All Episodes
Previous Next
May 13, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:40
757 Board Attacks Part 3: Principles

The deep roots of conflict - and a way out!

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody. Hope you're doing well.
It's Steph. 13th of May.
I actually got the month right today.
And thank you so much for the people who are posting about the recent altercation on the board.
If such altercation on the board is not at all to your taste or liking or has no interest for you, you may want to skip this one.
But I think that a number of interesting criticisms of me or of the approach that I took came up, and I sort of wanted to chat about those.
You know, from a standpoint of paranoid self-justification.
No, I think that, of course, when we have disagreements, and there will always be disagreements in human life, human nature, when we have disagreements, We can always appeal to first principles.
We can always appeal to rationality to resolve them.
And I think that's what we kind of need to do here because otherwise, of course, it just becomes opinions which aren't particularly helpful to anyone.
So there's a gentleman who is posting some excellent, excellent criticisms and questions on the board about the recent decision that I made to ban a user.
And he said, here, and I'll use the same sort of Fred name, and the reason that I did is I didn't get permission from the person to use his real name.
That's the only reason that I'm doing it this way.
But he said, this gentleman wrote, from my perspective, Fred's use of aggression and intimidation via text on a forum was verbally abusive, but not a coercive abuse of power, which I would agree with, of course.
Verbal abuse in a forum is wrong, but it is dissimilar to an actual use of power.
In this sense, flaming and trawling are caricatures of real abuse.
What can these attempts at violence actually do except distract from the flow of more useful words?
We can choose how we react to text abuse rather more easily than we can choose to react to screaming or to physical abuse.
There's some question about that, and I don't want to get heavy into the literature here, but...
I think I think I'm going to go.
Of the studies than physical abuse.
So I don't know that we can choose to react to verbal abuse as easily.
An attempt to wield intimidation through text may be effective, but it is not as necessarily so as physical intimidation or actually yelling and screaming or irrational demands in person.
Again, and particularly the more sophisticated the verbal abuser, the more damage it does to the person.
I mean, the more sophisticated the verbal abuser, the more damage it does to the person, the more it undermines self-esteem in a way that, like, if you show your hand too much, if you're an abuser, they scream and yell at someone, then that's, I mean, that's not really how it works.
And that stuff, of course, is only an effect of the verbal abuse, right?
So if you are somebody who beats his wife, you don't beat her up on the first date, right?
I mean, you're very charming and positive, and then you slowly undermine her self-esteem through verbal abuse to the point where she feels or thinks so little of herself that the physical abuse can follow.
So I don't see verbal abuse as being distinct from physical abuse.
I see it as being part of a continuum.
So he says, as such, this is not an excuse for bad behavior.
An attempt to wield abusive words to control others is abuse.
As far as I'm aware, all parties agree on this, and So he had some questions or criticisms about what he considered my exercise of power, insofar as I had the capacity to ban Fred, but Fred did not have the capacity to ban me, so that there was an inequality of power which he felt was close to statism or not egalitarian for sure.
And so I said, as far as the exercise of power goes, it's precisely the egalitarianism of equals that I'm striving to preserve.
And I said I don't think you've mentioned anything about the degree to which Fred was trying to exercise power over others through aggression and intimidation.
He replied, I will get to Fred in more detail, but what I see here is that you, Steph, are actually able to use power to control others on the boards, whereas Fred's efforts at intimidation and other abuse are inherently futile.
Do you see this aspect? The power rests with a single person, you.
We have our own volitional power, but coercive or aggressive power rests with you.
I cannot see how this is irrelevant to the goal you state immediately before.
As far as the exercise of power goes, it is precisely the egalitarianism of equals that I am striving to preserve.
Hence, I'm more than willing, he says, to continue this aspect of the debate regarding the FDR forums as a sort of metaphorical or actual community.
And there was some question, and this is because this guy is new to the boards, there's some question about whether or not Fred knew the rules, right, knew the rules for the boards.
And I said, as far as the rules go, I don't think that there's any need for them in our community.
When you have a dinner party, you don't hand out rules at the beginning, right?
You don't have contracts with friends.
Some behavior is just not tolerated and should not be after...
750-odd podcasts on ethics and a year on the board, and seeing the few times I've had to ban people in the past, Fred knew exactly what would happen if he initiated verbal abuse, refused to apologize, and continued to act aggressively.
Yes, and though simple, I'm glad, he replies, I'm glad you and others are persisting in making this point regarding the rules.
If anything, it is the guest's responsibility to find the rules if they are not clear.
After all, they don't have rights and power in your house regarding rulemaking and enforcing.
They only have the right to act unethically regardless of the rules if they so choose, i.e. there is a rule that says at 8 p.m. beat the weakest-looking person in the room with a bat.
They can and should refuse.
So this, I mean, it's a very sort of interesting question and issue that this gentleman is coming up with, And it is obviously not particularly important relative to the boards and one person out of the, you know, tens of thousands of listeners and so on.
It's not particularly important relative to that, so I don't want people to think that I'm sort of picking apart one action that I took with regards to my server, but I think it is very, very interesting with regards to that sort of basic ethical question.
Now, this is just an elaboration of principles, and this is nothing to do other than at a very sort of minor and tangential level with the actions or behaviors of people on the board over the last week or two.
But for me, the most fundamental moral crime, the moral crime which enables all other moral crimes, is hypocrisy, which is an offshoot, of course, of irrationality.
Now, irrationality is having contradictory rules, not for everything, but only for some things.
Otherwise, it's just insanity.
And it's like if I say it is right for me to do X this morning, but it is evil for me to do X tomorrow, and it's right for you to do it, and then it's wrong for you to do it, then obviously I'm just sort of morally insane.
I don't really have any particularly rational approach to anything.
But if I say it is morally good for me to do X because it is objective and right and universal, and then I say it is morally wrong for you to do X, then I'm clearly contradicting myself for my own advantage, right?
And that's a kind of hypocrisy that is at the root, I think, of a great deal of moral evils.
And I mean, to take the most exaggerated examples, again, nothing to do with this stuff.
If we look at something like the principle of taxation or the declaration of war or whatever it is, then we have people in government who say it is moral for me to tax because the power of taxation is morally good and universal and right and blah, blah, blah.
But then if you say, great, well then I have the power to tax you back, right?
So if you tax me for, I don't know, what, $50,000, and because you have the power to take money from me and that power is universal and right and good, then clearly I have that power.
So the moment you say I'm going to tax you $50,000, I say, well I'm going to tax you $50,000 right back, so there's not really any point writing a check.
Then clearly that's not a moral rule that ever could be implemented, really.
Somebody saying everybody has the right to take money from everybody else would result in either mad chaos of everyone grabbing stuff from everyone else or a simple nullification of the moral rule in that whatever you said you had the right to take from me, I would simply say that I had the right to take from you back and it would be an ineffective or not acted upon moral rule.
Similarly, of course, and in a much more dire manner, if I said that I have the right to tax you to raise an army or I have the right to declare war and then force people to pay for that war, if everyone had that right, then clearly it would be what is generally considered to be anarchy in the worst conceivable sense, right? In sort of the most stereotypical sense of a war of all against all without respite or anything like that.
So, from that standpoint, I think that this moral hypocrisy aspect of things to me is a pretty dire thing.
It's a pretty dire thing. And it's not that people contradict me.
I mean, I don't care if people...
I mean, great, you know? It's not like, God, what am I, some sort of rule of reality?
I have no problem if people contradict me.
I mean, that's great.
That's great.
I mean, but if they contradict themselves perpetually to their self-advantage, if they act in a hypocritical manner with regard to their own rules, then that to me is abusive.
And that's exactly what I'm fighting in the realm of the state, is this kind of one rule for me, the opposite rule for you, but I'm going to call the rule, both rules universal.
And again, this is, I mean, Neil, the...
The gentleman in question.
Fred is not a state and he's not an evil guy or anything like that.
I'm just sort of talking about the basic principles that we work with in this realm.
And this kind of double standard is a really, really fundamental root of that which enslaves the world.
And it's something that I think is really, really important to keep examining and to keep combing over and to figure out where, as we all do, we have this in our own lives and where...
We can have it where other people are using it.
If people wield the power of morality in a sort of unjust and contradictory manner, then that is really dastardly in many ways.
And so when we have a situation that occurs on the board...
Where somebody has one standard for other people and another standard for themselves, then they clearly recognize the power of standards, right?
Because they're using them, right?
I mean, they're using the power of standards and morality, right?
I mean, Fred didn't say to Greg that I think that you are a bad guy because you smell funny and I don't like it.
I mean, that wasn't what happened, right?
What happened was there was a situation where Fred said, you know, objectively, universally, and morally, you are wrong, or incorrect, or immoral, or negative, or whatever.
I think negative was the term.
And all of this was based on what was considered to be an objective evaluation of the facts with reference to rational, objective principles, and so on.
And that, to me, it seems, is where the hypocrisy comes in.
And of course, I'm certainly willing to hear arguments of the contrary, but I might as well mention the ones that I think are relevant.
So to take an example that I think would be helpful to look at, if I come up to you and I say, you are a purely negative person.
You are a purely negative person.
And therefore I can tell you to F off, to go F yourself or whatever.
Then what I'm doing is I'm saying that relative to an objective standard of values, you are negative.
And that it is bad to be negative.
Objectively bad. It's not just my opinion.
You are. When you say to someone, you are, you're saying it's not an opinion.
If I say, I think you're tall...
Because I'm 4'2 and you're 4'6 or whatever.
If I think you're tall, I'm just saying I think you're tall.
It's not a statement of fact, it's a statement of opinion.
If I say you are tall, then it's a statement of fact.
Objective fact. And that is the big difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact.
And this is the level of detail I think that's important to look at in terms of conflict.
Conflicts don't occur accidentally.
They don't come out of nowhere.
And it's important to look at the steps that work towards the escalation of conflict so that we can prevent rather than cure.
I think we'd all be happier if we could prevent this kind of stuff rather than cure it.
So we have to look at the statements of fact that are put forward.
So if I say to you, you are negative, you are purely negative, or just let's say you are negative, right?
And then this gives me the right to tell you to F off or whatever.
Then, naturally, what I'm saying is that there's an objective standard by which I'm determining you to be negative, which then gives me the right to verbally attack you.
And this is a statement of fact.
It is not a statement of opinion.
It's a statement of fact relative to objective reality, relative to objective values.
It's not a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact.
As soon as you make a statement of fact, you gain all the credibility of having invoked the scientific method.
Reality. And so, you know, if I say to you, you are tall, then...
The question then becomes, what do you mean by tall?
And if by tall you mean you're over two foot over the average, so the average is 5'10", so you're six foot or taller, then you're tall, right?
That's a statement of...
That is a statement of facts with an objective definition.
And if you say to me...
If I say to you, you are tall, and you say to me, well, what does that mean?
And I say, well, anyone who's taller than four foot...
I mean, it's still got an objective measure, but it's just relative to an opinion.
It's not relative to anything more substantial than that.
Or you could say, taller is just taller than me, or taller is taller than an atom, or whatever it is.
But it's a definition that doesn't really have as much of the generally accepted standard.
Or, if you say, well, it's just my opinion that you're tall.
And you say, well, what is the definition of your opinion?
What is your opinion based on?
What is the objective definition of tall?
And you say, well, there's none.
It's a word I use. I actually mean red, or something like that.
It's just a word that I use. Then I think clearly we're looking at a situation where there's not a whole lot of rational and objective processing that's going on.
But as soon as you make a knowledge claim about reality, a statement claim with regards to empirical reality, you're taking a pretty significant step.
Right? You're saying, it's not my opinion.
It's a fact. Not just a good idea.
It's reality. It is the law.
Right. Sorry for the repetition.
I think we get the hang of that. So, then, if I say to you, you are negative, and F you, then you have every right, of course, to say, well, what is your definition of negative?
What is your definition of negative?
And when you get sort of right down to it, what seems to be occurring in this situation, I'm certainly willing to be corrected on this, but this is based on sort of my reading of the posts, is that it's a persistent disagreement with someone.
Persistent disagreement with someone.
And that is, to me, a very difficult thing to hang your objective moral value on.
It's a very difficult principle to hang your objective moral condemnation or criticism on.
Because if I say to you, like if we've been talking for a couple of months and you keep disagreeing with me, and I'm calling you negative, well, it's really tough for me to hang that on an objective moral hook, right?
Where I get to be right and you get to be wrong.
Because it's a mirror.
It's a reversal, right? If you're just saying that it's disagreement with an individual, right, if I call you negative because you keep disagreeing with me, and we've been involved in debates for several months, and you keep disagreeing with me, well, naturally, the basic logic of this is that it's not true, what I'm saying. It's not true.
It can't be. Because if the simple definition of negativity is disagreeing with someone for a long period of time repetitively, and I call you negative because you've been disagreeing with me repetitively over a long period of time, then I have also been disagreeing with you repetitively over a long period of time.
I disagree with you disagreeing with me.
Do you see how this can't be universally preferable behavior?
It can't be. I can't attack you merely for disagreement, no matter how long the time frame.
The longer the time frame, in other words, the more I sort of believe that there's a pattern of negativity in your behavior, then the more I have also displayed that behavior of disagreeing with you for a long period of time.
So, how is it that I am able to call you negative when we both have been displaying the same behavior?
It's not possible. It's not logically possible.
So then I have to say, like in order to rescue that, right, if I still want to call you negative, then I have to say that you have not been disagreeing with me, but disagreeing with reality for a long period of time.
That you haven't been disagreeing with my opinion of what is tall, but with what is tall, with the actual objective definition of tallness or whatever.
So I have to say that you have been negative towards reality rather than towards me.
That you have been ignoring or rejecting reality rather than me.
In which case, there's a couple of consequences that would occur logically.
I mean, if this was really the position that was being put forward.
If I was putting forward this, you are negative because...
You disagree with reality.
It can't be because you disagree with me, because we both disagree with each other and have for some time.
Therefore, anything that I label you based on mere interpersonal disagreement also sticks on me.
Anything I say that's true, what's it?
Sticks like rubber, comes back like glue.
I can't remember. It bounces like rubber, sticks like glue on you.
Some damn thing. I can't remember how this goes.
But of course, it is the basis of my arguments.
I probably should look it up. But if I say that you don't disagree with me, you disagree with reality.
Then a couple of consequences logically follow.
One, it's impossible for me to take it personally.
Because you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with reality.
And there's no reason for me to take that personally.
If I'm a mathematician and I'm involved in a debate with somebody and that person keeps saying 2 plus 2 is 5, they're not contradicting me, they're contradicting reality.
And then I get to say, you are irrational in an objective sense.
You are irrational in an objective sense.
I can't say you're negative, unless it's just disagreeing with someone persistently, in which case it's a mutual definition.
You can't label somebody else you've been disagreeing with for months as negative without that label also affecting yourself.
If by negative what is meant is disagreement with another for a long period of time.
It's a mutual definition.
You can't throw that on someone else without it sticking on you.
But if I say, no, no, no, it's not that you disagree with me, it's that you disagree with reality, then logically it's not possible to then say that I'm now angry.
I'm now taking it personally, I'm now angry.
Because when you get angry, you're saying, you are disagreeing with me.
You are attacking me. You are undermining me.
In which case, it's just personal, right?
It's not relative to any objective values.
But then you can say, I feel angry that you keep disagreeing with me.
Well, that's fine. I mean, it's a statement of fact.
But you can't say you're negative.
Or you can't take some objective moral rule and apply it to that person who's disagreeing with you.
Because you both disagree with each other.
So if you get angry, clearly it's a personal issue, in which case you can't invoke universally preferable behavior.
So from that standpoint, this is sort of another reason why I have a certain amount of skepticism with regards to this, this sort of behavior.
here.
And why I think that it is an amalgam where somebody is trying to assault somebody else's sense of reality by pulling objective values in a hypocritical manner, by wielding objective values in a hypocritical manner that attacks the other person or undermines the other person, while logically it occurs in the same way to both parties, if that sort of makes any sense.
Now... If the rule that is put forward is anybody who disagrees with reality is sort of quote negative rather than just incorrect and negative of course has a really personal slant to it but let's put that by the by for the moment and say well if anybody disagrees with reality then clearly what is required is for you to point out the disagreement with reality.
Sorry, if I'm saying 2 plus 2 is 5, it's incumbent upon you to tell me that 2 plus 2 is not 5.
And the reason that we know 2 plus 2 is not 5 is, you know, you pull out 5 oranges, you ask me to count them, or whatever, right?
And of course, if I completely reject that, then I'm not offending you.
I mean, I'm sort of offending reality, which can't be offended.
It's inanimate, right? It's inert.
I can't offend a rock.
So... If I'm simply making a mistake with regards to reality, then personal offense is irrational and must come from some other source.
You can't ego-identify with reality, then be offended by people who reject reality, because it's not you they're rejecting, it's reality.
So, if I get angry, it must be because there's something other than an impersonal rejection of reality that's occurring, in which case I'm getting angry because I feel like you're rejecting me.
But then in calling you negative for rejecting me, I'm rejecting you.
So if rejection of the other is the crime, then by calling you pure negative energy or whatever, and also by swearing at you, I'm rejecting you.
So then you can't say that it's personal rejection.
That is the moral crime.
Now, if it is rejection of reality that is going on, Then the word to use is not negative, but erroneous.
Incorrect. Wrong. Wrong.
That's the rational word to use when somebody is making an error with regards to reality.
You're incorrect, you're illogical, you're irrational.
Not, you're negative. Negative is a personal interpretation.
It's a story. Now...
If someone is making an error with respect to reality, then you legitimately have the right to say that they are objectively wrong.
But then the way to correct them is not to attack them, but to point out the facts.
but to point out the facts.
To point out the facts.
And this is, of course, why in this recent altercation on the board, I kept asking, is Greg telling the truth or not?
Are Greg's statements accurate or not?
True, false, true, false.
Which is really a very, very central question.
Really, really, really a very, very, very central question.
Now, all of this, of course, becomes even more exciting and complicated and messy...
When you get involved in a long-term relationship, right?
See, one of the things that occurs with longer-term relationships, and this is true of friendships, marriages, and so on, is that...
Sorry, you know the definition. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
Is that people claim an escalation.
People claim an escalation.
I've had it. No more.
Enough is enough, right? I've put up with this for months and now blah, blah, blah.
I've put up with this for months, and now, blah, blah, blah.
Now, this is trippy, so I hope that this makes sense.
The longer that you're involved in a relationship with someone, the longer that you're involved in a relationship with someone, the less right you have to criticize them independently of your own actions.
The longer you are involved in a relationship with someone of any kind, I am, who cares, right?
The less right you have to criticize them independently Without throwing yourself in the blender, right?
The less right you have to shoot them without the old red badge of courage spreading across your own chest.
And why? Well, because whatever you criticize them for, you have participated in.
So let's say that I say, you know, I try to explain philosophy for you for months, and you keep rejecting me, and you keep changing your story, and you keep...
Making up more irrational things and you keep doing all of these things which I consider to be highly inflammatory and highly frustrating and this and that and the other.
Well, this is complex and I hope that this makes sense.
At least I hope that I can make it make some kind of sense or put it forward as something that will be worth thinking about.
If... I say to you, I have now tried patiently for months to teach you or tell you X, Y, and Z. And you have persistently rejected and refused and scorned and mocked and been negative and I just can't teach you anything and enough is enough and you're a jerk and I go into this tirade,
right? Well...
Let me see if I can lay this one on you in a way that makes sense.
Probably you've gotten it already, but you know, I like the drama.
I'm a frustrated actor, what can I say?
If I blow up at you because you refuse to be rational and to accept reality, which is the club that I'm going to use...
If I blow up at you after months, or years, or whatever, because I say, you are irrational and don't respect and recognize reality.
Do you get how I can't do that logically?
Do you get how logically I just can't do that?
I just can't. I mean, I can say that I can, and I can do it, but I can't do it with any justification at all.
