On Civility, Political Correctness, Honesty, and Frankness

Greg Maroda wrote: I've found that those who claim that words should be ignored are those who have the privilage to ignore them. .

not privileged, but choice. you choose to ignore or not, up to you; even if someone put a gun to your head, you still have a choice, your choice, live or die still your choice until you give up that choice.

Mary Malmros wrote: Do you think that one's view that words "cannot hurt" may have something to do with one's experience with them? Do you suppose that the perception of the power of words is different for someone who has never been targeted with racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of hate speech, than for someone for whom it is an inescapable lifelong experience?

Mary that comes across as if you think you are "someone for whom it is an inescapable lifelong experience" and that someone argueing against you can be "someone who has never been targeted with racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of hate speech",
which I think is a completely ridiculous attitude. Ridiculous and intentionally dishonest. Intentionally argumentative and accusatory.

Michael Douglas wrote: Mary that comes across as if you think you are "someone for whom it is an inescapable lifelong experience" and that someone argueing against you can be "someone who has never been targeted with racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of hate speech", which I think is a completely ridiculous attitude. Ridiculous and intentionally dishonest. Intentionally argumentative and accusatory.

Dear Mr. Douglas,

I believe that the last clause of your final sentence and the two sentence fragments which follow it are an entirely apt description of your post in its entirety.

While the remarks I cite may exemplify honesty and frankness, they hardly strike me as civil, though there is a small world in which I'm sure they would be considered politically correct. Might I offer you some grilled onions and peppers for the sausage-fest?

Best regards,

FL

Mary Malmros wrote: Well, no, that's not what I said, or anything like it. All I've done is to point out your unfortunate use of one loaded term. My opinion -- third time now, or is it the fourth? --

We continue to talk past each other......

Mary Malmros wrote: is that you can't divorce the term from the baggage that it has obtained

An entirely subjective position on your part. All language and expressions have histories associated with them. Why choose that term as a sore spot? Do you apply the same complaints when people use the expression "rule of thumb"? My position regarding the use of the word "politically correct" still stands. Being frank today does not have the same consequences as Nazi Germany, where you could disappear in the middle of the night, end up in a concentration camp, etc.. Being frank today carries with it other stigmas, primarily from those who too easily allow themselves to be hurt by the words of others. Trying to equate frankness with a license to be a jerk is a demeaning comment that make you look quite uncivil. I take the frank and honest talk by others to be a sign of inherent respect and you do not view it in the same manner that I do. It can really be as simple as that. Hopefully, we can agree to disagree on this point and carry on no further in an attempt to convince the other of the righteousness of one's claim.

Mary Malmros wrote: since it has been appropriated by people who want to use it as a license to be jerks.

These are Jun's words:

More and more, I see posters directing posts towards the person behind the discussions rather than towards the topics being raised. More and more, I see posters using such words as "liars" and "clueless" to describe one another. More and more, I see posters using broad brushes to paint a certain way of training or a certain organization to be this or that. More and more, I see rudeness, disrespect, and a blatant lack of civility in what I read here on AikiWeb.

None of these kinds of rhetoric are necessary. And, none of these are welcome here on AikiWeb.

My last post to you was an attempt to try and be more civil with you. Your comment regarding "a license to be jerks" pretty much indicates that you are not yet ready to be civil in return. We can agree to disagree and we can talk to each other, or we can continue to talk past each other. Either way, kindly try acting in a more civil manner. If that is too difficult a task for you, you might consider taking a "holiday" from posting and or commenting about anything that I post about. Maybe we should both follow Jun's advice at this point in time and try and find a more civil way to have discourse if we choose to have any future communications with each other.

Marc Abrams

Phi Truong wrote: not privileged, but choice. you choose to ignore or not, up to you; even if someone put a gun to your head, you still have a choice, your choice, live or die still your choice until you give up that choice.

Everyone has a choice, Phi. Some people have the privilage of that choice not mattering as much as it would to others.

Words affect people differently. To use guns (aka The Great Equalizer) as a metaphor (at least, I hope it's a metaphor) unfairly changes the entire concept.

Fred Little wrote: Dear Mr. Douglas, I believe that the last clause of your final sentence and the two sentence fragments which follow it are an entirely apt description of your post in its entirety. FL

Yeah that's true.
Sorry Mary, sorry Fred.

