actrade
Posts: 283
Joined: 11/3/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
I agree with mind_messing, rudeness is based on context. As an example, burping at the table after a meal is considered rude in some places yet is a compliment at other places. Tipping in Germany is giving the small change to the wait staff and not 15-20% of the cost of the meal. The language that some people use towards each other, especially military veterans with shared experiences, may make people wince but it is a sign of brotherly love.
warspite1
More comment on local manners and customs. Great, but not relevant to this topic about rudeness when communicating.
It is quite relevant, actually.
What RangerJoe and I are touching on is that what is considered rudeness is indeed a social construct, when you stated that it wasn't.
Fundamentally, if it wasn't a social construct, how would you explain the significant variation in what is considered "rudeness" across a wide range of intra- and inter-cultural factors?
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Well I am not going to engage in further pointless back and forth with you. We each have our thoughts on this and I am sure neither will be swayed by the other.
While I agree that we're unlikely to sway from our respective positions, I'm sure your strong desire to have the last word will prove the first part of the above sentence false.
quote:
Moreover, I am certainly not going to waste any more time on someone who isn't even here. It is clear you believe Alfred beyond reproach, a character who was never wrong about anything and certainly never rude to anyone.
None of us are beyond censure.
That said, if censure is fated, then you can be sure that I'd want it to be an informed and considered process. Not because an individual with an inside line to the powers that be determines it to be so.
quote:
But of course that is nonsense and you clearly believe that certain people should be allowed to get away with rudeness (just because they happen to know about a game) - and/or because of their culture????
Any definition of rudeness is, by nature, going to be exceptionally subjective. This is because it is a social construct (despite your views to the contrary).
Here's one for you to puzzle out (and keeping in mind your opening statement, don't feel compelled to share your thoughts!): where does one draw the line between satire and rudeness?
Is all satire rude? Can rudeness be satire? When is it appropriate to use one and not another?
quote:
All I will say is in response to "can you recall an instance when Alfred was wrong". In terms of the game. No - I don't know enough about the game to know if he was wrong or not, but I would guess he was rarely if ever wrong. Do I know of Alfred being wrong about history generally? Yes, and on quite a number of occasions.
But this thread isn't about one person, so I'll leave it at that other than to say that its funny that so many consider him rude, Erik considered his rudeness worthy of a ban, but apparently he never was.....
The problem with the basis of "Alfred is rude" as the argument is that rudeness fundamentally is a subjective concept and assessed against absolutely no objective criteria.
If one was being uncharitable, and would want to include a topic pertinent to recent themes, there is certainly a comparison to be made with successful women in a workplace environment and peer perceptions of such women being "rude", "bossy" or "authoritative".
The similarities in such a comparison do bear thinking about, both in terms of motivations and results. Certainly in both cases the evidence to support the assertions would certainly be wanting.
Now you're just getting silly. You are making an argument that there is no black/white, hot/cold, etc. I would offer that while you may not be hot at 110F, most people would be. You may be able to see better than me on a moonless night, but it's still dark. No one will ever be able to prove to you what's hot/cold or black/white basis your argument, but the vast majority of us know it when we see it or feel it. I think the phrase you are missing is "societal norms." Is there room for subjectivity and cultural differences, of course, but as one who picked up a very different language/culture while serving as a USAF Arabic linguist, I can tell you that there are surprisingly few differences between Western and Arab culture when it comes to basic, human decency. There is no language or culture you can translate some of Alfred's comments into that would not be deemed offensive. What you are trying to do is argue the "moral relativism" point. For those unfamiliar with the term, I quote from the following, which pretty well sums up your argument.
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own. For some, moral relativism, which relativizes the truth of moral claims, follows logically from a broader cognitive relativism that relativizes truth in general. Many moral relativists, however, take the fact-value distinction to be fundamental. A common, albeit negative, reason for embracing moral relativism is simply the perceived untenability of moral objectivism: every attempt to establish a single, objectively valid and universally binding set of moral principles runs up against formidable objections. A more positive argument sometimes advanced in defense of moral relativism is that it promotes tolerance since it encourages us to understand other cultures on their own terms.
Critics claim that relativists typically exaggerate the degree of diversity among cultures since superficial differences often mask underlying shared agreements. In fact, some say that there is a core set of universal values that any human culture must endorse if it is to flourish. Moral relativists are also accused of inconsistently claiming that there are no universal moral norms while appealing to a principle of tolerance as a universal norm. In the eyes of many critics, though, the most serious objection to moral relativism is that it implies the pernicious consequence that “anything goes”: slavery is just according to the norms of a slave society; sexist practices are right according to the values of a sexist culture. Without some sort of non-relative standard to appeal to, the critics argue, we have no basis for critical moral appraisals of our own culture’s conventions, or for judging one society to be better than another. Naturally, most moral relativists typically reject the assumption that such judgments require a non-relativistic foundation.
https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#:~:text=Moral%20relativism%20is%20the%20view,uniquely%20privileged%20over%20all%20others.&text=Relativistic%20views%20of%20morality%20first%20found%20expression%20in%205th%20century%20B.C.E.
|
Printable Version
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 
. 
I wonder how he finds satan in "edom" 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread