Do you think words ought to be wild?

[voidray]

"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking." by John Maynard Keynes, New Statesman and Nation (15 July 1933)

I'll change it a little bit;

"Words ought to be extremely wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking."

How much should we polite when we talk to the others? Should we be as direct as we can in order to inform them, with offending them by saying they are ignorant and uninformed?

[Gagundathar]

I wonder what the meaning is for 'wild' in this context.
Words being wild may mean that their meanings can be stretched.
But, that is merely a WAG.

Anybody else?

[voidray]

I am simply asking "should we be polite or in the most insulting and offending way possible?"
Why should not we insult and offend?

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by voidray

Why should not we insult and offend?

For the same reason we don't conduct important conversations where large jets are taking off: We wish to be understood, which means we try to talk where there is the least noise, and we avoid causing noise while we're talking or trying to listen.

Insults cause cognitive noise in the form of emotions. When you're simply trying to insult, the cognitive noise is the desired result, so that's good. However, if you have anything important to say, the cognitive noise just gets in the way and impedes communication, so it should be minimized.

[John Mace]

Methinks the OP has misinterpreted the quote. I'd insult him for doing so, but it's against the rules of this forum.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by voidray

How much should we polite when we talk to the others? Should we be as direct as we can in order to inform them, with offending them by saying they are ignorant and uninformed?

You have chosen to interpret the word "wild" to mean "rude." Can you provide any evidence that that was the meaning that Keynes intended for the word? Or are you simply looking for an excuse to rationalize offensive behavior?

I can think of several other possible meanings for "wild" in the context of that lone sentence.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by voidray

I am simply asking "should we be polite or in the most insulting and offending way possible?"
Why should not we insult and offend?

Because we don't wish to get punched in the face?

[Bryan Ekers]

I don't see how the quote relates to insults - rather it looks to me like Keynes would have got on famously with George Orwell, since the latter used the opposite views as a cautionary in Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the totalitarian regime is aggressively promoting "Newspeak", a vocabulary of rigid and limited definitions, in an effort to remove all ambiguity.

A current real-world example is the fight by some Americans to restrict the definition of the word "marriage", because they see expanding it to homosexuals constitutes an "assault" on their sensibilities. I suppose they're right, and some lines of thought need to be assaulted at times for progress to occur. Alternately, if the word "text" was rigidly defined as a noun, we would have needed a new, probably more cumbersome term for the activity now known as "texting". Language has to has meaning, but not a fixed meaning, and instead of words being our domesticated predictable goldfish, they're more useful as our mostly-domesticated occasionally-unpredictable cats, because they come up with surprises now and them.

[John Mace]

Words gone Wild. if you act now, we'll include Hand Gestures Gone Wild at no extra cost! You pay only shipping and handling.

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by voidray

Why should not we insult and offend?

Because it's insulting and offensive.

However:

I am simply asking "should we be polite or in the most insulting and offending way possible?"

We should be polite. However, you should be as insulting and offensive as possible.

All I ask is that you get someone to put it on YouTube and post the link.

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Because we don't wish to get punched in the face?

This. A wise man once counciled me that I oughtn't let my mouth write checks my ass can't cash. Since I'm small and have no adult experience with physical brawls, my ass's ablity to cash checks is limited enough to keep my mouth from courting physical violence.

[erislover]

On topic link the OP might enjoy:
http://genius.cat-v.org/erik-naggum/...-and-moralists

Originally Posted by Erik Naggum

Civility and politeness are extremely useful tools in communication with people who are more wrong than right, but of very little use with people who are vastly more right than wrong. This counter-intuitive observation comes directly from the fact that we simply do not need civil and polite ways of telling people that they are right about something. So the people who have most to gain from civility and politeness are people who know they are and intend to /stay/ wrong while they force everybody else hold their tongues.

[Annie-Xmas]

I'm a wordsmith. Words ought to be used correctly to convey the idea. If the idea is nasty, so be it.

I hate mealy mouth people. Saw what you mean in the most direct way possible, and to hell with the rest.

