Specific Issue Arising from Previous Thread

[Baron Kurtz]

In the thread re: "What is the FLounge all about" (http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=28457), some issues have arisen that people take exception to. I propose to discuss one of these here.

Specifically the issue of manners, politeness and the way responses should be couched.

It has been suggested by a number of respondents that though the FLounge is reputed to be a haven of politeness, manners etc. in the general murky waters that are the internets, this is simply a fa?ßade. That the surface of politeness is merely the same old flaming couched in fancier language or more elaborate put-downs.

Now, i'm not sure exactly what was the general consensus, but i plot to explore this feeling through a very specific question which i will illustrate with an example. Thusly:




1) If someone is wrong, or is putting forth opinion as if it is fact, is it correct to pull that respondent up? If i were to suggest that zippers were not used in men's trousers until the 1950s (a common myth you'll read on the internet in general and eBay seller boards in all their uneducated glory) should I be corrected? Or should my statement be allowed to stand lest i get offended by being corrected? Is it correct (polite/mannered) for another member to say simply: No, you're wrong. Here's why you're wrong . . .




I pick my example carefully, as this is the general level I see these contretemps occurring on, and the above is not an atypical response which would generate a complaint of "unpolite" or hurt feelings on the part of the respondent who was wrong.


bk

 

[Spitfire]

IMO: We are all here to learn - so offcourse it is allright to correct somebody, if the person brings forth mistakes, faults etc.
In a nice and polite way, naturellement!

 

[Alan Eardley]

Baron,

I don't see why it is impolite for someone to correct a poster who posts something that they know to be incorrect or unproven.

This is a 'forum' is it not? And I would say that the words that most commonly follow 'forum' are 'for debate'. This is a 'forum for debate' in my opinion. If posters follow the normal 'rules of debate' and observe online 'netiquette', what's the problem in contradiction? That's what debate is all about.

WRT your zip example, how could you NOT correct such a provably incorrect view? IMO you would be doing the poster a service in correcting him/her and would be keeping the facts correct, which is a service to us all. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that.

Just my opinion.

Alan

 

[Benny Holiday]

Rather, Baron, I see it as impolite when someone who's been shown to be in error cannot accept the fact graciously. If that individual is not here to learn and contribute positively to the Lounge, then what are they here for? To subvert the considerable knowledge about vintage clothing and other subjects that's been built up here over the years?

I'm not referring to healthy debate here, either. I've noticed on more than one occasion that you, for example, even with your valuable knowledge of so many of the features of vintage menswear, have been happy to discuss topics of interest and have acknowledged that you've come across information new to you when it's posted by another Lounger, newcomer or not, when they have the evidence to prove their argument. When someone is shown to be wrong, however, and they complain about that, well, that's simply immature as far as I can see.

 

[Socrets]

I don't really think there's anything wrong with correcting what seems to be an incorrect statement as long as you're willing to prove why it's wrong. The Lounge (as previously described as) is seen as a well of information that people draw from and it would be detrimental to FL's reputation if statements were left uncorrected. I think the problem mainly lies in how one tries to communicate the correction. If you go with the blunt "no you're wrong" approach someone may take offense solely because it appears to the person's ego that you're sort of directly attacking his pride (People don't like their pride being attacked. This applies to everyone, so I think anyway.). Although, some advice from my high school debate coach regarding discussions comes to mind, "don't be thin-skinned." If someone disagrees or tries to correct, I think that the person being corrected shouldn't think too much of it being an assault on his pride but as a chance to argue and further his point.

In summary, I think that as long as people keep from personal attacks and using a little tact in addressing others, there's no reason for people not to try and correct others.

 

[Smithy]

BK, of course people should correct others and point out when something is incorrect. As Alan says this is a forum, and by the nature of the word that implies discussion and debate.

We are all adults here and should not have problems on being questioned about something that we have said, especially if others have contradictory examples and evidence. That's one of the joys of the FL, sharing what you know and learning what others know, even if it turns some things you thought you knew upside down.

Saying that, there's a way to go about this. Nobody likes a pooh-bah or someone who can only rudely make a point. But thankfully those types of people in my experience are the exception rather than the rule here.

 

[Paisley]

If you are correcting an important point, and do so with tact, I don't see anything wrong. The spirit should be to raise the level of knowledge, not to show off. Just be sure you know what you are talking about.

To correct unimportant points is unnecessary and ham-handed. Someone I know compliments me on my "cream, black and maroon" jacket, which is actually white, navy and red. I just thank her.

 

[DeaconKC]

My Dad taught me a good lesson with the following illustration: "There's a world of difference in telling a woman when you look in her eyes time stands still and telling her, her face would stop a clock." Many folks would do well to read and apply the lessons of Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people".

 

[TM]

DeaconKC, what a great line!