Marc Abrams wrote: When I was a child, I remember the saying "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never harm you." It seems like today, there are no more sticks and no more stones to remind us of what really hurts. Instead, we treat words like they are sticks and stones.

Another little note on that:
We're talking here about people who have spent a great deal of their life training. That training has become an important part of their life, of their self, of their identity. If someone declares that training as useless / delusional / whatever, they're not only sending a message about that form of training. The person criticizing means "you should train differently if you want to reach your stated goals" -- but for the person on the receiving end the message is often quite different.

That received message may contain aspects like "you wasted the greater part of your life", "an important part of your identity is based on a delusion", "you're endangering your students by teaching them your stuff will work" and so on.

That hurts. A lot. And it threatens the very core of that person -- his sense of self, his beliefs, his identity.
Powerful stuff.

Now add to that that the person criticizing you is someone you have never met, someone you haven't built a measure of trust for, someone whose style of communication you don't know yet (or which is quite different from yours) -- and who has never seen and felt you train.

No wonder such a discussion results in lots of fire, emotional blood and tears...

Honest opinions are good. Uncushioned (sp?) frankness can be very good if the recipient can handle it. But in a public forum it's usually not the wisest choice.

Marc Abrams wrote: An entirely subjective position on your part.

What opinion isn't? Are yours, I suppose, rooted in Universal Truth(tm)? Do you believe that opinions can't possibly have any connection to reality or any basis in fact.

Marc Abrams wrote: Why choose that term as a sore spot?

"Choose"? I don't live in a bubble. We will, in fact, continue to talk past each other as long as you don't see that things such as cultural context aren't purely flights of fancy.

Marc Abrams wrote: My position regarding the use of the word "politically correct" still stands. Being frank today does not have the same consequences as Nazi Germany, where you could disappear in the middle of the night, end up in a concentration camp, etc.. Being frank today carries with it other stigmas, primarily from those who too easily allow themselves to be hurt by the words of others.

"An entirely subjective position on your part." That is, unless and until you can demonstrate empirically that these stigmas do in fact come "primarily from those who too easily allow themselves to be hurt by the words of others." Note that such demonstration would require empirical evidence that the "hurt" was "allowed" "too easily", and that this was the primary cause of the stigma. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, is it not?

Marc Abrams wrote: Trying to equate frankness with a license to be a jerk is a demeaning comment that make you look quite uncivil.

And if that were what I had done, then it might indeed make me "look quite uncivil". But, once again, you are accusing me of something I have not done. As others have pointed out, there is a difference between frankness and the behavior that I have been describing.

Fifth time, Marc: I pointed out your unfortunate choice of words. You can choose to use them if you want, but I simply pointed out that they carry baggage that you may not have intended. You can continue to use them if you choose; you can't simply say "No, you don't get to have your perception, I get to have MY truth, and if you don't like it then you're the problem."

Marc Abrams wrote: My last post to you was an attempt to try and be more civil with you. Your comment regarding "a license to be jerks" pretty much indicates that you are not yet ready to be civil in return.

Do I really have to put this in all caps bold? IT ISN'T ALL ABOUT YOU. I AM TALKING ABOUT A PHENOMENON THAT IS. NOT. ALL. ABOUT. YOU. I was not calling YOU a jerk. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? I was explaining -- God help me, SIXTH TIME NOW -- that the phrase "political correctness" is, in my opinion, MOSTLY used by people who are using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card to allow themselves to behave like jerks. I was not saying, "You, Marc Abrams, are a jerk." I was saying, "You're using a phrase that, in my experience, is commonly used by jerks to give themselves a pass for their jerk behavior." Do you get it now?

Hello Christian,
I completely agree with your post, in the spirit of respect and compassion, with one small caveat. I think there are certain activites which by their very nature must lead to scrutiny and questioning. Being a martial arts instructor is one of them. If you teach people something which is supposed to be effective self defense but , in reality, you made it up to suit your own fantasies, then somebody needs to call you to account. After all isn't somebody else's health and safety more important than my self image. Having my ego punctured is less permanent than brain damage.
I have hardly posted over the last few years and the last months have reminded me why. We would probably all be more civil on the mat but wether that would be fear or respect I'm not sure. Speaking only from personal experience, which is always right, no matter how wrong ;-), I have found more civility and respect amongst the "rougher" world of applied combat practitioners than generally in the Aikido world. I have met a lot of good and friendly people in Aikido the last 20 years, but the tough love of respect seems to hard to find.

