The one who said "I wonder which is faster, my 84 Omega, or them cop cars?"
does honesty need to be harsh?
by Ravyn 210 Replies latest members adult
-
-
minimus
If I make a statement on the board that is absolutely incorrect, I think it would be good to say,"Min, what you said is just not right". But to say that and add,"you dips***" or "moron" etc. in unnecessarily harsh. Now let's say I kept on repeating the incorrect thing, then, would it be OK to respond harshly? No. Why be harsh??? It's unnecessary. However, speaking the truth in response is always ok. There's just no need to come across as unfeeling or hateful.
-
SixofNine
But what if you're a dipfuck or a moron? Wouldn't it be the loving thing to do to let people know?
-
teejay
The essence of my own views was clearly stated in the opening sentence of my original post, which perhaps you did not read. -- HS
No, HS, I read your opening sentence where you said: "An Arab proverb says that ‘cleverness is good, but kindness is better’ and I very much would agree with that, though it is not always possible to abide by such lofty values on Internet discussion Boards." I may have mistaken your meaning, but you seemed to mitigate, even excuse, the potentially counter-productive affects that harsh language might have. While I agree it is not always POSSIBLE, doing so is always the best course of action, resulting in the greatest yield.
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.
Personally, I see a technical distinction with no difference. I could be wrong but I fail to see how laying out the facts verbally would differ from doing the same in written form. The end result -- the dispersal of even brutal truth -- could be accomplished in both cases without being harsh.
The rest of my post was designed to show that ‘harshness’ in the way that our *own* perception of honesty is presented will always be part of online discussions where face-to-face contact is missing.
Always part of online discussion? That may be true, but the question is: are certain forms of debate within online discussions truly necessary or productive?
Our perception of a matter is often (usually) colored by various factors within us and our personal style should always be given expression. Still, certain truths are universal. In a recent thread, several posters chided a certain poster when that one posted a private message -- an act that is universally seen as against the rules of online posting. In much the same way, certain other behaviors are also seen (by the majority of people) as inappropriate online behavior.
AlanF illustrated this well in his anology of a person being warned about a fire. The issue of how one differentiates what is a raging fire or just a lit match goes very much to heart of Ravyn's post. Internet discussions, with its mix of nationality, character and motives will always blur the line between matches and infernos.
If I understand Alan (and you), can we truthfully say that any of the discussions that you've ever seen here are as seriously important as a literal fire from which we're trying to save someone? Hardly! It's an interesting argument, albeit one made of straw. I can't think of a single scenario in an online discussion wherein one's immediate life was at risk. Comparing any discussion to an inferno (or someone walking down a railroad track) is measly justification for schoolyard language, no matter how much it's a part of a person's "style."
I also went on to note that we must learn to accept that this is going to happen, people will present their views brutally, some more than others, some more gently than others.
Needless to say, that is true. People are going to do what people are going to do. I think the point of discussion, though, is: is a certain behavior for the best; in the best interests of all involved; necessary? Or is it, overall, counter-productive? And should one insist on their personal style regardless of how it might negatively affect others?
It is not necessarily a reflection of that persons true personality or *intent*, but a methodology that they chose to use.
Understood. The question is: why use a two-by-four when a series of gentle nudges just might produce the wanted outcome?
I used AlanF as an example, as I am aware of both his on-line and off-line personna. You may disagree with the methodology, but it would be dangerous for a person to try and judge a persons intent by the manner in which they choose to display an honest viewpoint on discussion Boards.
Ah! It's not a matter of judging people's intent but methods!!
Since you know AlanF personally, you have a distinct advantage over those not so fortunate. (<--- I mean that honestly.) Since that's the case, seeing him call someone a moron or an idiot might cause you to grin or even chuckle. You know the man and have a clearer insight into his intent. Would a stranger be inclined to have the same view?
It's a matter worthy of our serious concern -- if our goal is indeed to help people.
-
hillary_step
Ravyn,
Hey HS! since I asked the question online of this forum...it first is intended to be a Q about online honesty. But I dont separate my online life from my offline life---so it did not occur to me when I asked that someone might think I had two standards. I am talking about honesty in all aspects of life, not just online. Online is just what I share with you guys....
