Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Basic Courtesy
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:42:03

 Okay, let's talk about this courtesy issue. Having been on the receiving
 end of what appears to be every available double standard in that respect,
 I feel uniquely qualified to comment.

    Bertram wrote:

    *> Many of you have written, publicly and privately, that you agree
    *> that taking "cheap shots" at others is not something you appreciate
    *> seeing on the Rialto.  For that support, many thanks.

 What, then, constitutes a "cheap shot"? Is it the "cheapness" that people
 object to? Would an "expensive shot" would be okay? A shot is a shot,
 either permissible or not, whatever it's degree of "cheapness".

 If someone makes a statement that is subject to a "cheap shot" reply, then
 surely it is rather a structural defect of the original statement than a
 personality defect on the person taking the shot thus presented.

    *> In a direct communication, Stephen of the Grove has indicated he
    *> believed his comments were blunt, but not discourteous.  Further, he
    *> said that my actions -- making my comments on the matter public,
    *> rather than private -- were a greater discourtesy.

 I agree that his statement was not discourteous, but I do not regard yours
 as discourteous either -- inequitable, perhaps, but not discourteous; you
 made every effort to express yourself in moderate terms, which I do
 readily acknowledge however much I may disagree with your position.

 (Is that the problem? Are people so unable to differentiate between the
 opinion being expressed and the manner of expression? A sad thing, if
 true, which bodes ill for fora such as these.)

    *> Let me say in my own defense that the reason I _made_ these comments
    *> publicly rather than privately is because I feel that it is a
    *> "public" problem for the Rialto in general, rather than a problem
    *> particular to Stephen.  It was only my sense that this particular
    *> post was a "cheap shot" that prompted my critique, not any overall
    *> pattern of discourtesy on Stephen's part.  I, for one, have enjoyed
    *> many of his other comments.

 With this basic position I certainly agree. A public remark deserves a
 public response. Silence implies consent; to allow public discourtesy to
 go unchallenged is cowardice. This is why, for example, I view with
 contempt the various complaints aimed at me for the responses I make when
 people treat me discourteously.

    *> Somehow, "this example of ________ is so bad it makes an excellent
    *> case for doing away with ________ entirely..." (to paraphrase) goes
    *> beyond blunt criticism and becomes something that diminishes the
    *> attacker more than what is attacked (no matter _what_ the subject).

 Here is where I fail to understand the reasoning involved. Surely this is
 an appropriate forum to discuss issues? And surely actual empirical
 examples of one's position are relevant? I fail to see what is
 objectionable about the cited general form of comment. I would much rather
 have an interlocutor say, "Here is an example of what I mean; it is so bad
 that it makes an excellent case for doing away with X entirely", which
 allows me to make my own judgment and either agree or disagree with the
 position expressed, than to argue something in the abstract with only
 conjecture and speculation to base any argument on.

 Actually, the above cited form is not even strictly applicable, since
 Stephen'a comment didn't include the judgmental phrase "so bad". All he
 said was, "Here is an excellent example of why I think X." I'm sorry, I
 just don't see any conceivable justification for perceiving discourtesy in
 that.

    *> Nicolas writes, "As a graduate student, you should realize that to
    *> attack an individual's ideas or works is not to attack the
    *> individual personally."  He then continues to say I'm advocating
    *> "political correctness" rather than "courtesy."  If the original
    *> post had been a specific attack on Christian's song I might agree --
    *> but it wasn't. "Political correctness" is nearly as slippery a term
    *> as "courtesy," but I don't think an across-the-board discouragement
    *> of "cheap shots" that enflame without enlightening qualifies.

 "Political correctness" is not a slippery term at all. It refers to any
 body of opinion that is presented as being beyond criticism, however
 expressed and however well justified. I must agree with Nicholas here.
 The issue isn't this particular filk, it is the appropriateness of filk in
 general within a particular context - a theoretical issue; the
 "individual" enters into it only tangentially.

 Granted that different people have different standards of "courtesy", it
 is difficult to imagine how Stephen could have phrased his statement in
 any "milder" way and still gotten his point across. What you *appear* to
 be saying is that *any* criticism of the appropriateness of filk is
 necessarily "discourteous" - the very essence of a "political correctness"
 situation - and that is what I (for example) find so upsetting about this.

    *> It feels very awkward for me to take this "side" in the controversy.
    *> I have long been an advocate of blunt, straight speech.  Still, I do
    *> believe that some judgment is required to tell the difference
    *> between bluntness and inconsiderateness.  All I can ask is that we
    *> all strive to exercise that judgment with greater diligence in the
    *> future.

 And that is the precise problem. You appear to be asking everyone to draw
 the line at a point that makes substantive discussion of issues well-nigh
 impossible. I consider this message of mine to be framed courteously, but
 I literally have no idea how you will receive it - because I am at a loss
 to understand your standards.

    Tadhg

 * Origin: Herald's Point * Steppes/Ansteorra * 214-699-0057 (1:124/4229)