Baron, while the internet is full of misinformation I don’t see that as a big problem here. And when it happens here, I think it’s usually because the poster is misinformed. I suspect it is rarely deliberate. And when someone is misinformed, they should be tactfully corrected with the facts. If it is deliberate, and the poster continues to post misinformation, they should be banned.

Tony

 

[Lulu-in-Ny]

Okay, this is my new favorite saying:

My Dad taught me a good lesson with the following illustration: "There's a world of difference in telling a woman when you look in her eyes time stands still and telling her, her face would stop a clock."

I read these boards precisely to learn things I did not know from people who are more knowledgeable than me. If there is something that I am knowledgeable about, I love to share it with those who are curious. That seems, at least to me, the sum total of why we are all here. However, that kind of back and forth discourse requires a certain level of maturity, and there will always be people who can't be told that they may be misinformed about anything they choose to talk about. I believe, though, that those people will tend not to hang around for very long. They will take their business elsewhere.

 

[surely]

BK et al, your question and answers are silly; or is it that the thin skinned ones are silly; or is it that for writing this I am silly?

 

[SamMarlowPI]

you always bring up good points, bk...

 

[Dr Doran]

Your real horror, BK, is at epistemological nihilism, not at poor standards impoliteness, and I applaud your concern with the postmodern concept that reality is derived from consensus rather than something that exists independently of its observers.

But as long as a correction is issued politely it shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps a PM if you don't want to show someone up in public? Or is that TOO polite?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

BK et al, your question and answers are silly

I won't apply it to others, but yes, my stated questions and answers are silly. And i did pick a very straightforward example (but one, i might add, that has occurred on FLounge). But this whole notion of people being picked on, or made scapegoats.

Let's say someone needs a lot of correction - constantly - but every time claims they've been upset or the correction was out of order. How much does one need to pussy-foot around the over-sensitive? Those with the thin skin someone mentioned above.

Your real horror, BK, is at epistemological nihilism, not at poor standards impoliteness, and I applaud your concern with the postmodern concept that reality is derived from consensus rather than something that exists independently of its observers.

But as long as a correction is issued politely it shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps a PM if you don't want to show someone up in public? Or is that TOO polite?

Much as i love postmodern theory and literature, I fear you're right.

bk

 

[Alan Eardley]

Your real horror, BK, is at epistemological nihilism, not at poor standards impoliteness, and I applaud your concern with the postmodern concept that reality is derived from consensus rather than something that exists independently of its observers.

I couldn't have put it better myself, but I fear there is nothing postmodern (or even modern) about consensus reality. It was ever thus -I suspect it is just easier to promulgate nowadays.


Alan

 

[Mojito]

A particularly well respected historian passed away a couple of years ago. He not only loved his history, he loved cricket, and would often reach for a cricketing analogy. He could argue tenaciously if he believed he was right, but would graciously concede if his opponent had put forward a cogent, convincing argument. He would say it was an honour to be exposed by such an excellent bowler.

I agree with this approach. I've seen too many established board gurus, particularly on historical topics, refuse to accept evidence that ran contrary to their pronouncements. Newbies, too. They can tie themselves into knots trying to justify a statement that is demonstrably false, presumably to avoid loss of face. In fact, most people would think no less of them if they simply acknowledged the counter argument and agreed that the evidence indicated that they were incorrect. Loss of face comes through stubbornly refusing to look primary sources in the face.

Some of the historians and commentators I most deeply respect have been shown to be wrong on certain points. If they can get it wrong, how can anyone imagine themselves infallible?

That having been said, there is such a thing as tact. With some folks it wouldn't matter if you hit them with a sledgehammer or tapped them with a rose - they'd still take offense at a correction or counter-point. There's little you can do with these bull-headed individuals - they'll get to the point that they'll argue with you, insisting that the sun rises in the west if you say it rises in the east, so determined are they not to concede an inch. But with others, it makes a world of difference.

 

[Edward]

I think this appears to be one instance in which the consensus is correct (but not merely because it is the consensus ). I fully agree - "right" is not a democratic concept.

As an aside, some of the arguments I see on the internet in general become so petty, I keep having flashbacks to Northern Ireland politics. Well, except most internet arguments are not quite that petty.

 

[dollydaydream]

I think it is importand to be corrected if a mistake has been made. Though I also think it is important that the corrections are not made in a demeaning way (if you know what I mean!!).

For example, I had real issues with being told at uni 'that's not right'. I can accept this, so long as it's explained why. Constructive criticism should be give & accepted. I hope you do understand what I mean here!!!

Otherwise, I direct everyone to Arthur Schopenhauers 'The Art of Always Being Right'. Then there will be no arguments

 

[Smuterella]

oh, I over generalise all the time and am happy to be taught but I don't like being pulled up in a condescending manner....being called dear and being talked down to really get my goat

tact is all

 

[Foofoogal]

"There's a world of difference in telling a woman when you look in her eyes time stands still and telling her, her face would stop a clock."

fftopic: This is one reason why I am at FL. Sayings like this. :eusa_clap