DMB said:
...To say that accusations cause mistrust is a little like saying that arrests
cause crime. I mean, if the accusation is not unfounded, then it is the
straw-man maker that has destroyed trust. It's not accusations of evasion that
causes mistrust, it's the evasive weasel-wordy behavior that destroys trust.
These tactics are not part of an honest or sincere conversation and I sincerely
believe that it is wrong NOT to complain about them.
Matt replied:
If you are replying the above as in opposition to what I said (just there or
more broadly to my earlier description of how trust functions), then I think
you grabbed what I was saying by the wrong handle. I was not attempting to
reduce the creation of mistrust to accusers, nor--more broadly--polemically
enter into current debates about who's done what to whom.
dmb says:
My remarks were aimed at Ian. I think your comments about trust are quite
sensible, actually. Ian seemed to be overlooking an important point. As you put
it, "if one has already decided that it is appropriate, the evasive,
weasel-wordy behavior has already destroyed the trust between you and your
main interlocutor, and [by complaining] you are trying to register to your
audience ("for the record," as it were) why the discussion has ceased, from
your point of view, to be honest and worthy of your attention". Maybe I'm
expecting too much but I do not complain to announce the end of the discussion
but as an effort to get it back on track. It's like a salvage operation. While
it's certainly true that "people don't like being accused of dishonesty", that
truth is a function of the fact that people don't like dishonesty first. If I
lie to you and you accuse me of dishonesty, does it really matter that I don't
like the accusation? Aren't you the offended party? And I also agree tha
t unfounded or premature accusations breed mistrust too. That's why any such
charges have to be based on something specific and concrete, and I'd add,
non-trivail. Then the accused has the chance to step up or do some untangling,
whatever the case may be. Specifics keep the wild finger-pointing to a minimum
and they make it possible for a conversation to recover, or so I would hope.
Matt said:
...The social situation you sketched out in your reply is too simple (primarily
from the clause "it's not accusations of evasion that causes mistrust"): it
seems to imply that each person is their own judge and executioner. You see a
crime, you execute punishment. But that is not the social situation I see as
actually working, and I want to sketch something closer to our actual legal
situation, which between cop-judger/accuser and execution of sentence, there
intervenes lawyers, judges, juries, and courtrooms. The analogy is far from
perfect, and that because real life maintenance of the social sphere
represented by the courtroom in the analogy is _far_ more complex.
dmb says:
Well, yes, we all have to make judgement calls about when it's appropriate to
complain or accuse but that's the extent of it. Other than making that call,
there is no way to execute any punishment. We're all equally armed with a
keyboard and that's it. For anyone who thinks they are being dealt with
dishonestly or unfairly, complaining about it is pretty much the only recourse
available or possible. I wish there was such a thing as a philosophy cop and a
penalty box for the MD. Until there is, the mighty keyboard is one's only
defense.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
