marks is not even what I had written; if you bother to read it, my point was actually that....". To my mind a libel is to be treated as such, intended or otherwise, and with no further ado, but it may not be so easy to convince a moderator of this.

The trouble with the ad hominem attack is not so much that a person is attacked, per se, but rather that an imaginary person is attacked, the straw man imposition of a version of the opponent that he does not consider to be a true representation. To the extent that somebody correctly understands who I am the very purpose to me being here would be to be personally attacked, for if what I present for my myself does not correctly represent the reality of my self, then that is my fault for the lack of integrity, for failing to present a full and true account of it.

With philsopohy, however, this is tricky because, as with mathematics, if they have not yet got the hang of the basic 2+2=4, then they are not going to get the hang of the differential calculus. It is all about the prejudice of perception.


-- RH.

[Aristoddler]

I love the 2+2=4 debate.

ex:
An apple weighs a pound by definition.
I have an apple that weighs 24 ounces, and another apple that weighs 24 ounces.
Therefore I have 2 and a half apples.
1+1=2.5


I use this fuzzy logic to confuse the kids, so don't bother tearing it apart...I know it's flawed.

[Zetetic11235]

Really it just seems that any comment that cannot be justified in the context of the thread or prevents furthering of ideas in a thread (including blatant misconstrueing of anothers ideas to further one's point) are what should be recieving warnigs and it seems that imperical evidences is pretty suggestive to this being the case. I do agree that there should not be any fuzziness in the code of conduct and if a better phrasing is suggested by a member it should recieve serious considration.