Mary, I do not know you and have no axe to grind, but people who live in glass houses and all that.
DO YOU GET IT NOW????!!!!!
Really?

Hi Alec,

Alec Corper wrote: I think there are certain activites which by their very nature must lead to scrutiny and questioning. Being a martial arts instructor is one of them. If you teach people something which is supposed to be effective self defense but , in reality, you made it up to suit your own fantasies, then somebody needs to call you to account. After all isn't somebody else's health and safety more important than my self image. Having my ego punctured is less permanent than brain damage.

Good point, thanks for pointing that out.


PS: I love the statement in your footer.

Christian Reiniger wrote: Another little note on that: We're talking here about people who have spent a great deal of their life training. That training has become an important part of their life, of their self, of their identity. If someone declares that training as useless / delusional / whatever, they're not only sending a message about that form of training. The person criticizing means "you should train differently if you want to reach your stated goals" -- but for the person on the receiving end the message is often quite different. That received message may contain aspects like "you wasted the greater part of your life", "an important part of your identity is based on a delusion", "you're endangering your students by teaching them your stuff will work" and so on. That hurts. A lot. And it threatens the very core of that person -- his sense of self, his beliefs, his identity. Powerful stuff. Now add to that that the person criticizing you is someone you have never met, someone you haven't built a measure of trust for, someone whose style of communication you don't know yet (or which is quite different from yours) -- and who has never seen and felt you train. No wonder such a discussion results in lots of fire, emotional blood and tears... Honest opinions are good. Uncushioned (sp?) frankness can be very good if the recipient can handle it. But in a public forum it's usually not the wisest choice.

Christian:

I was born in 1961 and started training in martial arts and fighting sports in 1973 and what year is it again...... I guess I fit that bill as well.....

I am wholeheartedly in pursuit of developing my budo to the highest level as possible (no different than when I was involved in fighting sports). That means that every day, you check your ego in at the entrance of the training facility, dojo, etc.. If somebody out there says that I am completely wasting my time, I have numerous options available to me. I can simply ignore that person. I can explore the background of that person and try and figure out why that person is saying what he or she is saying. I can communicate to that person; I can meet that person and explore what that person is saying in order to see if it accurately applies to what I am doing. A hallmark of a mature, thinking person (TO ME) is the ability to separate the ego from the ideas, thoughts and beliefs so that you can remain open to taking in new information and recalibrating your ideas, thoughts and beliefs. I consider it a hallmark of personal insecurity if a person allows the opinion of someone else to threaten the core of that person. Budo is suppose to help us develop a calm, secure sense of self!

I am harder on myself than anybody else. I actively look and explore for the "missing parts." Some poster described that as being negative. That perception could not be farther from the truth. It is because I am secure enough with myself, that I am able to be so frank and honest with myself in my self-assessments. Why should I allow my self-esteem to rest in hands of someone I never met? I should be capable of listening and deciding how I should act upon the words of others. Talk to anybody who knows me and they will tell you that I am very positive, brutally honest and very, very encouraging and caring of those around me.

The crucible of life is always filled with " fire, emotional blood and tears...". None of us were born with warranties that life was somehow suppose to be fair, nice, easy,..... The most successful people that I have met have had a way facing the crucible of life and crafting those experiences to always better themselves. I choose to pursue that path.

One of the beauty's of a public forum (in my opinion) is that frank, uncushioned, honest opinions are simply small fish in a larger ocean. It is easy to dismiss one opinion in a sea of many. If it strikes a cord in you, positive or negative, then you should listen to the cord being struck and do something constructive with it. If it was someone very, very close to you, it becomes harder to separate your ego from the message. If it does not strike a cord in you, swim on..... To me, the more we can raise our children and grandchildren (I am lucky enough to be in that position) in a loving, secure environment, the better we can prepare them to be strong enough to face a world that is often times cruel, uncaring, and unforgiving. That means not letting the words of others destroy your positive, self-image. If you do not have a positive, secure self-image, then I would suggest that you find some life experience (therapy, meditation, gardening, etc.) which can provide you with that stable, secure, loving, self-image. That will leave you better able to handle the crucible of life.