[tomndebb]

So the people who have most to gain from civility and politeness are people who know they are and intend to /stay/ wrong while they force everybody else hold their tongues.

Piffle. This is just a rationalization to excuse rudeness and is only true if one holds the odd belief that truth cannot be expressed with civility.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had no problem expressing himself with complete courtesy while the Bull Connors of the world demonstrated their wrongheadedness in the most crude comments.

There is a type of wrongheaded person who will hold that any challenge to their error is, in itself, rude. However, even that silly notion may be challenged without resorting to actual incivility.

[Jasper Kent]

Well said, tomndebb.

John Mace-- I can't believe you would promote Words Gone Wild in this forum. That video is exploitative and demeaning to language. Don't even get me started on the other one-- it's disgustingly gestist.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Jasper Kent

Well said, tomndebb.

John Mace-- I can't believe you would promote Words Gone Wild in this forum. That video is exploitative and demeaning to language. Don't even get me started on the other one-- it's disgustingly gestist.

And anti-semantic, as well.

[FinnAgain]

So, is this thread in response to the negative feedback you got from claiming that Jews control the US government and media? Just want to know what the actual thesis under discussion is here.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

I'm a wordsmith. Words ought to be used correctly to convey the idea. If the idea is nasty, so be it.

I hate mealy mouth people. Saw what you mean in the most direct way possible, and to hell with the rest.

But if you aren't being heard by the person you're talking to, what's the point? You might as well find a room and go masturbate.

Wiki has an interesting take on this.

[erislover]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Piffle. This is just a rationalization to excuse rudeness and is only true if one holds the odd belief that truth cannot be expressed with civility.

I'm sure there's some level of moderation to be met, but I think it is far from piffle. There really are facts of the matter in some topics and I agree with that individual (RIP) that civility for the sake of civility in matters of fact serves no one but people who refuse to admit facts. There are matters of discussion where there is no metric for truth, and in such cases I think everyone agrees civility should be the default, as hostility, verbal aggression, or rudeness serves no aim.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had no problem expressing himself with complete courtesy while the Bull Connors of the world demonstrated their wrongheadedness in the most crude comments.

Love the example. Could you load it a little more, maybe with a racist puppy-kicker? But anyway, so what? Civility does not add factual force to an argument, and a hostile attitude does not turn truth into fiction. Don't let your overwhelming attachment to civility poison the well.

There is a type of wrongheaded person who will hold that any challenge to their error is, in itself, rude. However, even that silly notion may be challenged without resorting to actual incivility.

It may be challenged in such a manner. But I would not begrudge anyone who chose to be aggressive or rude, if the facts called for it.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by erislover

There are matters of discussion where there is no metric for truth, and in such cases I think everyone agrees civility should be the default, as hostility, verbal aggression, or rudeness serves no aim.

So what aim does rudeness serve when there is a metric for truth?

I think you're being confused by the fact some people will claim things to be rude even when they are not; for example, there are many religious people who claim that anything that challenges their faith is 'rude' even if it is a verifiable fact. That no more makes the statement rude than claiming it is green would make it green. I agree that such people should not be allowed to foreclose on discussion, but yelling obscenities at them (that is, actually being rude) does nothing to serve a useful purpose.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Derleth

But if you aren't being heard by the person you're talking to, what's the point? You might as well find a room and go masturbate.

Wiki has an interesting take on this.

I must protest-your link had absolutely nothing to do with masturbation at all.

[erislover]

Originally Posted by Derleth

So what aim does rudeness serve when there is a metric for truth?

What aim does a parent scolding a child serve? What aim does embarrassment before peers serve?

I think you're being confused by the fact some people will claim things to be rude even when they are not; for example, there are many religious people who claim that anything that challenges their faith is 'rude' even if it is a verifiable fact.

The link I provided tried only to deal with matters of fact. If you claim an exception to the Pythagorean theorem in plane geometry, you're wrong. I will not sugar coat my correction of you: you're just not thinking; don't be stupid.

I agree that such people should not be allowed to foreclose on discussion, but yelling obscenities at them (that is, actually being rude) does nothing to serve a useful purpose.

Treating someone as if they're being reasonable when in fact they are being totally unreasonable is what fails to serve a purpose. The incantations and ritual of hospitality will not turn their ignorance into insight. Where reasonable people can disagree, let's be reasonable. Where they cannot, there's no need to continue the pretense that we could.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by erislover

What aim does a parent scolding a child serve? What aim does embarrassment before peers serve?

To make the person being scolded or embarrassed defensive and to make the onlookers wonder if the person doing the embarrassing is only doing it because they lack the ability to simply and concisely correct the mistake.

The link I provided tried only to deal with matters of fact. If you claim an exception to the Pythagorean theorem in plane geometry, you're wrong. I will not sugar coat my correction of you: you're just not thinking; don't be stupid.

In that case, nothing could be better than to embarrass the idiot with a simple statement of the facts; trying to be any more insulting than that would only serve to blunt the impact of the factual takedown.

Treating someone as if they're being reasonable when in fact they are being totally unreasonable is what fails to serve a purpose. The incantations and ritual of hospitality will not turn their ignorance into insight. Where reasonable people can disagree, let's be reasonable. Where they cannot, there's no need to continue the pretense that we could.

You neglect the role onlookers play in most discussions: Without them, indeed, there is no reason to even have some discussions. For example, I'm never going to convince a Creationist that natural selection through modified descent is the only plausible theory for how life on Earth came to exist in its present form. However, I might well be able to convince someone who was unsure of the biology and relatively uneducated on the topic that, no, there really isn't a debate, merely facts and logic on one side and willful ignorance on the other.

I can only do that if the onlooker doesn't feel the need to defend the Creationist from my withering onslaught of sarcasm and finely-crafted invective. Further, my best tactic from the emotional standpoint is to let the Creationist hang themself: If I remain calm and polite, and the Creationist shouts and accuses me of being horribly and unutterably rude, I win victories without much effort on my part. You might be amazed at how often that works.

Finally, if there is no audience, or if the audience is just as dumb as the person I'm going up against, I don't bother. I don't need the frustration.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Methinks the OP has misinterpreted the quote. I'd insult him for doing so, but it's against the rules of this forum.

Here it is in context (1933 article in what is now The New Statesman):

I see three outstanding dangers in economic nationalism and in the movements towards national self-sufficiency, imperilling their success. The first is Silliness–the silliness of the doctrinaire. It is nothing strange to discover this in movements which have passed somewhat suddenly from the phase of midnight high-flown talk into the field of action. We do not distinguish, at first, between the color of the rhetoric with which we have won a people’s assent and the dull substance of the truth of our message. There is nothing insincere in the transition. Words ought to be a little wild–for they are the assault of thoughts upon the unthinking. But when the seats of power and authority have been attained, there should be no more poetic license.

We have, therefore, to count the cost down to the penny which our rhetoric has despised. An experimental society has need to be far more efficient than an old-established one, if it is to survive safely. It will need all its economic margin for its own proper purposes, and can afford to give nothing away to soft-headedness or doctrinaire impracticability. When a doctrinaire proceeds to action, he must, so to speak, forget his doctrine. For those who in action remember the letter will probably lose what they are seeking.

[erislover]

Originally Posted by Derleth

If I remain calm and polite, and the Creationist shouts and accuses me of being horribly and unutterably rude, I win victories without much effort on my part. You might be amazed at how often that works.

It never ceases to amaze me how often people rely on rhetorical fallacies one way or another, yes. Again your example is simply loaded to poison the well here (or actually, um, sweeten the well, in this case), like tomndebb's. Acting reasonable by staying "calm and collected" is incidental to actually being reasonable. All your examples just happen to sweeten the well and not poison it, but it is the same kind of rhetorical fallacy. This is the typical anti-Dawkins sentiment. Because he is blunt and direct about people's factual errors, he's just rude and anti-religious. But being rude and anti-religious have nothing to do with matters of fact. The "I-don't-have-to-listen-to-this-abuse" rejection is exactly designed to protect people who want to retain their position without discussion, which was the claim my link made in the first place.

