tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post8316524295855669974..comments2024-03-27T15:44:43.564-08:00Comments on What Do I Know?: The Role of Insults and Profanity on BlogsStevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-56405848325164186862009-05-04T16:20:00.000-08:002009-05-04T16:20:00.000-08:00OK, now I understand your point. I thought you we...OK, now I understand your point. I thought you were saying that I was blocking dissent here. <br /> <br />In an attempt to stop the abusive tone of one or two commenters, I posted standards for how I would decide whom to block. The standards changed the tone of those commenters and I only blocked a few that were just abusive with no supporting evidence. And these were from repeat commenters, not one time commenters. (Yes, there are ways to figure that out.) Even with the standards it is hard to make some decisions - balancing someone's inability to express themselves better against posts that would, because of their frequency, change the tone of the blog. But I found if you raise the bar, people will meet that challenge. I suspect few people are being blocked because of their profanity or nastiness. If they choose not to adjust, that's their decision.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-6823017879542105222009-05-04T16:12:00.000-08:002009-05-04T16:12:00.000-08:00I think you point up, F words, and cussing mostly ...I think you point up, F words, and cussing mostly distract from some more substantive matters. And, on a blog, most do not know one another, have not a clue on the other person.<br />I wonder if cussing, or F words really say that those who use those expressions are insecure, feel inadequate, feel they care not to get into some depth in some area, so they resort to cussing etc. Language is such a gift, it is what we have to communicate, what separates us from the APES, so it seems some prefer to lower the language useage to bring matters back to some jungle thing, some ploy, some disrespect, to deter real communication.<br />Some people just as soon not communicate, or want to distract from such, or there are obstructors of communication, as well.<br />Or, there is the feeling--or so and so is some <br />smarty, i will tell him he is a POS, just a way of really attacking the use of language, some contempt.<br />It is something about the human animal, and society.<br />Plus, there is the thing about order, heiarchy, etc.. control.<br />Also, the fisherman I knew were not cussing fools, but very intelligent persons with many different interests, and so articulate they rarely cussed. But, that was before the I-net, cyber spacing, presto blogs etc.<br />I also wodner if the I-net blogs, etc produces such a sea of words--just a vast sea of words-- it people have a harder time discerning what is important, what is really significant writings.<br />Fewer and fewer people read a daily news paper anymore, like they used to.<br />With any new devices, gizmos technology there are downsides...<br />For example, at first in the 1990's, the compuers produced a big increase in productivity.<br />Now, people at work waste so much time on computers---other than working---there is a drag on work productivity.<br />Computers, blogs etc are not all they are cracked up to be, there are downsides, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-64974543765316227392009-05-04T15:45:00.000-08:002009-05-04T15:45:00.000-08:00Steve @ 1:38 - I understood you were saying that t...Steve @ 1:38 - I understood you were saying that the use of insults and profanity weakens the argument, increases the divide, and generally isn't good for building community. <br /><br />I agree with you. The same can be said of public officials using demeaning and dismissing words in response to citizens that take actions against their poorly behavior.<br /><br />In short, I see a trend of oppression by the administration of Sarah Palin and I think that, albeit inadvertently, some bloggers and publications such as ADN are abetting her wishes by criticizing or blocking the dissenting voices based on their style or range of expression.<br /><br />So, it is the timing of your post, more than your argument that had me alarmed and "profaned".<br /><br /><br /><br />Forever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-48870052093389090092009-05-04T13:38:00.000-08:002009-05-04T13:38:00.000-08:00Anon 12:05 - I don't disagree, but think how we re...Anon 12:05 - I don't disagree, but think how we react to that - total dismissal. <br /><br />Anon 12:54 - I'm not sure what you think my argument was. I didn't ban profanity. I didn't ban criticism. I didn't even ban insults, though I did put up the review of comments a while ago because I had one or two people being abusive and repetitive. <br /> <br />Basically, I was saying that the use of insults and profanity weakens the argument, increases the divide, and generally isn't good for building community. I'm not making a moral judgment, but rather a judgment about effectiveness in terms of improving our community discourse.