Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

There is another use to which they could be put (and have been put, as I see it) -- to attempt to embarrass and humiliate someone by taking them out of context and distorting their meaning.

Then you missed the point, which was that there is no context in which death fantasies targeting other posters should be considered acceptable. It's a line that shouldn't be crossed under any circumstances. I understand the opposing arguments (which seem to boil down to "Such fantasies are acceptable if they're posted by Pink Splice", and "Such fantasies are acceptable if they target The Rani"), but I simply disagree with them.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Craig is, of course, the final word on whether posts stay or go -- but as a general principle, I think we need to be very careful about what we decide to request to be eliminated from discussion.

I agree. When you can explain to me what death fantasies add to the discussion here, you will have won me over completely.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You may get that.

"I" did get that, in the sense that the pattern of abuse that a certain poster engaged in has ended.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I think you've also managed to chill the discussion here, and it looks like Linus, at least, has decided to stop posting. I don't see either of those developments an an improvement.

Well, before you posted this, Bri2K gave the big ol' thumbs up to the new rules and said that he'll likely stick around now that they're in place, so that's one poster we might have lost who decided to stick around. Since you posted this, it Linus has found his inner Ahh-nold and said that he'll be back.

Beyond that, we'll just have to see if the discussion thaws over time.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

True enough--and I have recommended that people use the ignore button instead of wasting everyone's time complaining about trolls. That isn't censorship. Those are individual decisions that everyone is free to make, or not--not rules.

DK

Right. Lest Her Majesty succeed in sowing confusion in anybody's clear thinking here, let me state the truth which would otherwise be obvious: the right to speak freely in no way entails the right to be heard. In order to preserve free speech, it is better to "change the channel" than to ban the content.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Right. [L]et me state the truth which would otherwise be obvious: the right to speak freely in no way entails the right to be heard.

No doubt, yer an advocate of the Pelosi/Reid Fairness Doctrine.

Who arbitrates who's right to speak or be heard? Freedom? Or Big Brother?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Since this is a private forum, the owners have that right.

Amen.

And, obviously, the owner[s] have deemed The Left has the final say here, and in the entire U.S.A.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

I guess that means I'm not a sensible person.

I won't "touch" that! But insofar as you have often referenced Her Majesty's penchant for gamesmanship and being oppositional merely for the sake of being oppositional, you do not pretend to take her seriously but read her posts for their entertainment value. It would seem that many posters would disagree that her posts or style are at all entertaining, but this is a matter of personal taste. The Pervert would not himself be entertaining but for his divergent tastes!

Originally Posted by zilch

Amen.

And, obviously, the owner[s] have deemed The Left has the final say here, and in the entire U.S.A.

The new guidelines are not partisan at all. They're simply an attempt to restore some civility to the forum, as I imagine Craig will clarify if you ask.

If one cannot make a valid case for their point of view without resorting to foul language and name calling then perhaps their opinion lacks a logical basis.

Bri2k

I've discovered a tremendous freedom in blogging.

The blog acts as a replacement for several of my mailing lists; it is an aggregator of my opinions and observations. There is no set schedule, and I am free to post whenever I like. This also frees up everybody else's inbox, and allows persons time diversity in seeing what madness Wally is up to. It also allows me to say what I wish.

I am also free to observe that I do not think T4T will have a mass exodus. Now that the public is instinctively getting generational theory on it's own, I think that T4T will slowly lose utility and relevance. Devoted posters may keep going into increasing detail, and even more complex arguments, and not notice that the world has left them behind, after being ahead of the world for so long. The discussions may indeed become more topic oriented, civil- and irrelevant.

There's also a point in time where Niel Howe will have to make a call on the future of this website. "Millenials Rising" was published eight years ago. The forums and site are a way to market the books. Unless a new, comprehensive revision of "Generations" is in the works after Strauss' death there's not much point in paying for a domain, hosting, and webmaster.

It's called capitalism.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Then you missed the point, which was that there is no context in which death fantasies targeting other posters should be considered acceptable. It's a line that shouldn't be crossed under any circumstances. I understand the opposing arguments (which seem to boil down to "Such fantasies are acceptable if they're posted by Pink Splice", and "Such fantasies are acceptable if they target The Rani"), but I simply disagree with them.

There have been plenty of inflammatory comments posted here over the years. Sometimes the posters themselves have had second thoughts and edited them, or responded to the comments of others and done so. Only rarely has Craig been called in to intervene.

I would wager that there is still some offensive material out there, ready to be discovered and sent down the memory hole.

"I" did get that, in the sense that the pattern of abuse that a certain poster engaged in has ended.

Heh. Well, enjoy the alternative.

