On various issues, Scott Adams has long been harping on doing what one side (usually the Left-Statist side) demands because he says doing otherwise is "impolite". He says, why be impolite when you can just be polite?
Well... Because "polite" is as subjective and imaginary as "fairness", which he has criticized as a concept invented so that idiots and children could feel like they are participating in the conversation. In all but a few cases, "polite" is exactly the same.
Sure, almost everyone would consider it impolite to sneeze in someone's face or sit there picking your nose enthusiastically across the breakfast table from someone, but the issues where he calls for politeness aren't nearly so clear-cut.
Being polite is going to mean different things to different people; sometimes things that are directly incompatible. One person's "polite" is another person's "rude".
Scott believes that historical statues are impolite; while I believe demanding that someone take down a statue to soothe your feelings is impolite-- even if the statue is of someone I consider a monster, like Hitler, Lincoln, or FDR-- any military or political figure, for that matter. Yuck! But they neither break my leg nor pick my pocket by existing.
He considers it impolite to not use incorrect or made-up "gender" pronouns and to not validate someone's opposite sex cosplay, while I consider it impolite to police (sometimes literally) the words people use when they are simply trying to communicate in an obvious, truthful way using words that have been standard speech all their life. I consider it impolite to demand that someone lie.
It's the same with many other sorts of words. No matter what words you use, soon someone will decide to change the acceptable words so that they can condemn you for the (now) "rude" words you use. It's a Red Queen situation where you have to keep running as hard as you can just to stay in place. Ridiculous in the extreme.
He has suggested it would be impolite to not edit Dr. Seuss's books to fit a modern sensibility. I think it is impolite to judge them by the w0ke standards of today.
I consider it very rude to impose mandates and legislation to enforce someone else's idea of politeness. Now, I don't intend to be rude, but if you can't satisfy someone no matter how much you bend for them, I say it's past time to stop trying.
Politeness is a trap. A better metric is archation. Don't violate the life, liberty, or property of-- don't initiate force or property violations against-- anyone. Politeness is fuzzy; archation is concrete.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Check out my TeeSpring shop
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
I always thought part of your culture is to ban ad hominem in discussions, I used to struggle with that, because when I can make a witty insult in a discussion, I will do it :).
In my videogame we actually had an intense battle about what you can say and what you cant. Many, like me say 'hey there is the mute function, just mute toxic people', but we have til today prominent figures being banned from the game for saying mean stuff.
You can actually ruin the game without saying anything and that goes often unpunished. What is funny is despite all that we never had a big racism debate, but the EU West Server is known to be racist af. A friend of mine had a bunch of Swastikas as his Status Message and also this guy
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That wouldn't be part of my culture.
Some people need to be insulted. No, it doesn't prove your point to insult someone, but neither does it disprove your point. It's just an extra bit.
And, yeah, if someone is really upsetting you, ignore them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
well @dwinblood said that verbal aggression is also something that violates the NAP. At least if I remember correctly. But I guess you Libertariantards are allowed to have different opinions ;).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
For words to qualify as a violation of the NAP (or ZAP) they would have to constitute a credible threat-- the threatener has the intention to follow through with the threat and the means to actually carry it out.. Otherwise there is no actual aggression; just hot air.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I feel the same.
Good luck and success to you, Sir. I am off the platform.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit