You miserable vomitous mass. Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but you’re abusing the privilege. I can’t believe you came to this page, you web surfing, right-clicking great pillock of a poster! I wave my private parts at your aunties. Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you. Repeatedly.
On the subject of freedom of speech, what’s the difference between saying someone is:
- Entering a battle of wits half-prepared, or
- Calling them Stupid?
The opening barrage, care of Monty Python and InsultFinder.com, is of course, a silly attention grabber. But it raises a point. Most of us would agree that it’s irresponsible to yell Fire! in a crowded theatre just because you feel like it. It’s the kind of thing someone might do to get attention. And there are laws against that kind of thing.
When social Websites put limits on the tone of public discussions, is that an infringement of Freedom of Speech? Or is keeping the discussion focused on the topic and not the tone keeping the discussion on track? Are those who use insults attempting to distract from the real issue as a tactic to discredit the other side? Or are they responding in kind to perceived insults previously received?
In an abstract written for “An Introduction to the Social Psychology of Insults in Organizations,” Yiannis Gabriel writes that types of insults can include
“..exclusion, stereotyping, obliteration of significant identity details, ingratitude, scapegoating, rudeness, broken promises, being ignored…defamation of idealized objects, persons, or ideas. Different insult dynamics…include an apology, a commensurate retaliation, a disproportionate retaliation and possible escalation. They…enable audiences to take sides, thus influencing and testing the operation of coalitions and alliances.”
All of these behaviors were demonstrated at the NyackSocialScene Website/listserv over the past two months. Which ultimately caused the moderator to restrict the conversations. Which in turn created accusations about impinged freedom of speech.
Here are a few examples which are deliberately taken out of context:
- [She is] Either deliberately, or just too dumb, she pretended that she didn’t understand my explanation.
- [They] are unscrupulous and that their proposal is ridiculous. Let’s put the brakes on this scam…
- [They are] under the assumption that we are all stupid.
- SCREW THE RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS!!!!!
- ………Blah blah blah Parking Garage, blah blah blah Parking Garage blah blah…After all, if you don’t like the facts, no problem, just make up your own.
- The building will be empty. You’ll be broke, but you’ll be ARTSY!!! Now that’s status!! Remember, folks, billionaires lining their pockets with millions of YOUR MONEY!!
- Perhaps he should start by being a good neighbor and tearing down the decrepit, ramshackle, eyesore he owns…instead of property that belongs to the rest of us.
- Bend over. Here it comes again.
Pulling items out of context is patently unfair to the authors. But it’s not unrealistic either; these messages are read — and responded to — without an understanding of the history. A history which may go back to five previous posts — or fifty years before there was an Internet. Before clicking POST authors should read what they have to say and then imagine that those words were being directed at them. If that exercise creates an uncomfortable emotion, perhaps there’s another way to say it which leverages more facts than feelings.
Riverspace Downtown is a serious project, backed by local businesses, politicians and the arts community with great potential. It also has some well-respected skeptics who question the economics based on their lifelong association with Nyack. The facts on both sides deserve to be heard in a civil discourse free of insults and irrelevant facts.
And if you can’t see fit to agree with me, you are nothing more than a snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings.
michaelwebber says:
When people deliberately misrepresent their affiliation or support, even if by convenient omission of their true relationship, to any project, organization (or real estate development), which they stand to directly benefit from at the potential expense of others, “civility” is not what they deserve. What they deserve is to be out-ed. While name calling is, of course, just puerile and silly, asking for clarification of someone’s role or stating public, however little known, facts, is not “personally attacking” someone, as many of the members of Nyack Social Scene who cried foul complained. Rather, it’s leveling the playing field. Furthermore, it is a call for those individuals in question to be accountable for their actions and to be honest with the public they claim they are trying to serve. If you’re going to present yourself as a public figure, you should answer to the public if your behavior appears less than above board. When the “Nyack Attorney” who’s telling the community Riverspace is wonderful isn’t telling them he works for parties involved in the deal, that’s a conflict of interest. When a member of Riverspace’s marketing committee poses as a regular Joe from Main Street and sings the praises of the Riverspace plan without actually mentioning that he’s on the Riverspace marketing committee, that’s a problem. When Riverspace board members misrepresent funding they’ve received, it should raise eyebrows. When property owners and people who own businesses on Main Street only mention that they think Riverspace is swell, but not that they’re saying so from the perspective of business owners who stand to profit from the development, that’s an issue. No one likes to get caught at dirty dealings. After all, dirty dealings are so unseemly. So, dare I say, lacking in civility. These people have destroyed their credibility all on their own. Certain folks who care about Nyack merely shined a spotlight on the deception. The message to these particular Riverspace-pushers shouldn’t be a civil, “here’s an olive branch and a kiss on the cheek for falling just short of outright lying to us”. The message should be, “Keep your dirty dealings out of our village. “
- Mr. Michael Webber
July 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
JC Brotherhood says:
Jane you ignorant slut:
If your mother had moved your dinner plate twelve inches left or right you’d most likely have starved in infancy.
Being the author of some of the most egregious examples of the insults on NSS I will point out that a gentleman never insults anyone by accident. In this, I consider myself a perfect gentleman. We seem to have lost our appreciation for the well considered insult, especially when it is aimed at someone else.
What amazes me is how some, who will publish an insulting address or posting are then somehow surprised when they receive a scathing reply in response; “My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose” right? So get over it already bee-yatch!
One thing your article fails to address is the concept of free speech and “the public square”. Our First Amendment does not in fact exist outside of what can be defined as the public square. James Howard Kunstler makes this point in his books on exurban sprawl Private property trumps free speech every time. The example he uses is of the couple who were escorted from the Pyramid Mall outside Albany for wearing tee shirts reading “Give Peace a Chance” immediately after 9/11. They sued under their First Amendment rights and lost.
Ever wonder why the President always gives his speeches on private campuses, aircraft carriers or military bases? So someone can’t spray paint; NOT! on his Mission Accomplished banner.
Kunstler goes on to point to the ongoing trend to privatize our societies formerly public spaces has actually eroded our rights under the First Amendment. Dissenting points of view are now circumscribed to designated “Free Speech Zones” and candidates and incumbents alike choose to appear in well secured areas in order to marginalize opposing viewpoints.
Johnny Silver is right to restrict his Social Scene website to what he designed it to be. “a sort of Craig’s list for Nyack” including Social discussions and announcements. As much fun as it was at times it’s his house, his rules. In all fairness some of the bloviating took up an awful lot of bandwidth.
Having said that I will make the observation that we all have a tendency to be hard wired to believe what we want to believe (whether it has any basis in reality whatsoever) and these days we tend to only engage with those in our conversations who we already agree with. To me this is sadly counterproductive. The best example of this is the apparently successful propagation of the great Parking Myth of Nyack. “It must be true, we all say so” the Orwellian chant which ultimately lead to the triumph of fear and superstition over science and technology has even those who should have better powers of discernment making statements totally unsupported by the facts. But I digress.
My biggest problem with the “Riverspace” group is their position “you’re either with us or you’re against us”. Hey it worked for GW Bush, why not in Nyack? Evidence the lack of discussion in this forum of the excellent points made in Jan Dagenshiens early and insightful posting. Most dissenting positions are simply dismissed or ignored in support of the projected image of “overwhelming support” for the project regardless of any reality checks. It’s simply a process of marginalization by non engagement, cynical at best it’s the debating equivalent of sticking ones fingers in ones ears and shouting “nyah nyah nyah” or in this case “rah rah rah” ; Instead of understanding that some of us may be presenting opinions with the intent to prevent the arguably well intentioned from making the same mistakes that have historically plagued Nyack in the past.
Classified as untouchables best not engaged on any level by the cheerleaders in Nyack we proceed to simply shout down anyone who would propose to question the projects basic assumptions.
That’s too bad because while I personally would like to see almost anything replace “Fugly Square” in Nyack I’d prefer it to be something that both recognizes the essential scale of the Village and its financial base and has at least a slightly better chance than a snowball in hell of succeeding.
But hey, nobody asked me.
Sincerely yours
English PigDog
July 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Andrew Dark says:
Dear whomever,
As I write about your unsigned commentary ‘Is Freedom Of Speech…Freedom From Civility?’ published July the 4th in NyackNewsAndViews. George Carlin’s seven little words come to mind. I personally found your interpretation of the postings on the Nyack Social scene far too trivial and bloated by the internet habit of pasting quotes to cover up a lack of serious argument. Firstly, let’s step over your self confessed smelly attention grabber pilfered from Monty Python and InsultFinder.com. Also let’s pass quickly by the obviously not relevant ‘Shouting fire in a crowded theatre’ and ‘Hate speech’ mentions. Since, you can’t set fire to the internet from your home computer (yet) and no hate speech was used in the postings.
So, now we arrive at your actual question for discussion. ‘When social Websites put limits on the tone of public discussions, is that an infringement of Freedom of Speech?’ I got your premise and read on to find your comments on this thought provoking subject and then…had to plow through more slathered in ideas by an expert in the field. And whom is this interpreter of internet ethics? He is none other than…Professor Yiannis Gabriel, a Professor of Organizational Theory who holds his position at the School of Management, University of Bath, England. And what do they do? Well, they are according to themselves are one of the top UK Business Schools!
Now, of course there must have been some good solid evidence that this ground breaking paper was based on right? I mean…you don’t just arrive at these ideas by reading reports written by university undergraduates in their early 20’s about significant moments they experienced during a six-month industrial internship do you? Oh, you do…and how many of these folks were in the survey? A whopping 374 were gathered between 1990-1995 and they were analyzed by a computer running a database package called Cardbox-Plus. Hum? Anyway forget the facts…what were some of the findings of this extraordinary look at the human psyche in young people starting out in their first real taste of the work place? Drum roll please!!!! ‘That, insults hurt and sometimes stay with a person for life.’ Slap! (The sound of my hand hitting my forehead) Wow, who would have thought that? Thanks Yiannis I always wondered why I felt so low.
But I’ve digressed where were we? Oh, yes…you had goggled the subject and pasted in this gent because you were talking about the harmful affects of rudeness in internet conversation and how a moderator can be forced to close down discussion that he feels is beyond the scope of the listings original premise.
FYI…I wrote my posting to the social scene (which you spring boarded off) because I felt that people had e-bombed Mr. Silver into speaking up just to get them off his back. This to me smacked of the same tactics that right wing christens have used to silence speech which they did not like. A minority keep complaining loudly and force their opinion on the majority. Now, even if Mr. Silver himself had taken the step to do this on his own. It does not change the fact that the Social scene has lost so much of it’s flavor and texture from when the hand slapping occurred. I find that a great shame for surely ideas and opinion are also part of it’s social fabric? My posting was an attempt to re-ignite the debate amongst the social scene about the state of it’s own union (not just Riverspace) and invite others to do so too. Low and behold a few folks have begun to write in with their various points and I am very happy to see the differing opinions coming in. For Democracy is not built on quiet discourse, those who believe that the framing father’s were a quiet bunch, politely waiting their turn to speak and minding their invectives is surely smoking hemp or if not, should be!
Lastly, to your tactic of taking people’s quotes out of context so that you can justify your own ‘political correctness’, reminds me of that watery logic used by Salem judges and their ducking stools. At least the people who wrote the quotes were speaking from the heart and not merely using passive-aggressive techniques to seem better than others and once more separate us into good Americans and bad.
PS: Why did you make Riverspace such a feature in the rounding up of your discussion about freedom of speech? Do you a little agenda of your own?
‘We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.’ ~Voltaire, 1764
Respectfully Andrew Dark…
July 7th, 2008 at 2:38 pm