Well, before you posted this, Bri2K gave the big ol' thumbs up to the new rules and said that he'll likely stick around now that they're in place, so that's one poster we might have lost who decided to stick around. Since you posted this, it Linus has found his inner Ahh-nold and said that he'll be back.

Beyond that, we'll just have to see if the discussion thaws over time.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

I've discovered a tremendous freedom in blogging.

The blog acts as a replacement for several of my mailing lists; it is an aggregator of my opinions and observations. There is no set schedule, and I am free to post whenever I like. This also frees up everybody else's inbox, and allows persons time diversity in seeing what madness Wally is up to. It also allows me to say what I wish.

I think you've hit upon an elegant solution!!

I am also free to observe that I do not think T4T will have a mass exodus. Now that the public is instinctively getting generational theory on it's own, I think that T4T will slowly lose utility and relevance. Devoted posters may keep going into increasing detail, and even more complex arguments, and not notice that the world has left them behind, after being ahead of the world for so long. The discussions may indeed become more topic oriented, civil- and irrelevant.

Hmmmmm....maybe.

There's also a point in time where Niel Howe will have to make a call on the future of this website. "Millenials Rising" was published eight years ago. The forums and site are a way to market the books. Unless a new, comprehensive revision of "Generations" is in the works after Strauss' death there's not much point in paying for a domain, hosting, and webmaster.

It's called capitalism.

I think there's still some utility in the site. We can all share tips on "How I'm Going to Survive the Upcoming Crisis" or "How We Can Make the Next First Turning Less Bland Than the Last One."

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

...Note that this isn't a forum just for people to hang out; serious researchers use it too.

-Good God, who?!

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-Good God, who?!

Several academics frequent these forums, including David Kaiser and David Krein. Students have used these forums for papers and theses on generational topics -- our own Elizabeth Kelsey just finished a Master's thesis on generational topics and cited a poster who coined the term "Homeland Generation" back in October 2001 on these forums.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Right. Lest Her Majesty succeed in sowing confusion in anybody's clear thinking here, let me state the truth which would otherwise be obvious: the right to speak freely in no way entails the right to be heard. In order to preserve free speech, it is better to "change the channel" than to ban the content.

I would like to agree with all you have said ("what he said..."). I have been visiting here several years and have often heard about the Ignore feature, which I never used because I like to hear what everyone has to say. However, I have finally used it, and it is wonderful. It soothes the savage beast in me. Sorry I didn't try it sooner.

However, I do hope that people go one being themselves (i am sure we will). I really haven't seen anything posted here that was so terrifying. Annoying maybe, but that can be fun too. A pleasant diversion, an alternative to considering the onset of a long winter and many crises to come...

Originally Posted by webmaster

Everyone should know that I am going to have extremely low tolerance for anyone accusing another person of being the next Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, etc.

Unless you can prove the person about which you are writing has committed crimes against humanity, you should find another way to express your disagreement.

Perhaps I need to add this to the rules to make this concept clear. I am not banning the use of such analogies, but you better have a very good reason for heading down this road if you do.

-- Craig

Appreciated. I'd suggest that asserting that forum contributors are or ought to be members of organizations like the KGB, Gestapo, Al Qaida or the Inquisition would fall under the same category. I would think suggesting forum contributors practice state sponsored terror or suppression of basic human rights might be similar to accusations of crimes against humanity.

Originally Posted by jadams

I would like to agree with all you have said ("what he said..."). I have been visiting here several years and have often heard about the Ignore feature, which I never used because I like to hear what everyone has to say. However, I have finally used it, and it is wonderful. It soothes the savage beast in me. Sorry I didn't try it sooner.

However, I do hope that people go one being themselves (i am sure we will). I really haven't seen anything posted here that was so terrifying. Annoying maybe, but that can be fun too. A pleasant diversion, an alternative to considering the onset of a long winter and many crises to come...

Is being annoying a form of entertainment?

In the 'Anything Military' thread, we have been briefly touching bases with evolutionary behaviorist theory... writers such as Aubrey, Morris and Lorentz. They go into human behavior as a subset of animal behavior. Animals defend resources and territory. Humans can defend symbols and ideas. A red white and blue piece of cloth might be more than a piece of cloth. An idea might be important.

Status is a big deal too. Where does one stand in the pecking order? Humor is a tool in determining status. The smile allegedly evolved from baring one's teeth. Once upon a time, teeth were weapons. They are no longer serious weapons. Exposing teeth after telling a joke is allegedly a way of announcing a verbal attack is not a serious attack. And yet, many jokes at the expense of others are part of the status and dominance games humans play. To make fun of another, to make a joke at another's expense, is often an attempt to establish dominance.

And, thus, we find ourselves defending ideas and posturing for status. This is very human of us. It isn't going to entirely go away. It is our nature.

