Accusation of personal attack, resolving dispute on nietzsche questions

Question

Cody Gray has all but said that I am calling him a fascist here. I had no intent of doing so, and I am 100% sure that he isn't. I was only calling nietzsche a fascist. I don't want to engage in name-calling or ad-hominem anything. Calling nietzsche a fascist is something that many actual, historical, fascists did. Many credited nietzsche for formulating the fascist response to Marx. I am sure that there are no mussolini or franco supporters active on this forum, and even if there were, it's not important as to the content of the answers.

The content dispute on the question is relatively trivial--- I didn't like Cody Gray's insertion of "Is there even any evidence that nietzsche read Sade", because you can't defend yourself against charges of insufficient citation by claiming ignorance--- otherwise I could publish the theory of relativity and claim I never read Einstein.

This was my main complaint with Cody Gray's edit, and also the minor tonal stuff. It wasn't personal, but the acrimony on the previous deleted answers didn't help.

• Can the question be unlocked, and the dispute over the wording resolved here?
• Is it possible to bury the hatchet regarding past disputes?
• Can there be some clear guidelines on what type of disapproval is allowed?

The last point is important, because I can't ask a question about something I find abhorrent without at least distancing myself from it. So if I quote a racist or anti-semitic passage, I have to make clear that I don't find it reasonable in no uncertain terms. Perhaps the wording I use is sub-optimal, but I prefer proletariat-speak to bourgeoise-speak, due to my Marxist upbringing (I have not held Marxist positions since I was a teenager, but some habits are hard to break)

Answer 1

I assure you that a significant fraction of the downvotes have absolutely nothing to do with _ⁿietzsche^* and _^heidegger and everything to do with your aggressive, idiosyncratic, and emotionally-laden posting style and, to a lesser extent, with the one-sidedness of the content. For example, I have exactly zero emotional attachment to Nietzsche (personal view: from the little I know of him, it seems he did an okay job at identifying various problems with existing systems, but then almost invariably charged off in the least helpful possible direction to "solve" the problem, and regardless, he's essentially irrelevant now), and yet I have found the large majority of your posts on Nietzsche unconstructive to the point where either downvoting or removal seemed appropriate. (I haven't bothered touching them, as far as I recall, since I don't care or know enough about Nietzsche to make a good judgment in the amount of time that I want to spend, but I likely would have had I cared to spend more time on it.)

Because of this, it is very difficult to bury the hatchet, since it seems incredibly likely that you're just going to dig it up again and start swinging it around, possibly without realizing what you're doing.

If you're genuinely interested in trying to contribute to Philosophy.SE--and you seem reasonably perceptive and well-read, so it seems likely that you have the capability--here are a few tips that in my opinion would make a huge difference.

First, note that thinking carefully about things is, for very many people if not everyone, actually really hard to do. It is exceedingly easy to fall victim to confirmation bias and other forms of rationalization (see 5th paragraph). In particular, emotional content inhibits the ability to reason. Therefore, if you are going to make a statement of disapproval where the reader ought to use reason to come to an agreement, there are inadvisable ways to do it:

_ⁿietzsche is a moron, a plagiarizing _^fascist racist moron, and ...

and ways that still convey strong disapproval without battering the poor reader with such intense emotional content:

Although I strongly disagree with Nietzsche's personal views, and do not find his works of intellectual value, ...

The key point here is one does not adopt this tone in order to be a highbrow elitist bourgeois. One does it specifically to aid in the intellectual endeavor, to try to distance oneself from intense emotions that will render the reader (and, very likely, the writer) unable to reason clearly about the content. Worse yet, if the text does have considerable emotional content, after the reader goes off to read something else, they'll still be impaired!

Use simple words or complex ones as you please, but avoid highly emotional language.

Also, keep in mind when you write an answer that you will probably be asking the reader to accept something that you say as true without verifying it. Therefore, it is preferable (though not absolutely required, IMO) to demonstrate an attitude that is consistent with accuracy. For example, if you appear in the grip of strong emotions--e.g. if you were to insist on replacing all instances of "Nietzsche" with "my-least-favorite-so-called-person-_ⁿietzsche"^**, you would be signaling readers that you're very likely incapable of thinking rationally about anything to do with Nietzsche, and therefore, everything you say regarding him is probably riddled with all sorts of errors, and if what you say has any value at all, the reader will have to check out every single detail him- or herself. What a chore!

