He still has the announcement up on his profile page. It was back in July. They didn’t meet here. They knew each other beforehand.
This feels like the lecture or event is over and we’re bullshitting on our way out the door…lol
Pretty much. I’d better be invited to the wedding! I ‘Spoonerized’ him
It WAS in July. You weren’t invited. It’s over. They are married. Sorry.[:)]
It would be funny if one of them were lurking into this thread and came upon this conversation. I guess they impacted my life in ways I didn’t realize. We’ve had a long back and forth on this couple.
When you reply to someone and offer them the ideas that you are dealing second hand then you are promoting the Austrian School of Thought, or whatever school of thought you believe in. In that sense, you are indeed working for the “Austrian movement”, and the way that you deal with people directly reflects upon the category imposed upon you and fellow supporters of Austrian economics by your critics and those who disagree with you. It’s this image of the category that needs to be protected if we are to be taken seriously.
I’m not sure what rights have to do with anything. I never spoke about what is within someone’s right, nor did I deny anybody the right to speak to someone anyway they wanted to. I am simply making a suggestion on what is a more proper way to deal with people on these forums. Where you wish to follow my suggestion or not is ultimately up to the person receiving the message.
I think you are conflating my attempts to protect the image of us as debaters in general with attempts to group us into some sort of collective. I am not. I am saying that people operate with certain generalities in mind (we do, and our opponents do; I have already stated examples of how we do it with Keynesians), and when it comes to being persuasive and being seeing as serious having an aura of professionalism is all-important. That is why most public-speaking Austrian economists don’t personally insult their opponents publicly; it would simply antagonize them, and their supporters.
Whatever it is, it is something we have to deal with.
No, I was simply replying to his posts. I never suggested that it was he who I was referring to in my opening post.
We actually can.
We can, by how we deal with them.
Life experience does not preclude you from incorporating new experiences into your general method of dealing with people you disagree with.
“You lack reading comprehension”, without actually giving an explanation of what I didn’t comprehend, falls under the same category. Ultimately, it wasn’t this thread that I was worried about. Somebody insulting me will not drive me away, because I consider myself an established member at least in the sense that I know there are reasonable people. Ultimately, I would like to see less name calling forum-wide. I am not talking about clever quips or intelligent “insults”; I am talking about name calling and insults of other people’s intelligence.
true. Life experience is incorporating or not incorporating new experiences. That’s the shorthand.
He felt that way. He thought he was being thorough. You disagree. That’s life. And you know that.
ok.
P.S. I like the turn the divide and conquer against them mentality and make this a division of labor activity. I don’t know what else to say.
While this is true, I think the point that Jonathan is making (which I think I find very clear) is that many people may be turned off by Austrolibertarianism if they come across the forum as see some members being douche bags towards others. What is more, Jonathan is referring to insults, which some members have thrown at others. I’m pretty sure that is against the rules on this forum.
yes; it is pleasant to be polite, and often a fruitful stratagem.
then again…, sometimes Jacob Bloom is posting on your forums. Did you catch that thread?
No one’s in the sense that there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to change my mind. After all: this is simply aesthetics. You can do it your way and I’ll do it mine. End of story.
Bahumbug
So you are postulating that if I treat someone badly that it is a reflection upon you and the Mises institute? How is that true? Are we one in the same? Am I the Mises institute?
Well I think we both agree on that [ that you are just propounding a premise of being nice to people ] but my disagreement begins with you stating that we are the Mises institute or our actions are a reflection of them. We aren’t and logically speaking if we aren’t then what we do isn’t either.
The image of the LvMi is in the minds of others. We cannot ‘protect’ anything that: a.) isn’t in our possession b.) is an abstraction. If you want to do things a certain way then ok, I’m all for people choosing how to interact on their own personal level.
Well I see the fallacy as a petty point. When someone says ‘The US bombed Iraq’ I don’t go out of my way to say ’ Well you know the US isn’t really an entity of action, it is actually a group of individuals in a specific geographical area and even then many of these individuals didn’t actual bomb another group in a different location which involved some being bombed and some not’
Fair enough.
Explain. I see it as we can be the nicest people in the world and yet we will still be hated for ‘insert red herring here’. You can be sweet and nice or mean and nasty, yet how people perceive you is completely out of your control.
Well I was converted by ron paul who’s always perfectly respectful so yep,I have to say I agree.I do get flustered at times and abusive but I try to hold back.Another point is there’s nothing wrong with attack ing someone’s ideas and then that person for holding the ideas as long as you don’t get too childish(rothbard himself did this and acknowledge this as his tactic especially in regard to keynes).
