On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:10 pm, Jaap wrote:
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:10 pm, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on this, or any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the insult. No, it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of anything except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
I agree. That is the second provocatively stupid thing I've hear Jaap say in the last few days - if for no other reason that it detracts from policy discussion and leads to unproductive posts (like the one I am making now simply to back up Vicki's point -- which wouldn't have been needed if the stupid comment wasn't made to begin with).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:10 pm, Jaap wrote:
It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like those of politics, science, economics, philosophy should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions with women anyway. They are not genetically equiped for it.
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 07:10 pm, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
If this is really your attitude, you are not mature enough to be working on this, or any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the insult. No, it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of anything except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
I agree. That is the second provocatively stupid thing I've hear Jaap say in the last few days - if for no other reason that it detracts from policy discussion and leads to unproductive posts (like the one I am making now simply to back up Vicki's point -- which wouldn't have been needed if the stupid comment wasn't made to begin with).
You are certainly one to critique Jaap.
I have not seen him attempt to initiate lynching efforts by titling threads such as:
internet kook, etc.
You really think that is helpful when approaching someone on behalf of the mailing list to ask that they comply with predefined community customs, rules, policies, etc.?
If provocatively stupid things are appropriate then they are appropriate for all, if not appropriate then they are not appropriate for all. Tis the American myth.
"With justice and liberty for all."
or
"With insults and intolerance for all."
Free advice follows, clearly worth nothing because I am not a popular fellow at the moment.
Pick your customs carefully. You may find yourself subject to them.
Regards, Mike Irwin
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 06:51, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
You really think that is helpful when approaching someone on behalf of the mailing list to ask that they comply with predefined community customs, rules, policies, etc.?
If provocatively stupid things are appropriate then they are appropriate for all, if not appropriate then they are not appropriate for all. Tis the American myth.
"With justice and liberty for all."
or
"With insults and intolerance for all."
Free advice follows, clearly worth nothing because I am not a popular fellow at the moment.
Pick your customs carefully. You may find yourself subject to them.
Think before you post, Mike.
Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an opinion, or said he should be stopped from expressing it. The freedom to speak does not include freedom from criticism for that speech.
Now compare to what Jaap said. The implication of his post is that men should decide "important" issues alone and women should be barred from any consideration in deciding them. Now that truly IS a restriction of liberty, wouldn't you say?
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 06:51, Michael R. Irwin wrote:
You really think that is helpful when approaching someone on behalf of the mailing list to ask that they comply with predefined community customs, rules, policies, etc.?
If provocatively stupid things are appropriate then they are appropriate for all, if not appropriate then they are not appropriate for all. Tis the American myth.
"With justice and liberty for all."
or
"With insults and intolerance for all."
Free advice follows, clearly worth nothing because I am not a popular fellow at the moment.
Pick your customs carefully. You may find yourself subject to them.
Think before you post, Mike.
Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an opinion, or said he should be stopped from expressing it. The freedom to speak does not include freedom from criticism for that speech.
Now compare to what Jaap said. The implication of his post is that men should decide "important" issues alone and women should be barred from any consideration in deciding them. Now that truly IS a restriction of liberty, wouldn't you say? -- adamw
What I would say is not necessarily relevant in all cases.
When some sects of Muslims show up to provide information shall we tell them they are obviously offensive and not welcome?
Broad except for some (extreme in our framework or view, religiously correct in their own) Muslims.
Deep except for grisly (offensive but accurate) details.
What should we tell more liberal Moslem (or Indian, etc.) women candidate contributors who show up and provide a view that is "incontroversially" incorrect according to our more "modern" participants?
Finally, if you reread my post you will find it is not necessarily a criticism of Daniel's criticism, it could be read as a criticism of his own past "offensive" behavior on the mailing list.
Paradoxical no doubt, perhaps I am getting the hang of local paradox theory or double standards. I might be a "regular" any day now.
Regards, Mike Irwin
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
I have not seen him attempt to initiate lynching efforts by titling threads such as:
internet kook, etc.
(speaking of Mav, I think -- it gets hard to follow so many indents in followups)
I've referred to certain newcomers as "crackpots", not "kooks", based solely on what they have written in articles, talk pages & meta. Perhaps it's offensive that I've judged them and labelled them as such, but it's based on their actions and that alone. If their behaviour changes, so will my opinion of them.
Saying "X is a kook" or "X cannot properly engage in serious discussion" may be considered harsh and offensive. We should perhaps tone that sort of thing down -- however, in the case I'm thinking of, myself and others wasted a lot of time wrangling with BDJones about relativity. We treated him fairly, responded intelligently, tried to see his way of seeing things, and after a time it became clear that he is either a) completely impervious to reason or b) running circles round us on purpose. I propose the words "kook" and "crackpot" be used as a shorthand for the above scenario, "crackpot" implying a scientific or pseudoscientific slant. Fair enough?