<br /><br />I didn't mean to discourage folks and I appreciate your commenting despite the perceived risks. I'm not blind to the fact that colorful speech gets a bigger audience than deliberate speech. Everyone plays a necessary role in pushing the boulder of dissent up the hill.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-89602184909685157522009-05-04T13:20:00.000-08:002009-05-04T13:20:00.000-08:00Reason and spirit are each available to discussion...Reason and spirit are each available to discussion. Use them both as required. Listen to both as desired.Jacob Dugan-Brausehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287631724339961459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-74225478284175167372009-05-04T12:54:00.000-08:002009-05-04T12:54:00.000-08:00I'm so sorry to hear this argument and yet, I'll t...I'm so sorry to hear this argument and yet, I'll try to abide by your logic.<br /><br />When you hear the collective cry of a group in reaction to actions and policies detrimental to society at large, it is truly not the time to censor the expressions of discontent.<br /><br />The cumulative absence of check and balance or the lack of enforcement of the law creates a chaos and frustration that cannot be solve by the correct use of words or proper argument rules.<br /><br />Please stay away from this argument. You are turning the focus on powerless dissenters and making us the schizophrenics, when all efforts should be directed to contain and remove from power the expletive inducing public servant in name only.<br /><br />yes, there will be a time to vote, until then, profanity or not, voices should not be censured.<br /><br />It is with trepidation that I dare write to you, given the caveat on comments, but I did comment knowing that in order to block me you would have had to hear me. <br /><br />Forever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-37991153387338589622009-05-04T12:05:00.000-08:002009-05-04T12:05:00.000-08:00argumentum ad personam = Executive Staff of the Go...argumentum ad personam = Executive Staff of the Govenors office and the Govenor, when responding to any ethics complaints filed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-19564377085907068762009-05-04T10:41:00.000-08:002009-05-04T10:41:00.000-08:00Phil, I wasn't naming any names. Your example was...Phil, I wasn't naming any names. Your example was just the most recent and graphic.<br /><br />The ad hominem definition is from Wiki. I agree with you that it doesn't necessarily reflect on the quality of the argument, and there certainly was back up argument in the cited case.<br /><br />I guess, as Kate suggests, it's better to call a spade a spade than to call a spade a sack of shit. But it's harder. <br /><br /><br />Midnight Cajun, [Wince] I felt uncomfortable writing about the third grade teacher, but I didn't know why. Now, thanks to you, I do.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-26633036044239808162009-05-04T08:29:00.000-08:002009-05-04T08:29:00.000-08:00Good points to remember. Thanks for being our thir...Good points to remember. Thanks for being our third grade teacher. : )midnightcajunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264117109930188639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-27359890075261523452009-05-04T08:27:00.000-08:002009-05-04T08:27:00.000-08:00Steve,
I wasn't feeling very Churchillian Friday ...Steve,<br /><br />I wasn't feeling very Churchillian Friday evening when I wrote my post about Colaveccio's brazen lies. My profanity probably best fit your explanation number one. I disagree with your number two, in that an ad hominem headline or header doesn't necessarily reflect on the quality of the argument contained in the post.<br /><br />To quote Churchill, his was an insult "up with which I could not put." <br /><br />I tend to use profanity, as used by my blog model Howie Klein - use profanity, but use it sparingly. Or Jane Hamsher, who has said, "When in doubt, DO USE 'fuck.' If you don't, you might regret it later."Philip Mungerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14601488767955084836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-22880109451702813832009-05-04T07:19:00.000-08:002009-05-04T07:19:00.000-08:00Well done, Steve. You have treated virulent langua...Well done, Steve. You have treated virulent language with more compassion than I can. Probably it's due to my age, but profanity, especially the boring, repetitive, easy-to-spell kind, makes me judge the author as vulgar, immature, and ... boring.<br /><br />There is great power in naming, but you have to say the True Name. "Lying sack of shit" is possibly not a true name. "Mr XXXX, you are the unethical man who took house renovations and a statue of a barracuda from Mr. YYYY while you were in a position to support his interests." is closer to True.<br /><br />However, I just had to reword this statement three times to make it vague enough so it wasn't potentially libelous, by which point I am almost ready to retreat to option 1: "You are a lying sack..." which would be much harder to sue me for.Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08191761776204745393noreply@blogger.com