The Best Rothbardian put down I ever heard was about Marx
On capital he said something to the effect of " page 1 .capital … marx believes that the value of goods in a trade is equal. The errors just build up on this basic error.that’s all you need to read of that book".
Forum dynamics. It’s not about sharing ideas, its about signaling alpha male dominance to your peers.
I know this is off topic but I just wanted to have my say.
I have to say I used to like dawkins but after coming to mises.org and thinking more about religion I think dawkins is excessive and overestimates the strength of his arguments. I mean he dismisses theistic evolution as though he’s swatting a fly.He doesn’t even refute it.
I have to admit I really enjoy Dawkins. As for dismissing theistic evolution, I think its well within his intellectual rights. I similarly dismiss theistic physics and theistic engineering.. God adds nothing to the analysis.
We both defend Austrian theory on the Mises fora, and therefore we can be grouped as individuals who debate on these forums. If a large portion of the forum’s population is rude, then the forum will receive a tag of rudeness. As a result, if the Mises fora are tagged as rude, and you are part of those forums as one who defends the ideals which the forums are designed to spread, then you too are grouped as rude. This generalization may not be correct. But, it is what, of course, happens.
There is plenty of empirical evidence which supports my position. For example, I play an online text-based game known as NationStates. There is a forum dedicated to “general” (off topic) conversation. A large portion of users are left-wing, and so it is generalized that the “General Forum” is a “left-wing cesspool”, and as a result people who are active in General are oftentimes grouped into that general tag (even if it’s not correct; for example, I am a libertarian).
We do it ourselves on these forums. Anything that does not fit within a model of economics which is preferred by a large group of the users here is automatically disqualified as “Keynesian” or “mainstream”. I myself had had ideas disqualified on the basis that they sound “Keynesian” on these forums (when they were nothing of the sort, and even if they were it does not merit their outright disqualification). Why is this so? Because, we feel that the majority of Keynesian theories are incorrect, and therefore we group “mainstream” theories under this category of “Keynesian” or “bad”. Many of the users on these fora rarely treat ideas as individuals.
I didn’t say that we are the Mises Institute. We represent the Mises fora.
I’m not sure what your point is. Even if the image is in the minds of others, this image is shaped by experiences and events. Obviously, if they are met with rudeness then their perceived image of the fora will be more negative than positive.
Well, doesn’t this just reinforce my position?
I rather have my ideas disagreed with, but people still willing to rationally argue with me because they know that I will treat them with respect, than people dislike me because I am rude. They are two different perceptions.
Yes but we are defending [ usually ] why we accept these ideas of truth and their validity. How we do it is completely up to us.
Fallacy of composition.
Well if it is an incorrect view then I have no reason to really listen to it. If someone is so stubborn to think that the moon is made of cheese, I cannot actually force them to recant their statement. I can reason with them but this is the internet, people don’t always come online with reason at the forefront.
Again, I don’t feel so moved by this mistake that I am going to go out of my way to correct it each time.
If we are not in the Mises Institute then please explain how we represent it. Our actions are completely separate from the institute. We talk about their ideas but the institute is not responsible for how their ideas are discusses or disseminated.
But then they should be informed that the views of a single individual in this forum are not representative of the whole community.
Ok. Your choice. There is not one set behavior [ or at least there shouldn’t be ] concerning interaction on the forums, we are humans, not robots. You seem to be implying that above all we have to do service with a smile. I disagree. The fact that we are having this debate is good though because it somewhat reinforces my argument that we should have a free exchange of ideas on multi-levels. If you want to be super nice to all who come then I certainly say ‘bravo’ with sincerity. I’m just catious to maintain anonymity concerning exchanges. The power of ideas are the strongest force in human existence. We should be able to present them in a fashion that suits our delievery lest they be lost to censorship or improper ostracism.
This forum is LvMI property. What is written here is left here at LvMI discretion, and people know that.
Not service with a smile. Simply service without a middle finger.
Guess that leaves out well-respected writers, such as Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and H.L. Mencken. Ever read Mencken’s “eulogy” for William Jennings Bryan? Masterful use of insults.
This forum is for civil discussion. Those who simply must insult others in their discourse with those who disagree with them should do so elsewhere. Any who have been lurking, and who have questions about economics or political theory, but have refrained from asking, for fear of having someone jump down their throat, should feel free to come forward and join the discussion.