The question you posed was 'Does Honesty Need To Be Harsh', which is all about the application of the quality of honesty, I am in no way suggesting that there are two levels of honesty. What I am stating is that 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. Look for example at Goya's paintings.
Ravyn, because, while *you* do not separate your on-line from off-line life many do, and for many divers reasons, some malevolent. You then may be placed in a position where harshness may not just be a reaction but a preferable methodology.
Let me give you an example, last year during an online dispute on this Board, I received personal mail from two persons. One threatened my life, the other threatened to seek out my wife and sexually abuse her. In order to convince these persons of my intent to make sure that this would not happen without repercussions, i wrote back notes which were both honest *and* harsh.
You see that was a 'blazing inferno' and not just a 'lit match', as I mentioned in the post above. Drawing the line between what one person might view as an inferno requiring a harsh retort, or just a small flame is the problematic issue. Going back to my own situation, noted above, when my life was threatened it was meaningless to me because I knew this coward was hiding behind an *on-line life*. When my wife was threatened I reacted harshly, despite knowing this person very probably was as pronounced a coward as the other, but this time other lives were involved, so I reacted differently.
As to the issue as to whether people behave differently on-line than they do in real-life, well you may not, TJ, may not, Danny may not and I may not but many do, and create on-line personas of what they would like to be, rather than what they are. This is a classic cameo of transference in action and it happens every day. Mice become Lions, sinners become Saints and the those who have had no voice roar in ways that they would never dare in real-life. I have no doubt that the persons who wished myself and my family harm would not have done so in real-life, and upon this I rest my case.
Best regards - HS
-
SixofNine
Funny to see such a discussion, when the discussees know that the notches on their guns will never be close to as numurous as Alan's. Almost seems silly. Like argueing for argueing sake.
-
hillary_step
TJ,
Thank you for your comments. I believe that many of them are dealt with in the post to Ravyn, if they are not perhps you might let me know where I can flesh these out further. I also believe that we are probably much closer in our viewpoints than might appear at first glance.
Best regards - HS
-
onacruse
Six, is that to say that the ends justifies the means? Even if we grant (which I don't) that that is a valid ethic, the fact remains that there is no way (at least that I know of) to quantitatively evaluate which "method" is more effective. Based purely on my own experience and temperment, and on what many others have said here, I'd venture to say that 90%+ of those who become healthy exJWs become so by enjoying the honey-and-butter toast, not the bitter pickles.
Craig
-
DannyBear
Onacruse,
****DannyBear, you are saying what I feel way better than I can say it.****
I beg to differ, even tho you have not had a response from Hs as yet, I think you made your point very well.
Problem is, [Craig], like certain other posters, you have an inferiority complex based on the demonstrated fact that you have virtually no debating skills. Knowledge of that lack causes you to lash out at other posters you know or think have some skills.
****I would dearly like to know how a comment like that could be taken as anything other than derogatory, spiteful and demeaning. Would you really suggest that I could somehow attribute "good motive" to the person who said that to me?****
To be brutaly honest..........Not in a million years!!!!
Anyone who makes this type of statement is hell bent on putting someone down, and in their mind raising themselves up. Sheer ignorance. No matter what letter's they may have attached at the end of their respective names.
Danny
-
SixofNine
Six, is that to say that the ends justifies the means?
Yeah, I guess I think in regards to this discussion, that is correct. It's not like we're talking about something immoral or even harmful. We're talking about the best way to help the biggest number of people.
I just think it's funny to see someone who is wildly successful at doing that, criticised. I mean, it's not as if we could all adapt the same style even if we wanted to. Why criticise one style that obviously works? It's not as if it prevents someone with another style from jumping into the fray; hell, it may even help that other persons' arguments carry more weight.
There are alot of us out here, who when confronted, even in the most sarcastic manner, with a truism or a logical argument, gulp, swallow hard, and own that truism. I can't say I have alot of respect for people who can't subdue their ego's to such an extent that it gets in the way of their own happiness and intelligence. And yet, most of these discussions, at their core, are about whether or not to coddle this or that persons ego in order to get them to see logically. Still, if that's what it takes, there are plenty of people who seem to work that way naturally, so why the fuss?