I'd just like to see a bit more defending ideas, a bit less posturing for status. Some forms of ritual attacks are just silly, and get one no where. Some people seem to be here purely to play status games, or embrace a bit to thoroughly the idea that insulting people is a form of entertainment.

Yes, the ignore button can be good for one's blood pressure. Still, of greater concern is that those who enjoy status games and insults shouldn't be able to hijack the tone of the forum, to make more serious discussion impossible.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Several academics frequent these forums, including David Kaiser and David Krein.

I agree. Academics do seem to really flourish here at 4T.com.

For example, the highly esteemed Professor Kaiser frequents this forum to posit politely that President Bush is a fascist. Professor Krein, of course, disagrees strongly with this assertion, claiming instead that it is Vice President Cheney who's the Big Fascist, and Dubya's merely playing the role of duped sock-puppet.

Deep, man.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hmmm ... how about being a nihilist?

I felt that was a personal attack. They were calling you ugly names to increase their status at your expense. I wouldn't put accusations of nihilism in the same category accusations of supporting genocide or ethnic cleansing, but it was still an ad-hominem episode. It was "I'm cool, she has cooties" with little to no connection to a discussion of history, politics or The Theory.

Whether a complaint would be Craigsworthy, I'd leave to Craig. I don't know that we will be able to or want to get rid of all the insults and jostling for status. I have long thought that conversations here often start with discussion of ideas and policies, then drift downward into discussions of politicians who support such ideas and politicians, to personal attacks on said politicians, to personal attacks on those who support said politicians, to personal attacks for the sake of personal attacks. I can't recall how the nihilist thing got started, but it ended up in ad hominem land.

Thus far in the current Manifestation of The Craig, He is thumping hard on the worst behaviors once we reach ad hominem land. What isn't being discussed is how to stop the slide towards ad hominem land, how to keep a focus on ideas, how to resist a slide towards slinging mud. I've no magic bullet. I just looked at the recent 'Inquisition' thread and thought that an organized effort to sling mud at those who sling mud seemed a high risk approach to peaceful coexistence.

Originally Posted by zilch

I agree. Academics do seem to really flourish here at 4T.com.

For example, the highly esteemed Professor Kaiser frequents this forum to posit politely that President Bush is a fascist. Professor Krein, of course, disagrees strongly with this assertion, claiming instead that it is Vice President Cheney who's the Big Fascist, and Dubya's merely playing the role of duped sock-puppet.

Deep, man.

Here we might see the progression mentioned above. We are shifting from personal attacks on public figures to personal attacks on contributors to the board. I personally see large differences between the Nazis of the 1930s and 1940s and modern neo conservatism. I absolutely abhor a tendency to slap a 'Nazi' label on anyone who supports any Republican on any issue. I made my case in a fairly factual manner while avoiding naming names or pointing fingers, and I believe Craig has agreed with me.

Have liberal contributors to the forums committed ad hominem sins as well as the conservatives? Yes.

Will a pot v kettle mud slinging contest to examine who has been the most abusive be constructive? Doubtful.

Will this thread be helpful and constructive if we use it as an excuse to fight again every ad hominem exchange posted in the forums over the last few years? No. Enough examples to illustrate, please, but let's not turn this into yet another Flame Wars thread.

Should our objective be to identify every sin, and demand deletion or edits of every post so as to retroactively force compliance with our new standards? I don't think so.

Is there a problem in tone? If one wallows in sarcasm, confrontation and antagonism, might the way something is said be as significant as what is said? Is the atmosphere and flavor of the board important? I believe so.

Is it much more difficult to set up objective standards for objectionable attitudes than objectionable behaviors? Hmmm...

I don't believe it possible or desirable to remove all the schoolyard taunting, insulting and status games. It just ought to be toned down to the extent that civil conversation is possible. I remain concerned that some are here primarily to engage in the taunting, insulting and status games. Some might comply with the letter of any rule being enforced, while seeking to undermine the spirit to the best of their ability.

Who is here to help Craig set a reasonable tone, to moderate the amount of ad hominem? Who is here to sabotage his efforts, to create new tensions and conflicts, to fan alive the flames of old conflicts?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hmmm ... how about being a nihilist?

I would say that it does not. Or, at best (or is it, worst?), that it depends on the specific situation, particulary what views the person being accused of being a nihilist is putting forth. A nihilist can be defined as one who holds a particular philosophy, nihilism, and is not a particular persona nor a group.

From da old Wiki -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following:

Objective morality does not exist.
No action is logically preferable to any other in regards to the moral value of one action over another.
In the absence of morality, existence has no intrinsic higher meaning or goal.
There is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator.
Even if a higher ruler or creator exists, mankind has no moral obligation to worship them.