Perhaps, tactically, you'd suggest to not use rudeness so that this lame defense is unavailable. If so, we just disagree on the tactics of a debate. The willfully ignorant have no shortage of "reasons" for their lamentable and pathetic state.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by erislover

This is the typical anti-Dawkins sentiment. Because he is blunt and direct about people's factual errors, he's just rude and anti-religious. But being rude and anti-religious have nothing to do with matters of fact.

Dawkins isn't rude. At all. At least, not that I've seen. If that's what you're calling 'rude', or even 'blunt', then I don't know what to say.

The "I-don't-have-to-listen-to-this-abuse" rejection is exactly designed to protect people who want to retain their position without discussion, which was the claim my link made in the first place.

If you're trying to convince the person you're arguing with, you've likely already lost. Aim for the people watching, who might actually be on the fence, and convince them by making your opponent look stupid, or at least uneducated. Don't make them look like the victim; make them look stupid for claiming to have been victimized.

[erislover]

Originally Posted by Derleth

Dawkins isn't rude. At all. At least, not that I've seen. If that's what you're calling 'rude', or even 'blunt', then I don't know what to say.

It is not what I am calling anything. It is what I have heard called rude.

If you're trying to convince the person you're arguing with, you've likely already lost. Aim for the people watching, who might actually be on the fence, and convince them by making your opponent look stupid, or at least uneducated.

If he is stupid, I will just say so. If he is wrong, I will just say so. But hoping to win over my audience with appearances is not something I ever aim at. If they can be convinced that way, then---as you say---I've already lost.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by erislover

It never ceases to amaze me how often people rely on rhetorical fallacies one way or another, yes. Again your example is simply loaded to poison the well here (or actually, um, sweeten the well, in this case), like tomndebb's. Acting reasonable by staying "calm and collected" is incidental to actually being reasonable.

So do you have an example of successfully being rude to win a point? Has rudeness ever persuaded a person to embrace civil rights? Choose peace over war? Choose good economic policy over bad? Where is this need to be rude or uncivil successfully employed in the real world?
I recall a lot of rude people, (generally from the counter-cultural groups), decrying the Vietnam War. The government finally decided to get out when more mainstream people expressing themselves more civilly began to argue that we needed to get out.
It would seem that you want to claim the virtue of rudeness while pretending that simple objective statements are, somehow, rude. That is simply playing semantic games from my perspective, (as is your odd claims that my argument or Derleth's is wrong-headed simply because we use extreme examples to make the point clearly, (with an added attempt of your part to do that of which you accuse us--poisoning the well).

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by erislover

It is not what I am calling anything. It is what I have heard called rude.

So, your whole argument is based on acceptring the definitions of unreasonable persons. I addressed thatr in the last paragraph of my first post:

Originally Posted by tomndebb

There is a type of wrongheaded person who will hold that any challenge to their error is, in itself, rude. However, even that silly notion may be challenged without resorting to actual incivility.

[erislover]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

So do you have an example of successfully being rude to win a point?

Since my position is that being rude or polite has no bearing on matters of fact, such an example on my part would be both pointless and surprising.

Has rudeness ever persuaded a person to embrace civil rights? Choose peace over war?

Peace over war! Holy shit. I mean, we can be at war, but let's be civil about it?!

The government finally decided to get out when more mainstream people expressing themselves more civilly began to argue that we needed to get out.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

It would seem that you want to claim the virtue of rudeness while pretending that simple objective statements are, somehow, rude.

I don't know whether rudeness in correction is a virtue or a vice but I do believe it is a tool that is not sufficiently wielded.

That is simply playing semantic games from my perspective, (as is your odd claims that my argument or Derleth's is wrong-headed simply because we use extreme examples to make the point clearly, (with an added attempt of your part to do that of which you accuse us--poisoning the well).