I will leave off with some paraphrasing from some cheezy, Hong Kong, Kung Fu movies with a scene that never happens: Two combatants face each other in the middle of a village. On says "Your village kung fu is weak." The man facing the attacker who hurled that comment is hurt to the core, balls up on the ground in the fetal position and cries himself to death..... The other combatant is very angry because he did not have an opportunity to tell the recently deceased that he has spent the last five years alone in some mysterious mountains watching panda bears pick the lice off of their private parts and was about to demonstrate his newly discovered, undefeatable style of Kung Fu ! .......

Regards,

Marc Abrams

Marc,
I don't think I disagree too much with you here. I'm just pointing out that expecting each reader in a public forum to be a "mature, thinking person [... with ...] the ability to separate the ego from the ideas, thoughts and beliefs" might be a bit, uh, naive
And that means if some opinion is written in an "inflammatory way", flaming responses are to be expected. That's what we're seeing here right now. Since we don't want that, something has to change.

Now, ideally everyone should be in peace with himself, in control of his ego and able and willing to use that for civilized discourse. Since we won't reach that point any time soon (*), I also consider it to be a responsibility of everyone here to try to avoid pouring too much gasoline around.

As many people have pointed out, a little change in tone can make a world of difference, without distorting the message.

Friendly regards
Christian

(*) That would be neat though -- I guess that would solve most of the world's problems

Mary Malmros wrote: Do I really have to put this in all caps bold? IT ISN'T ALL ABOUT YOU. I AM TALKING ABOUT A PHENOMENON THAT IS. NOT. ALL. ABOUT. YOU. I was not calling YOU a jerk. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? I was explaining -- God help me, SIXTH TIME NOW -- that the phrase "political correctness" is, in my opinion, MOSTLY used by people who are using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card to allow themselves to behave like jerks. I was not saying, "You, Marc Abrams, are a jerk." I was saying, "You're using a phrase that, in my experience, is commonly used by jerks to give themselves a pass for their jerk behavior." Do you get it now?

Mary:

Where exactly did I say that it was all about me? Where exactly did I say that you were calling me a jerk? Regardless of whether or not you think that I was taking that personally, Jun was very clear in asking us to stay away from using derogatory terms such as "jerk." Do you get that now?

Life is entirely a subjective experience; yours, mine, and everybody else's. Your opinion is not my opinion. I was expressing my opinion and you were expressing your opinion. I never took it that you and I were expecting our opinion to be generalized beyond ourselves and those who believe what we do.

I hear what you say and it remains my choice to not agree with you. It has nothing to do with either you or I "getting it" unless one of us has their ego invested in whether or not the other person get's it or not.

Isn't that amazing Mary that I did not have to use boldface with you!

You have yet to display any real attempt to engage in an honest discussion and remain in a position of talking past me and to me as though I should somehow have to get what you say. I simply do not agree with you.

I wish you the best of luck and hope that your God can help you. It has been my experience that I have the greatest success when I help myself. I utilize the KISS approach. For example; Would I walk into a wall six times and be angry that the wall is still there, or would I simply change directions?

Marc Abrams

Christian Reiniger wrote: Marc, I don't think I disagree too much with you here. I'm just pointing out that expecting each reader in a public forum to be a "mature, thinking person [... with ...] the ability to separate the ego from the ideas, thoughts and beliefs" might be a bit, uh, naive And that means if some opinion is written in an "inflammatory way", flaming responses are to be expected. That's what we're seeing here right now. Since we don't want that, something has to change. Now, ideally everyone should be in peace with himself, in control of his ego and able and willing to use that for civilized discourse. Since we won't reach that point any time soon (*), I also consider it to be a responsibility of everyone here to try to avoid pouring too much gasoline around. As many people have pointed out, a little change in tone can make a world of difference, without distorting the message. Friendly regards Christian (*) That would be neat though -- I guess that would solve most of the world's problems

Christian:

Due to my line of work, naivety was a very early casualty of the war..... I believe that you are absolutely right in your assessment of the general public. Maybe flaming responses to help? The greatest potential for change is during chaotic times of crisis. When we are shaken from our places of complacency, we have the greatest hope for substantial and meaningful change. The is the foundation behind confrontation in a therapeutic milieu.