Also, if you are aware that people have alternate views, and you disagree, the best way to deal with the alternative viewpoints is to first explain what the views are and then why they are invalid (and, if it helps clarify how to avoid the logical error that was made, where the thinking of those who hold the alternate view likely went amiss).

So, in summary

1. Avoid emotionally-charged language.
2. Demonstrate an ability to think calmly about the issue at hand.
3. Present competing viewpoints and explain their flaws.

and your posts of disapproval will be greatly improved.

That is, write everything more like you wrote this question. (That you were able to do so for this question is why I suspect that at some level you actually know all this.)

Now, back to the question regarding Nietzsche and Marquis de Sade: I think the question is basically fine. However, questions and their answers are supposed to provide a resource, not just be instantiations of personal ego. Therefore, some level of editing is to be not just tolerated but expected and encouraged, as long as it improves the question. (Ego is allowed to the extent that you are allowed to ask your question, not someone else's.) I do hope the changes or lack thereof can be resolved here, but I want to stress that it is not a black and white issue of "get your hands off my post" or "I find the premise faulty so I'm going to edit it".

Faulty premises can be addressed in answers also; some issues of personal style (e.g. if I prefer random indentation of my source code) pose a sufficient barrier to comprehension that they should be fixed even over the preferences of the original poster.

Anyway, I hope this is resolved amicably and quickly, but either way, some substantive changes in style would help considerably going forward.

---

^{* Why settle for merely lower case if you're trying to make a point?}

^{** Note that this avoids highly emotional language, but still signals that the poster must be highly emotional about the topic. Also, note that this answers the rhetorical question in (*).}

Answer 2

The point of removing passion from discourse is so that one can focus on logic and reason. The validity of an argument is not altered whether your whisper it quietly or shout it expletive-laced in someone's ear. Additionally, emotional discourse has a way of clouding one's judgment from the primary issues at hand, and ultimately cultivating an environment that is toxic to communication.

Most simply, StackExchange is a system which functions under a set of rules determined to be most beneficial for sharing knowledge. Whether you believe them to be the most ideal set of rules (or not) is irrelevant; to stay here at this particular website you must abide by them. Otherwise, you are free to make your own Q&A site and devise any set of operating guidelines you desire.

It is really that simple.

Answer 3

I couldn't give a hoot whether you like Nietzsche or not, whether you agree with his writings, whether you think he should be burned at the stake, or whether you think he is the ultimate bastion of evil in the world and the symbol of everything that is wrong with philosophy. I seek neither to protect nor deify him.

Seriously. That is not the issue here—we're not disagreeing about content. This is a moderation issue regarding style and behavior. I'm not here to change your opinions or your world view. In fact, you're entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. And that highlights the fundamental issue, what appears to be the central aspect of your misunderstanding and indecorum:

This is a Q&A site, not a blog.

That has a couple of notable consequences; in particular,

1. While you're entitled to possess your own opinion, you need to realize that this site was not established as a bully pulpit for you to express that opinion.

   If you're looking for such a place, you need to create a personal website. I promise if you choose to do so, I will not campaign to have your site removed from Google or suppress your voice in any way whatsoever.

   But as long as you're a participant on this site, I can promise you that I will come down hard on any attempts to treat this site like your personal bully pulpit. In fact, that's my job as a moderator.

   It ultimately comes down to the fact that other people need to be allowed to hold their own opinions as well, and that means that you need to be respectful and tolerant of those opinions, whether they agree with your own (dearly-held) or not. You admit to intentionally creating a hostile environment through your stylistic and linguistic choices, and that is completely inappropriate here.

   Other people need to feel welcome to contribute, they need to be able to read this site in the presence of professional or familial company, they need to feel like they're learning something through the give-and-take required of all participants. Not only are you explicitly abstaining from the required give-and-take, you're acting in such a way as to prevent others from doing so, and that is something I simply cannot allow. And of course, nor can any of the moderators. This is not a personal vendetta that I am pursuing against you or your ideas.

2. This Q&A site is collaboratively edited, both for moderation/quality control purposes and to enhance clarity.

   This a fundamental tenet of the Stack Exchange model, one that we hold so dearly as to give a special home in the site FAQ:

   All contributions are licensed under Creative Commons and this site is collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. If you see something that needs improvement, click edit and help us make it so!