You are both discussing winning the argument by virtue of its form. You do it again in this post, with respect to Vietnam. Such rhetorical fallacies may win you rhetorical points but they're pathetic support for what is ostensibly the more "reasonable" position. It is not about the extremity of your examples but the fact that they coincidentally support your position fallaciously. They may be sound, but they are not valid and this is the point: rudeness and civility have no bearing on matters of fact. What we are discussing is not a matter of fact, but a tactic. Tactically, I agree with Mr Naggum on the matter: reserve civility where reasonable people may disagree, but do not cage rudeness where reasonable people don't disagree.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by erislover

You are both discussing winning the argument by virtue of its form. You do it again in this post, with respect to Vietnam. Such rhetorical fallacies may win you rhetorical points but they're pathetic support for what is ostensibly the more "reasonable" position. It is not about the extremity of your examples but the fact that they coincidentally support your position fallaciously. They may be sound, but they are not valid and this is the point: rudeness and civility have no bearing on matters of fact. What we are discussing is not a matter of fact, but a tactic. Tactically, I agree with Mr Naggum on the matter: reserve civility where reasonable people may disagree, but do not cage rudeness where reasonable people don't disagree.

Basically, you appear to be arguing that we need to be rude on some vague occasion that you cannot identify. (You are also throwing around a claim of "fallacies" that appears to be irrelevant to the discussion.)

We are back to you making a claim that we need to be rude, despite its obvious drawbacks, (accompanied by an odd claim that it does not matter, either way).

The example of Vietnam is not a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument; it is reality. The country widely supported the war. Despite rude protests, support for the war continued for a few years. Later, other people began to put forth reasonable arguments and facts in a civil manner. The tide of opinion changed. The people I knew whose views changed from strong support to strong opposition were persuaded by reasonable discourse. The people I knew who encountered only the loud protests were still defending the war years after we had withdrawn.

You are making some great (and nebulous) claim against "form," but the form is the point of the OP's claims and the form is what actually provides the context in which the facts can be examined. On the one hand, you claim that neither rudeness nor civility make any difference, but you ignore the process by which facts or evidence need to be conveyed. I go back to my first response: a demand to let rudeness flow is nothing but a rationalization. It allows people to act out instead of doing the hard work to actually persuade others of their views.

[Derleth]

OK, I'm curious. Which, if any, of these statements is 'rude' by your estimation?

1. Since the early 20th century, Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.
2. In the field of the Reals, 0.999... (with nines repeating to infinity) is exactly equal to 1.000... (with zeroes repeating to infinity); they are simply two ways to write the same value.
3. Prior to the third trimester, human fetuses don't have the neural development to survive outside the womb.
4. The Exodus described in the Old Testament very likely never occurred; there is absolutely no solid archaeological evidence of it, and no documentary evidence outside of the Bible itself.
5. There is no evidence to convince a reasonable person of the existence of a deity.

[erislover]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Basically, you appear to be arguing that we need to be rude on some vague occasion that you cannot identify.

I don't believe it is an argument of necessity. I believe being civil for the sake of civility in matters of fact is counterproductive. If you think there's an exception to the Pythagorean theorem in plane geometry, you're an idiot. I'll say so. The quality and severity of the remark is in proportion---in my view---to the quality and severity of the error. If I am merely civil in my refutation, and leave the acerbic comments out, I believe this creates an improper analogy to situations about which reasonable people can disagree, where rudeness has no function, because there is no standard of error.

We are back to you making a claim that we need to be rude, despite its obvious drawbacks, (accompanied by an odd claim that it does not matter, either way).

Obvious drawbacks? I see obvious drawbacks to discussing things politely as if there were actually something to discuss when there is nothing to discuss.

The example of Vietnam is not a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument; it is reality.

The reality is that things happened in that order. Your position is apparently that when politely non-protesting people entered the national dialogue, the government changed its course. I doubt it had anything to do with their civility, rather than their number.

But, in regards to the example in general: I'm sorry, but are you using this example as a matter of fact? Is your position "As a matter of fact, the US should not have been involved in Vietnam"? Because my position is regards to matters of fact, and this smells a bit different than fact.

You are making some great (and nebulous) claim against "form," but the form is the point of the OP's claims and the form is what actually provides the context in which the facts can be examined.

