does honesty need to be harsh?

by Ravyn 210 Replies latest members adult

• 

  teejay

  ... this is EXACTLY what I have been saying from my first post onward! It is not even an approximation of my point, it is my exact point. -- hillary_step

  We agree, then!

  However, I must point out to you that you seem to have made statements that appear to be contradictory. In your initial post in this discussion, you said:

  AlanF for example, can be rather cutting at times when dealing with subjects that he is passionate about, but I can assure you that in ‘real-life’ he is as gentle and kind a person as you would ever meet... I think that more than evaluating the importance of kindness in honesty, we might think about whether we can adapt ourselves to suit the environment of a discussion board, or whether we are better of turning off the computer and seeking new pastures. (teejay's emphasis)

  There, I thought you were suggesting that people (other than Alan) needed to adjust their online posting style to suit the environment of an online forum. From that standpoint, you seemed to bolster that argument when you said

  "the presentation of honesty in an on-line scenario, may be different to how it is expressed in real-life, and may also not suit our *own* notions of how it should best be presented in writing. Many authors, journalists poets, musicians and artists, have altered the course of empires by delaring the truth in a harsh manner." (teejay's emphasis)

  ... and when you said

  Unless of course you are the son of God and 'harshly' refer to you enemies as, 'offspring of vipers', 'Whitewashed graves', 'Leaven'. Sometimes harsh words are required to *validate* honesty (teejay's emphasis)

  Now that I find we have been essentially saying the same thing all along, I view your INITIAL POST in a totally different light. NOW I view your statement

  I think that more than evaluating the importance of kindness in honesty, we might think about whether we can adapt ourselves to suit the environment of a discussion board... (teejay's emphasis)

  ... to mean that it's Alan who may need to adapt his posting style to suit the sensibilities of fellow posters. Do I understand you correctly? If not, would you please clarify what you meant by these seemingly contradictory statements?

  tj ~ who, as the board knows, often lives in a fog...
• 

  teejay

  If it seems that I am focusing on Alan it's only because he is one of the very few (if not the only one) who continues to espouse the theory that the use of harsh language in making an argument is necessary. -- teejay

  Is that really what Alan is espousing? -- rem

  Yes. It is.

  Note this exchange between Alan and me :

  If one is suspicious of one's own opinion to the extent that even they KNOW they can't prove it, what good is accomplished by uttering the unfounded suspicion -- and with an ad hominem at that? -- teejay

  A lot of good. Since I addressed this specifically to NG, it was a way of trying to force her to take a stand one way or the other. I had already tried, time and again, straight reasoning, but she dismissed all of it with stupid remarks like, "That's your opinion!" When a debate reaches a level like that, stronger methods are called for to get someone to begin reasoning, or to expose themselves as a troll. -- AlanF

  Elaborating in a post further down, Alan said :

  I'm glad that you now understand my tactics. You may not agree with my use of them, but that's fine; we can agree to disagree. Since my experience is that these tactics often work... I'll continue to use them as I see fit.

  I personally like the diversity found on this site. Mark me down as one person who was "woken up" by a combination of Alan's and other posters' styles - both harsh and meek and everywhere in between. -- rem

  Ah!... but the point isn't necessarily what we personally like but what is best for the greatest number of people. Shouldn't that be a major concern instead of what is simply good for us personally?

  Consider: I am not offended by the "F" word nor am I offended by nudity. Should the board be run, then, on teejay's personal preferences or on what's best for the board as a whole? If my preferences are deemed to be harmful to a range of people, should I at least consider accomplishing the same goal without doing any needless harm?
• 

  Ravyn

  well since I started the thread I say everyone get naked!

  Ravyn
• 

  teejay

  I'm down! YOU FIRST!!!
• 

  Ravyn

  already there!

  Ravyn
• 

  hillary_step

  No Tj you do *not* understand, or you choose not to.