   All edits are tracked in a public revision history. To view revisions, click the edit date on the post.

   If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.

   You might want to re-read that last paragraph, because I think it applies here.

   The rollback feature does exist, but it's intended to be used sparingly. You have rolled back every single one of the edits I've made to your posts, as well as the edits made by other moderators. That's a giant red flag—a certain indication of a problem, either with the content itself, with the attitude of the user, or perhaps both.

   As I mentioned in a comment, I'm more than willing to make the required edits and give you the benefit of the doubt with regards to phrasing, etc. I interpreted the questions you asked as a gesture of good faith, while understanding that not everyone is good at phrasing things in just the right way. Good writing is hard, and some of us are just naturally confrontational (yes, us; that means me too). It's easier for an outsider to see the problems and fix them.

   And if there is any doubt whether or not I actually "fixed" anything, I think there's ample evidence of that to be found. Not only did the community express their agreement with my sentiments by upvoting comments I left on your answers, but all of the downvotes that had been cast on your questions were reversed after my edits. This issue of downvotes was one of your initial concerns, expressed here, but we had that solved. You even seemed to appreciate my efforts, and noted the turn-about in community opinion regarding your question. A few hours later, this turned around entirely when you decided to roll back my edits. I did and do perceive this as not being in good faith.

   Moreover, as I've said numerous times in other comments like this one, if you think that an edit is fundamentally changing the meaning of your question, then you need to express that clearly and coherently. At that point, we have something concrete to discuss and we can figure out what it is about your wording that is concerning and weigh that against the opinion you want to express. Maybe I missed something. Maybe there's yet another alternative form of expression that is constructive while remaining sufficiently illustrative. But none of that can happen when you leave comments like:

   @CodyGray: don't like yr edits, don't touch.

   Sorry, not going to happen. I've tried to work with you, but you keep working actively against me.

   At this point, if you don't like how this site is run, I'm ready to tell you to go bully some other online community. Wikipedia would shed no tears in banning you from making edits if you came in and repeatedly defaced their Nietzsche article.

   I'll be honest—the other moderators of this site and a number of other sites in the Stack Exchange network have already suggested that your account be banned for the type of behavior that you've been engaging in here. I've argued in your defense, but you're stretching my patience to the limit.

---

As for the "fascism" comment, don't worry; you didn't offend me. I didn't actually interpret your comment as literally calling me or anyone else a fascist. I simply chose to interpret it that way because it was convenient. I'm not offended by labels, and I'm certainly not going to infer a priori evil from a particular type of philosophy, political or otherwise.

The point is simply that if you choose to interpret the type of moderation going on here as "fascist", then that's fine by me. In fact, I'll embrace it—we're fascists here. If you don't like it, you can go elsewhere. And as long as you're going to insist upon ranting and posting unconstructive inflammatory hate speech, I'm going to insist that you do.

However, you'll be pleased to know that I, as a matter of principle, do not hold grudges against people. The hatchet is pre-emptively (pro-actively?) buried. All you have to do is stop engaging in the abusive behavior, or failing that, act in good faith and accept the attempts made by me (and others) to address the problem.

Answer 4

I'm a new participant here myself and have been following this issue on Meta with much interest.

I can appreciate the moderators' wish that this be a Q&A site and can see the rationale behind that decision. You want this to build to a respectable and useful resource.

But I like it when people inject passion into their words, even if they're words I disagree with. If it's not just a personal attack, and there is content there to engage with, some avenue through which that opinion can be explored, I find that style the most engaging and the most conducive to further research and learning.

I understand that this site is geared towards specific question, leading to specific answer by expert, to be taken as authoritative... but I wonder if philosophy is a subject area that lends itself well to that approach. I'm trying to picture what this site would look like if it was being used just by the academics in the philosophy department at the university I attended... those who lean towards the analytic style would dominate, and those who lean towards the continental style just wouldn't bother participating.

I wonder if maybe the moderators might consider a revision of the Q&A model and retain the best bits of this site whilst also creating room for argument. I think the best approach to philosophy is to take a stance, and the injecting of emotion seems critical to that (or its removal too politically correct, evasive, or at worst dishonest). The dispassionate Q&A model seems to either assume objectivity and consensus where there is none, or makes all of philosophy meta-philosophy.