I, myself, on more than one (perhaps more than several, but I can't remember) occassions have tended toward such nihilist tendencies (or is it rationalizations?) when deciding whether to party or to work.
Although Wiki adds that -

The term nihilism is sometimes used synonymously with anomie to denote a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence.

- which can make one quite a drag on an otherwise festive party.

Now Friedrich had some problems with the Nihilists -

A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought NOT to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.
– Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 585, translated by Walter Kaufmann

but, of course, I don't think a true Nihilist really cared one way or another what he thought - what would be the point in it?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Exactly. Which is why it was completely absurd when the same people calling me "nihilistic" also called me "judgemental."

At first, it does seem contradictory, but take a closer look at old Friedrich's observation again. The contradiction is what makes nihlists fun, at least some of the time.

Didn't you every hear mom say, "oh, what's the use" and get a little secret smile on your face? You probable just had a little victory over one of her judgements and she became a temporary nihilist as a result!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which brings us back to Bob's point ... it was a personal attack, not an attempt to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way.

I didn't follow the exchange, but I figure, yea, it probable was. I think way, way back, it might have even been I who first kick that pebble down the slope; I'm sorry if it eventually turned into a cascading rock slide. I didn't keep up with observing the resulting rock slide because, well, I myself was probably dabbling in nihilism again -- its one of those cycle things with me.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I personally see large differences between the Nazis of the 1930s and 1940s and modern neo conservatism.

Gee, that's nice. Thanks. Now a word to the unwise:

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball player, the toughest boxer. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.

Now, an Army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating.

We have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. You know, by God I actually pity those poor bastards we’re going up against. By God, I do. We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel.

Now, some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do.

Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're gonna go through him like crap through a goose.

There’s one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home. And you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you’re sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what did you do in the great World War II, you won’t have to say, "Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana."

Alright now, you sons-of-bitches, you know how I feel. Oh, and I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle – anytime, anywhere.

That’s all.

Ooooo, ole "blood 'n guts" knew how kill fascists, didn't he?

Originally Posted by zilch

Ooooo, ole "blood 'n guts" knew how kill fascists, didn't he?

I prefer a different edition of the speech... Warning.... the above link doesn't go to Zilch's polite PG version.

First Sheridan, now Patton? I respect both men as commanders. Both were very effective in a rather brutal straight forward way. Both were generally given superior resources, and managed to bring them into play in an overwhelming fashion. Both were very enthusiastic about the focused use of speed and power, and shared that enthusiasm with their men.

Part of Grossman's process of turning sheep into sheepdogs does involve dehumanizing the enemy, making clear that it is OK to kill. Reading Patton's speech, it becomes hard to say that the problems SLAM and Grossman addressed were completely ignored in prior wars. Some of our commanders did address, perhaps in a less academic fashion, the problem of getting soldiers to shoot the enemy. Patton's speech to the 3rd Army might be a classic example.

Still, I don't see how invoking Patton helps Craig focus the forum. Foul mouthed partisan lies might be effective in improving morale of an army, but an internet forum community is not an army. Is the language and tone Patton used desirable? Should we imitate his obscenity laden hate speech here? Is an objective of demonizing those whose politics we disagree with reasonable? Is obscenity and hate the sort of tone we wish to promote and advocate on these boards?

Well, there's not much to say here that hasn't already been said. What I find most interesting is that an effort is being made here to "clean up the culture", just as a Regeneracy appears underway.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Well, there's not much to say here that hasn't already been said. What I find most interesting is that an effort is being made here to "clean up the culture", just as a Regeneracy appears underway.

It does seem to be an indicator, in an ironic sense.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

It does seem to be an indicator, in an ironic sense.

Yeah, it was really special the last time around the REGENERACY bend. Shucks, Will Rogers even joked they had an NRA comedian's code. Imagine that, eh, the Feds tellin' George Carlin he could get "tater tits" at Sing Sing!

How cool is that, guys?

p.s. Just jokin', fellas. No, really, I was just tellin' a funny joke. Please don't tell Craig, ok? Really, I take it all back! It was just a jok....

Originally Posted by zilch

Removal of offensive language, per new Federal Regeneracy Code Act of 2008

Well, no, the 2007 Manifestation of The Craig™ was primarily about offensive language. Nothing has changed, including the person who pushes the envelope most aggressively.

May I ask just what happened here while I was away?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Well, there's not much to say here that hasn't already been said. What I find most interesting is that an effort is being made here to "clean up the culture", just as a Regeneracy appears underway.

I don't see it as part of the four score and seven year cycles, but more like a one year or so cycle. The people who are into insults and obscenity will do as much as they can get away with. Once a year or so, Craig steps in and squishes it. Folks behave for a time, then things start escalating again. This has been going on for quite a while.