  You note:

  However, I must point out to you that you seem to have made statements that appear to be contradictory. In your initial post in this discussion, you said:

  I noted previously :

  AlanF for example, can be rather cutting at times when dealing with subjects that he is passionate about, but I can assure you that in ‘real-life’ he is as gentle and kind a person as you would ever meet...I think that more than evaluating the importance of kindness in honesty, we might think about whether we can adapt ourselves to suit the environment of a discussion board, or whether we are better of turning off the computer and seeking new pastures.

  Can you not see that I have repeatedly posted this in so many ways that frustration is now my master.

  Look again at what I posted earlier today.

  It was myself who introduced the 'inferno' and 'lit match' analogy and my point was, and is, that in certain circumstances harshness in honesty is necessary. I then went on to note that a difficulty arises in the individual determination of what is a match or an inferno. One mans match, as it were, is another mans inferno and on a public discussion board it is inevitable that these boundaries become blurred.

  My point is, and it always was and always will be, that we must inevitably accept that online discussion boards blur the lines between the 'match' and the 'inferno', due to its very nature. You finally agreed that harshness is often necessary in honesty, but cannot accept your own proposal when it comes to an on-line discussion forum where by its very nature issues develop to a reactionary status far more quickly due to the diversity of posters cultures, personalities and social station and lack of face-to-face contact. I even offered a practical solution for those grappling with this problem: learn to live with it or leave.

  At this belated stage I have repeated myself so often that I will bow out of further conversation, lest I become harsh in my honesty! All I will say is that I have consitently from post one on this thread presented and explained the same argument, I wish others were as consistent with theirs.

  HS
• 

  rem

  Teejay,

  Where you see Alan espousing harsh language as necessary, I see him describing his own personal style. Alan has not argued that others must share his style. That would be arguing that harsh language is necessary.

  This is confirmed here:

  I'm glad that you now understand my tactics. You may not agree with my use of them, but that's fine; we can agree to disagree. Since my experience is that these tactics often work... I'll continue to use them as I see fit.

  Alan is describing what works for him. What works for him may not work for others. This board has all types - that's just the way life is.

  Ah!... but the point isn't necessarily what we personally like but what is best for the greatest number of people. Shouldn't that be a major concern instead of what is simply good for us personally?

  Is that really the point? This is a discussion board primarily, not a deprogramming board. Nevertheless, many people are helped by the different viewpoints and methods shared on this discussion board. Different people respond to different things. How, exactly, do you quantify what is the best for the greatest number of people? Are you just going to dismiss my personal experience as an anomaly? I used to be a dub and these boards did influence my thinking at the time. Guess who the most prolific posters (from my perspective) at the time were? Farkle, AF, and JH (JanH), etc. Not the most gentle bunch in the crowd.

  But even if harsh language was completely counter-productive to waking up cult members (which, in my experience as a former cult member, it is not), what does it matter? This is a discussion board, primarily, where people from different backgrounds share experiences and discuss things that interest them. It's kinda like the real world where you have to learn to deal with different personality types. If people are helped out by reading and participating in the different discussions and debate, that is great! If not, then maybe other research will help them, or maybe they are just not ready to get out of the cult yet. All we can do is plant seeds. There is no one type of seed.

  If everyone was all sugary sweet all the time, this board would look like JWZone or whatever it's called.

  rem
• 

  teejay

  HS,

  I sincerely apologize for being a source of exasperation but I just want to understand.

  You are right. It was never an issue: depending on the individual, discussion boards contain discussions that range from minimally important to those of major importance. That is a no-brainer. The real point of dispute is how do we approach our fellow posters in those discussions we have an interest in that have larger implications or when disagreements are wide and emotions are running hot?

  I never agreed, as you said I did, that "harshness is often necessary in honesty." It is NOT "often necessary." What I said was:

  IN THE CONTEXT OF POSTING ON THIS FORUM , if something good can be accomplished with a harsh and cutting word, something better can be accomplished with the use of some alternative expression.