I provided a link with a quote that I believed was on-topic. You responded to it. Here we are. But anyway, it isn't an argument against form. It is in fact an argument for a specific form: being rude, when the error is clear, to distinguish it from cases in which we disagree but such disagreement and discussion is healthy and productive. It is the verbal smack on the hand.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by erislover

I don't believe it is an argument of necessity. I believe being civil for the sake of civility in matters of fact is counterproductive. If you think there's an exception to the Pythagorean theorem in plane geometry, you're an idiot. I'll say so. The quality and severity of the remark is in proportion---in my view---to the quality and severity of the error.

So, we are back to you believing that rudeness serves some purpose, but, appearently, that service is simply to make you feel good.
Meh. That seems like a pretty silly proposition.

Originally Posted by erislover

If I am merely civil in my refutation, and leave the acerbic comments out, I believe this creates an improper analogy to situations about which reasonable people can disagree, where rudeness has no function, because there is no standard of error.

We are now back to rationalizing counterproductive behavior, now with the reason provided that it makes you feel good.

Originally Posted by erislover

Obvious drawbacks? I see obvious drawbacks to discussing things politely as if there were actually something to discuss when there is nothing to discuss.

Nah. You see a drawback to behaving with civility when your emotions are out of control.
It is not a big deal; it just fails to prvide a legitimate rationale for your behavior.

Originally Posted by erislover

I provided a link with a quote that I believed was on-topic. You responded to it. Here we are. But anyway, it isn't an argument against form. It is in fact an argument for a specific form: being rude, when the error is clear, to distinguish it from cases in which we disagree but such disagreement and discussion is healthy and productive. It is the verbal smack on the hand.

Ahh! The moral superiority of the True Believer--which comes across as mere self-righteousness.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

This. A wise man once counciled me that I oughtn't let my mouth write checks my ass can't cash. Since I'm small and have no adult experience with physical brawls, my ass's ablity to cash checks is limited enough to keep my mouth from courting physical violence.

As Robert Howard once said:

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

[erislover]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

So, we are back to you believing that rudeness serves some purpose, but, appearently, that service is simply to make you feel good.

Why is that apparent, exactly?

Nah. You see a drawback to behaving with civility when your emotions are out of control.

I lol'd. Do you also find lost car keys and predict lottery numbers?

Ahh! The moral superiority of the True Believer--which comes across as mere self-righteousness.

Moral superiority?

[Mangetout]

If your audience is composed entirely of mentally healthy Vulcans, then by all means be as direct, blunt, concise and dispassionate as possible.

If you're dealing with humans, you cannot ignore the fact that - as well as thinking - they are emotional, feeling beings.

Some topics lend themselves to dispassionate speech. Most don't. In most cases, there will be an element of persuasion, request or reasoning. You may be asking your audience to imagine something new, possibly alien - or indulge what at first might not strike them as intuitive or reasonable. Politeness and proper crafting of words is not redundancy here - it's a necessary component. If you leave it out, you fail to fully make your point.

[chrisk]

Just dropping in because I saw the OP title and was thinking of 'wild' as in the sense of cards and poker - jokers wild, twos are wild, etcetera, which made me thinking of the fact that words can mean different things to suit the context and the words that they're close to.

Which is borne out by the fact that nobody inside the thread is using the word 'wild' in that sense.

"Two fish are in a tank. One turns to the other and says: 'Do you know how to drive this thing?'"

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by chrisk

Just dropping in because I saw the OP title and was thinking of 'wild' as in the sense of cards and poker - jokers wild, twos are wild, etcetera, which made me thinking of the fact that words can mean different things to suit the context and the words that they're close to.

That was how I read the title, but I'm pretty sure the OP means wild in the sense of unrestrained.

"Two fish are in a tank. One turns to the other and says: 'Do you know how to drive this thing?'"

Two parrots on a perch - one says to the other: "Do you smell fish?"

[erislover]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

That was how I read the title, but I'm pretty sure the OP means wild in the sense of unrestrained.

Maybe, but remember: no matter how far you push the envelope, it's still stationary.