# twickster, what part of "private" don't you understand? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 16, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330 "2009-09-16T15:29:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/161 "2009-09-25T16:31:38Z")
> [@muttrox](#): > > Has anyone asked you to change your opinion? Has anyone said you have to agree with every policy? > > You started the thread. You chose to give it a snotty title, and 4 pages in you are still acting like your viewpoint is self-evident. It’s isn’t. Like I said, it’s a reasonable viewpoint. But as Miller said, the Fallacy of the Masses doesn’t apply. If you want to vote for the Green Party, fine. If you think The Beatles were the worst band ever, fine. But don’t open a thread demeaning the intelligence and character of everyone else, or act like everyone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong. Even if I think they are? Maybe there’s another policy that I think is unwise and unhelpful and I’m just unaware of it. ::shrug:: ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/162 "2009-09-25T16:44:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Even if I think they are? Maybe there’s another policy that I think is unwise and unhelpful and I’m just unaware of it. ::shrug:: I’m not sure I parsed this right. Are you saying everyone who disagrees with you in this thread is objectively wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/163 "2009-09-25T16:52:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I see no reason why the fallacy should apply only to those issues where an objective answer is available. In fact, that’s when it wouldn’t be needed. **One is rather easily proven wrong or right.** That’s why it’s called a fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/164 "2009-09-25T17:52:16Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > That’s why it’s called a fallacy. Nope. Fallacies have nothing to do with the ultimate correctness or incorrectness of a position, only with the logic applied to argue a position. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/165 "2009-09-25T17:55:22Z")
> [@muttrox](#): > > I’m not sure I parsed this right. Are you saying everyone who disagrees with you in this thread is objectively wrong? It was a simple question to you. You said: > [@](#): > > … If you want to vote for the Green Party, fine. If you think The Beatles were the worst band ever, fine. But don’t open a thread demeaning the intelligence and character of everyone else, or act like everyone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong. And I asked you: > [@](#): > > Even if I think they are? ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/166 "2009-09-25T18:06:42Z")
Yes. Even if you think they are. Because it’s a matter of opinion. And you know it’s a matter of opinion. And you shouldn’t say snotty things about other people just for having a different opinion than you. And you shouldn’t assume that you have a direct line to the divine truth and they don’t. And you shouldn’t initiate a conversation to say that. And if turns out that everyone disagrees with you, you should step back and rethink your opinion. You shouldn’t just continue full speed ahead with an everyone-else-is-an-idiot-I’ll-explain-it-once-more-for-the-short-bus-people attitude. I think I’m going back into lurk mode. You don’t get it and you refuse to try. I’ll stop [teaching this pig to sing](http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/L004143/). ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/167 "2009-09-25T18:14:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nope. Fallacies have nothing to do with the ultimate correctness or incorrectness of a position, only with the logic applied to argue a position. That doesn’t invalidate my position. _Argumentum ad populum_ is a fallacy when it’s used to argue for the correctness of a belief. It’s a fallacy because the correctness of a thing usually relies on something other than majority belief. It doesn’t matter if a majority of people believe the moon landing didn’t happen, because there’s objective proof to the contrary. However, in situations where majority opinion _directly determines correctness_, it is not a fallacy. One such instance is [social convention](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum#Social_convention), which is applicable in this case. Private messages are a tool for the community to use. The community decides how best to use that tool. If most people in the community think it’s okay to reveal PMs under certain circumstances, it is therefore okay to do so. If most people think it’s not okay to reveal PMs under any circumstances, it is therefore never okay. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/168 "2009-09-25T18:18:58Z")
> [@muttrox](#): > > Yes. Even if you think they are. Because it’s a matter of opinion. And you know it’s a matter of opinion. And you shouldn’t say snotty things about other people just for having a different opinion than you. And you shouldn’t assume that you have a direct line to the divine truth and they don’t. And you shouldn’t initiate a conversation to say that. > > And if turns out that everyone disagrees with you, you should step back and rethink your opinion. You shouldn’t just continue full speed ahead with an everyone-else-is-an-idiot-I’ll-explain-it-once-more-for-the-short-bus-people attitude. > > I think I’m going back into lurk mode. You don’t get it and you refuse to try. I’ll stop [teaching this pig to sing](http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/L004143/). :rolleyes:I never said it was _not_ a matter of opinion. In fact, I defended my right to hold and argue my opinion, even when the sole adherent to it. You get your panties in a wad because I don’t conform. Fuck that. You get your panties is a wad because you don’t like my attitude, too fucking bad. You don’t like the tone that you claim is contained in the thread headline, yet you clicked on it to read it? That’s some odd shit. No one is twisting your arm to read what I write. Nor are they twisting your arm to mischaracterize what I wrote, trying to imply I provided no rationale for my opinion, yet you felt the need to peck away at your keyboard complaining about my attitude. And you come pissing in here yourself. Damn, you’re one conflicted dude. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/169 "2009-09-25T18:24:54Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > That doesn’t invalidate my position. _Argumentum ad populum_ is a fallacy when it’s used to argue for the correctness of a belief. It’s a fallacy because the correctness of a thing usually relies on something other than majority belief. It doesn’t matter if a majority of people believe the moon landing didn’t happen, because there’s objective proof to the contrary. > > However, in situations where majority opinion _directly determines correctness_, it is not a fallacy. One such instance is [social convention](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum#Social_convention), which is applicable in this case. Private messages are a tool for the community to use. The community decides how best to use that tool. If most people in the community think it’s okay to reveal PMs under certain circumstances, it is therefore okay to do so. If most people think it’s not okay to reveal PMs under any circumstances, it is therefore never okay. You’re not understanding what is covered in the exceptions. From your link, explaining the exceptions: > [@](#): > > Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/170 "2009-09-25T18:29:41Z")
The only comment I’m going to make in this thread is this: The people have spoken, the rulers have agreed (or vice versa). Why not just let **magellan01** have the last word and let it sink? Does anyone expect to change his mind at this point? (Rhetorical questions both, not requiring answers.) ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/171 "2009-09-25T18:30:27Z")
That’s correct for the headings of Democracy, Safety, and Capitalism, but not Social Convention. > [@](#): > > Matters of social convention, such as etiquette or polite manners, depend upon the wide acceptance of the convention. **As such, argumentum ad populum is not fallacious when referring to the popular belief about what is polite or proper:** When talking about whether it is polite or proper to reveal the contents of a PM, most posters here agree that it’s okay under certain circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/172 "2009-09-25T19:12:54Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > That’s correct for the headings of Democracy, Safety, and Capitalism, but not Social Convention.When talking about whether it is polite or proper to reveal the contents of a PM, most posters here agree that it’s okay under certain circumstances. Your reading it wrong. The exception language applies to ALL exceptions. But it is not in conflict with the language under Social Convention: (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > Matters of social convention, such as etiquette or polite manners, depend upon the wide acceptance of the convention. As such, argumentum ad populum is not fallacious when referring to the popular belief about what **is** polite or proper: I agree that it is the consensus and will become the norm. Some of the moderators we’re of a different mind and have been swayed. But I’ve been arguing what _should_ be policy, not what _is_. Also, in addition to what you said, most posters agree that it is impolite and improper to reveal PMs willy-nilly. We disagree where that line should be drawn. But what I’ve been arguing is not so much that, but that it is not a good policy for the board. That it makes PMs less useful. I see great utility in having the board enforce PMs as private. In fact, the main argument I’ve seen against that is that it would be difficult to do. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/173 "2009-09-26T00:10:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@muttrox](#): > > > > … If you want to vote for the Green Party, fine. If you think The Beatles were the worst band ever, fine. But don’t open a thread demeaning the intelligence and character of everyone else, or act like everyone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong. > > And I asked you: > Even if I think they are? You may open such a thread IN THE PIT. No where else. Certainly not in Cafe Society, where the discussion of the Beatles would be. Certainly not in Great Debates, where the discussion about the Green Party would be. In politics, entertainment, art, and religion, it is possible for intelligent people to have basic disagreements. Our goal here at the Straight Dope is to facilitate discussion – everyone learns by hearing the other views. And we do it in a polite, well-mannered environment. Personal insults are NOT permitted. > [@magellan01](#): > > … yet you felt the need to peck away at your keyboard complaining about my attitude. And you come pissing in here yourself. Damn, you’re one conflicted dude. Personal insults are not permitted outside the Pit. Personal insults means talking about the person as person, and not about what they’re saying or doing. If you are having difficulties understanding the rule about personal insults, email me and we can have some discussion. I’m getting tired of this. I’m _not_ issuing an Official Warning for this, although I probably should. You’ve been here for five years, and don’t seem to know this? I think you need a voluntary time out. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/174 "2009-09-26T00:52:44Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Our goal here at the Straight Dope is to facilitate discussion – everyone learns by hearing the other views. And we do it in a polite, well-mannered environment. That is key. As a person of faith, for example, it has been discussions with reasonable and respectful atheists that have taught me about alternate views of morality, ethics, and epistemology. Even metaphysics. The ones who scream, “Christianity is idiotic,” and contribute little more than that have taught me nothing. But the ones who say, “I can see why you believe what you do, given your life experience, but for me, I see no evidence that God exists,” have left me with an understanding — and a respect — for their views. Like you say, reasonable people can disagree and hold opposing views, while still maintaining decorum and respect. We can’t learn from or about one another any other way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330.md?page=8)