At all! Not even a shred.
Other human beings are part of reality.
They're the key part of reality.
It's also interdependent, right?
Other human beings are part of reality.
How can I conceivably and logically say to you, you don't respect and accept reality?
And I've been working with you for months to try to get you to respect reality.
To be logical, to be rational, to understand the obvious.
You are part of the reality that I'm saying should be rationally accepted and empirically understood and logically processed.
Do you see what goes on here?
I can't attack you for not processing reality.
Because if it's true that you simply refuse to process reality, that is a reality that I have not processed.
Let's say that the very worst case, most justified attack on someone is actually valid.
Let's say that. Why not?
Why not? Let's go for it. Let's accept, as we do a number of different ways in this conversation, let's accept every single negative premise that is put forward.
You've been debating with me for six months and I consistently reject reality, scorn you, I'm negative and hostile and put everything down that you believe and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And I attack and you attack me because I reject reality and I'm irrational.
But you're rejecting reality by debating with me for months.
If I have consistently rejected reality, and this causes you to lose your top because I'll blow your top and get aggressive or abusive towards me,
Because you think that I should process reality and I should respect and expect reality and deal with it in a logical manner and deal with you in a logical manner and blah blah blah, but I've consistently refused to do it for months, then you can't attack me for not processing reality.
Because you're not processing the reality, then I'm not processing reality.
You are not processing logically the fact that I am not logical.
After the first few interactions with someone, nobody comes out ahead.
If you continue to engage, nobody gets to win.
Nobody comes out ahead.
You can't be engaged and involved with someone for months or years and then turn on them.
Because anything you attack them for, you are doing.
Anything. Everything.
I consistently reject reality.
And you continue to debate with them for months.
You are consistently rejecting reality.
You can't attack me for rejecting reality.
If you reject the reality that I reject reality, how can you attack me for rejecting reality?
We're both doing the same thing.
This is why abuse is always wrong and always hypocritical.
I'm not talking self-defense.
I'm not talking assertiveness.
I'm not talking about anything like that.
Abuse is always wrong because it's always irrational.
Always, always, always irrational and hypocritical.
You cannot criticize someone for rejecting reality if you've been debating with them for months or you've been interacting with them for months.
You can't. You can't.
I didn't debate with Bob.
Sorry, I didn't debate with Fred.
I didn't. Why? Nothing to debate.
I mean, I didn't debate with him for the months that led up to this.
I didn't look at the videos he sent me.
I didn't answer his emails.
Why? I got it.
I got it that this is who he is and that this is what he's capable of, so what have I got to say?
Nothing. But do you see why abuse is always hypocritical, is always wrong, and is never universally preferable behavior?
If you've gotten involved with someone to the point where you're enraged at them for immaturity, for negativity, for irrationality, for scorn, for whatever it is, well, you've enabled it by getting involved and you have done exactly what you criticize.
You can never abuse anybody without being a hypocrite.
During the prostitution debate, someone IM'd me and said, Steph, you're a total effing asshole.
There's no debate. Just block that person.
End the conversation and block the person.
I don't give it another thought, really.
There's no debate there. If I get involved with this person, what is it that I could conceivably criticize them for?
I mean, I'm enabling the behavior.
I'm getting involved in the behavior.
I'm reciprocating the relationship.
I'm giving it positive feedback in terms of my interaction.
You can't then turn on that person without being a complete hypocrite.
And that's, I think, the key that I'm sort of trying to get across.
And with, you know, varying degrees of success in someone, this is the key that I'm trying to get across.
That this kind of interaction is always wrong.
Is always wrong. Always hypocritical.
And that the moment you spend months interacting with someone, you can never in a million years abuse them independently of yourself.
You can only do it by appealing to objective values, which of course are going to damn you far more than anybody else.
And people like to use the objective values, of course.
But by using the objective values, they're recognizing that objective values are important and powerful, And they refuse to put themselves.
And where does somebody go from there? Nobody can go anywhere from there.
And that's why I did what I did.
I sort of recognize all of this.
I'm not a newbie here.
Right? I'm not a newbie here.
▲
Export Selection