  IOW, since an alternative is almost always available, harsh words are very seldom necessary... or even most affective. Sure, in ordinary affairs of life different scenarios can be presented where we might have to use uncommon words/tone of voice: a burning building, an oncoming locomotive, a falling piano, a suitor that doesn't understand the meaning of the word "no." Those situations, however, do not fit the general description of discussion boards and our urgency here is not as great as it would be during those real-life events.

  I think what might be a source of confusion is what is meant by "harsh." Cancer is certainly a harsh disease. Informing a patient that they have cancer would be a harsh reality or truth. Is there a way to break such harsh news to a person so that they will be happy to hear it? No. There is no possible way. But even considering such harsh truths such as cancer, some ways of passing on the information are inherently better than others.

  Bringing this analogy to the context of this forum (which has always been my focus), suppose that "Jim" and "Joe" had a discussion. What good would be accomplished if, after proving his point conclusively with reasonable arguments and empirical evidence, Joe said to Jim: "Jim? You are a totally moronic dipf**k!!"

  It's my position that, with the possible exception of two people who have known each other for many years, no good whatsoever would come from such a comment. None.
• 

  hillary_step

  TJ,

  When you straighten out in your own mind what you actually believe, then it may be useful to explore this further with you. An example of your argument is posed below where you wrote :

  Am I saying that harsh words are never appropriate in any circumstance? No, of course not.

  You then claim to be discussing only the kind of harshness and honesty displayed online despite your previous illustration, which is one in which no online activity is connected, remember.

  People in the hospital with a serious illness.. say, cancer, need to be told the truth. What they don't need is to be told that they are a freaking idiot for having smoked all those years. Sometimes teeth are rotten and need to be pulled, but a skilled dentist will perform the treatment with minimal (no) pain to the patient. It's done all the time.

  To which I responded :

  There is a vast difference as to how honesty is presented in the real-world and online. That is why I think many of the illustrations made are not actually fitting. We all know how we would like to be *told* we are about to died of cancer, but how would we like a person to *write* this information - this is what we are dealing with in this question.

  You then further entangle yourself in your own arguments with this statement :

  I guess, HS, that therein lies the crux of this debate. On one side are those who feel that harshness makes a statement more honest and truthful. On the other side are those who think the truth itself is enough. I'm squarely on the side of the latter group.

  That is not what you said above in the first quotation. Remeber : Am I saying that harsh words are never appropriate in any circumstance? No, of course not.

  Look, try this one TJ. Present your argument in one clearly defined sentence, I will do the same, although all I will need to do is to cut and paste my previous posts...., and let the readers assess where we stand.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  xenawarrior

  Different people respond to different things. How, exactly, do you quantify what is the best for the greatest number of people? Are you just going to dismiss my personal experience as an anomaly? I used to be a dub and these boards did influence my thinking at the time. Guess who the most prolific posters (from my perspective) at the time were? Farkle, AF, and JH (JanH), etc. Not the most gentle bunch in the crowd.

  I certainly wouldn't dismiss it !!!

  One thing that amazes me here is also that AlanF and Farkel and some of those being discussed as being "harsh" are also those who will extend themselves to others on the board in a more personal manner when they hear of a need. I've heard of dozens of phone conversations Alan has offered himself for - to people he didn't know at all- in an effort to help someone. In the middle of the night one time as I recall hearing it. I have been the recipient of a few phone "sheparding" calls from Farkel along the way myself. I know Sixy has extended himself in the same manner to strangers in need. Harsh? Hell no!

  These three guys have been out for a long time- they owe noone a thing !!! And all three of them will deliver what would be considered "harsh" in certain circumstances. And there is always enough of the opposite to balance it out. And sometimes harsh is mild for what they are responding to!

  I know that I've learned more in certain circumstances from harsh- even though it's a bitter pill to swallow at the time and I might be mad as hell at the moment. Usually upon further reflection, it's what I needed to hear and that message was either not being delivered by others or it wasn't reaching me in a way I could hear it at the time.

  Just my opinion- cuz I can have one