That's all a very, very long way from saying "all people of type X are kooks".
Adam Williamson wrote:
Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right
to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an opinion
I do, damn it.
-- tarquin
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 15:19, tarquin wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right
to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an opinion
I do, damn it.
Hmm? Really? You're against freedom of thought? That's a dangerous position to choose, you know...
Adam Williamson aw280@cam.ac.uk writes:
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 15:19, tarquin wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right
to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an opinion
I do, damn it.
Hmm? Really? You're against freedom of thought? That's a dangerous position to choose, you know...
Freedom of thought doesn't give someone the right to insult other people like Jaap did with his remark about women.
greetings, elian
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 15:45, elian wrote:
Adam Williamson aw280@cam.ac.uk writes:
On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 15:19, tarquin wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Those who responded to Jaap's post merely exercised their own right
to freedom of expression. None of them denied Jaap's right to hold such an opinion
I do, damn it.
Hmm? Really? You're against freedom of thought? That's a dangerous position to choose, you know...
Freedom of thought doesn't give someone the right to insult other people like Jaap did with his remark about women.
Ah, but you see that's a different point. That's to do with freedom of *expression*. Tarquin said he opposed Jaap's right to have the opinion in the first place, not his right to express it.
Adam Williamson wrote:
Ah, but you see that's a different point. That's to do with freedom of *expression*. Tarquin said he opposed Jaap's right to have the opinion in the first place, not his right to express it.
Yes, but I have to right to the *opinion* that Jaap doesn't have the right to to his opinion... etc etc etc
Jaap's comment was offensive, he appears to have left the building without explaining is he really meant it or was just kidding in bad taste. meanwhile, we're wrapping ourselves in knots.
Can we say case closed? we're wasting good editing time!
tarquin
tarquin wrote:
I've referred to certain newcomers as "crackpots", not "kooks", based solely on what they have written in articles, talk pages & meta. Perhaps it's offensive that I've judged them and labelled them as such, but it's based on their actions and that alone. If their behaviour changes, so will my opinion of them.
Saying "X is a kook" or "X cannot properly engage in serious discussion" may be considered harsh and offensive. We should perhaps tone that sort of thing down -- however, in the case I'm thinking of, myself and others wasted a lot of time wrangling with BDJones about relativity. We treated him fairly, responded intelligently, tried to see his way of seeing things, and after a time it became clear that he is either a) completely impervious to reason or b) running circles round us on purpose. I propose the words "kook" and "crackpot" be used as a shorthand for the above scenario, "crackpot" implying a scientific or pseudoscientific slant. Fair enough?
That's all a very, very long way from saying "all people of type X are kooks".
I wouldn't even say that these comments are harsh, Just offensive.
These terms don't advance any discussion of whatever is the topic. Applying them to the person rather than the ideas means that you're using ad hominem arguments, and that's offensive.
In discussing science what advantage is there to calling other views pseudoscientific just because they don't agree with yours or the majority opinion. It only shows that scientists are just as petty as anybody else. Offhanded dismissiveness does more to promote pseudoscience than to stop it.
Eclecticology
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
internet kook, etc.
One small but very useful rule in critique is to criticize *actions*, not *persons*.
The assumption behind the critique must be that the person can change, regret his or her earlier actions, maybe even apologize, and improve. After that we will have to continue to deal with that person. So we better start now to act *as if* we were already talking to the new and improved person, using past tense for the previous wrongdoings.
When Helga was invited to this list, I didn't see anybody holding that door to the future open. I got the impression that she drowned in a flood of messages talking about her (not to her) as being an idiot. A person who lacks knowledge or insight can learn, but what can an idiot do?
The questions now is not what Helga did (she's banned, case closed), but instead: What can *we* learn from this?
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
internet kook, etc.
One small but very useful rule in critique is to criticize *actions*, not *persons*.
The assumption behind the critique must be that the person can change, regret his or her earlier actions, maybe even apologize, and improve. After that we will have to continue to deal with that person. So we better start now to act *as if* we were already talking to the new and improved person, using past tense for the previous wrongdoings.
When Helga was invited to this list, I didn't see anybody holding that door to the future open. I got the impression that she drowned in a flood of messages talking about her (not to her) as being an idiot. A person who lacks knowledge or insight can learn, but what can an idiot do?
The questions now is not what Helga did (she's banned, case closed), but instead: What can *we* learn from this?
I think that I have learned that many of our mailing list suscribers do not embrace many of the etiquette, policies, rules, orientation materials, etc.
Yet we (some of us) are demanding that erring individuals who are brought to the list's attention near instantly come into near perfect compliance or be banned.
I think we should begin a consensus building process or modification and ratification process to bring the stated rules and the actual enforcement procedures into some clear congruence with the majority behavior and actions of the community.
Regards, Mike Irwin
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org