You are right about our potential to solve the world problems. I truly believe we need to shake people up from their dangerous positions of complacency in order to genuinely address them. I do not see the value of turning down the heat.

Friendly regards in return!

Marc Abrams

Marc Abrams wrote: For example; Would I walk into a wall six times and be angry that the wall is still there, or would I simply change directions? Marc Abrams

Six times? nah, not you - five times maybe, then throw a ki ball at it

Greg

Greg Steckel wrote: Six times? nah, not you - five times maybe, then throw a ki ball at it Greg

Greg:

Wrong again Grasshopper! I use to employ my head as a battering ram in wrestling (explains the genuine paucity of functioning brain cells!), you should see the hole in the wall that I created! I can now throw my ki balls through without touching the edges!

See you soon my friend!

marc abrams

Marc Abrams wrote: Greg: Wrong again Grasshopper! I use to employ my head as a battering ram in wrestling (explains the genuine paucity of functioning brain cells!), you should see the hole in the wall that I created! I can now throw my ki balls through without touching the edges! See you soon my friend! marc abrams

must be small balls.....

Greg

Alec Corper wrote: Mary, I do not know you and have no axe to grind, but people who live in glass houses and all that. DO YOU GET IT NOW????!!!!! Really?

No. If you have a point to make, try using complete sentences and specific examples. Don't expect me to follow your innuendo.

Marc Abrams wrote: Mary: Where exactly did I say that it was all about me? Where exactly did I say that you were calling me a jerk? Regardless of whether or not you think that I was taking that personally, Jun was very clear in asking us to stay away from using derogatory terms such as "jerk." Do you get that now?

He asked us not to refer to each other by derogatory terms such as "jerk", and I didn't do that. Once again, we swing and miss. I am trying to take this back to the original point of contention. I did not point out your use of the term "political correctness" to say, "You, Marc, are a jerk who is using the phrase 'political correctness' to give yourself license for incivility." I've explained what my point was six times now; I won't do it again.

Marc Abrams wrote: You have yet to display any real attempt to engage in an honest discussion

You're wrong. Can you not accept that my attempts are quite real, but are simply not meeting with anything that you judge to be "success", and vice versa?

Marc Abrams wrote: I wish you the best of luck and hope that your God can help you.

And I wish you the best of luck and do you the courtesy of not assuming that you need to be "helped", simply because we don't see eye to eye on this.

Sorry Mary, I responded only to the last sentence in your post #43. "Do you get it now?" it came across as if the word "jerk" was at the end of the statement. Of course, without seeing your face or hearing your tone of voice I cannot be sure, but the tone of the text that lead up to it gave me that feeling. In other words, you come across pretty uncivil for someone who is championing civility. I have worked with senior management teams for many years in the territory of "left hand column" communication and my response was residual, an obviously poor attempt at being a mirror.
Peace

Sometimes the euphemism does not deliver the message in a way the intended receiver can understand.

Mary Malmros wrote: He asked us not to refer to each other by derogatory terms such as "jerk", and I didn't do that. Once again, we swing and miss. I am trying to take this back to the original point of contention. I did not point out your use of the term "political correctness" to say, "You, Marc, are a jerk who is using the phrase 'political correctness' to give yourself license for incivility." I've explained what my point was six times now; I won't do it again.

Using the word Jerk in any context other than describing awesome Jamaican cuisine, or describing a sudden motion, is uncivil. That is why Alec talked about throwing stones in glass houses. If people want to be so sensitive to words, then it should be applied evenly, routinely and consistently.

Mary Malmros wrote: You're wrong. Can you not accept that my attempts are quite real, but are simply not meeting with anything that you judge to be "success", and vice versa?

Simply a subjective opinion on your part. Just part of that wonderful thing called life.

Mary Malmros wrote: And I wish you the best of luck and do you the courtesy of not assuming that you need to be "helped", simply because we don't see eye to eye on this.

Mary Malmros wrote: -- God help me,

Mary

I also extended you the courtesy of not assuming that you need help also. I was just using your words as a courtesy of responding to your words.

Maybe one day, we can see eye to eye on something and enjoy a laugh.... Until then, have a nice rest of your day.

Marc Abrams