Standing by words

"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking."
-- John Maynard Keynes

"Giles, no one's using 'I' statements!"
-- Willow Rosenberg

Bring up the subject of civility and you will inevitably wind up in a sideshow having little to do with the subject.

Civility does not mean never having to say you're sorry. It does not mean baby-proofing all conversation to ensure its inoffensiveness for the most delicate of sensibilities. Nor does it mean couching all claims as tepid statements of personal preference that cannot be refuted, or defended, or cared about one way or the other by much of anyone since they don't actually claim to say anything about the actual world.

Rudeness is, of course, rude. As such, it can distract from and therefore undermine whatever point you're trying to make. Impoliteness can be impolitic. But sometimes it is called for -- sometimes it is just the thing to jar your listeners into considering that which they were previously unable to consider. And sometimes it is funny (and therefore beautiful, and therefore true and good). All of which could be a fascinating subject for discussion, polite or impolite, but none of which is what civility is really all about.

Civility has to do with citizenship, which is to say it has to do with responsibility. To speak as civilized people, as citizens, requires that we be responsible -- to one another and to the truth (and the good, and the beautiful). It requires that we be responsible for our words, that we be willing to stand by them.

This is why I'm impatient with the whole "'I' statements" approach. It has its place, I suppose, in family therapy and the like, but it undermines responsibility. It aims to force us to phrase statements in a way that cannot provoke offense, but it winds up also forcing us to phrase statements in a way that makes their content irrelevant.

Thus, in the name of "civility," I've been told that I shouldn't say, "FEMA's response to the flooding of New Orleans was a national disgrace." Instead I should say, "I think FEMA's response ..." or "FEMA's response made me feel ..." And suddenly we're not talking about FEMA anymore, but about me. An objective declaration is reduced to a subjective preference and thus I'm relieved of responsibility for the truth or falsehood of my claim.

This seems to me to be is a cowardly, irresponsible way to talk. It is, in other words, uncivil.

Let me repeat this with a less significant example. "The Ramones rock!" is a statement, albeit an ambiguously defined one, about the world, about our shared reality. "I enjoy the music of The Ramones," is a statement about me. You can agree or disagree with the former, but not the latter, which is irrefutable but also -- as far as the world and our shared reality goes -- irrelevant.

To be civilized -- to live together -- we need to be able to talk about the world we share. We need to be able to talk about art, politics, religion, economics, science and all the other vital components of our civilization and not just about our own feelings. This conversation doesn't always have to be nice, but it has to be honest and it has to be responsible. That is what "civility" means.

I could be wrong, of course -- but that's precisely the point. I have stated something that can be either right or wrong. It can be engaged, evaluated, debated -- and thus, possibly, refuted. That is the nature of civil conversation.

Comments

[Richard Crawford]

I distinctly remember my high school English teacher making exactly the same point. He brought me to task because I used to qualify all of my statements in all of my papers with "I think" or "In my opinion" or "I could be wrong, but..." If you're going to make a point, the teacher said, just make it. His objection, I think, was more about wasting words, though, than about civility and polite discourse.

[Nick Kiddle]

Reminds me of a very long and tedious argument with a semi-troll on a comment thread somewhere. He insisted that you couldn't say "X is better than Y", you had to say "I prefer X to Y". But that didn't work, I told him: Manchester United are better than Scunthorpe United by any measure you care to name, but Scunthorpe are the team I prefer.

[ako]

"I" statements (the structured, artificial kind, not any sentence beginning with "I") are bad for politics. What political action should be and at its best is, is people asking "What is the problem and what are we going to do about it." If the problem isn't that something's wrong, but rather that you feel something's wrong, anything that addresses your feelings is a solution. This may or may not include doing something about the actual problem. When the problem is "I feel the war is wrong," intead of, you know, the actual war, then it doesn't matter if you vote accordingly, attend a protest rally, slap a bumper sticker on your car, or just think your anti-war convictions while sitting at home laughing at The Daily Show. Whatever satisfies your feelings is good enough.

[Jesurgislac]

Fred: et me repeat this with a less significant example. "The Ramones rock!" is a statement, albeit an ambiguously defined one, about the world, about our shared reality. "I enjoy the music of The Ramones," is a statement about me. You can agree or disagree with the former, but not the latter, which is irrefutable but also -- as far as the world and our shared reality goes -- irrelevant.

Yay.

Fred rocks.

Also, I enjoy reading Slacktivist.

;-)

[Seth]

Anyone who still thinks 'I' statements have any meaning should ask themselves what Bush thinks about the job he's doing, the impact his decisions have on other people (esp. the poor, the sick, etc.), and so on. Then ask what most people think (according to polls), academic researchers conclude, etc.

[Bugmaster]

I understand Fred's main point, and I agree -- political correctness is to democracy what rat poison is to rats. However, the word "civility" pretty much means "politeness", as far as common speech is concerned:

ci·vil·i·ty [si-vil-i-tee]
–noun, plural -ties. 1. courtesy; politeness.
2. a polite action or expression: an exchange of civilities.
3. Archaic. civilization; culture; good breeding.

And "politeness" pretty much means, "not being rude", which could, in turn, mean "using 'I' statements a lot" (if the non-'I' statements are considered rude by your opponents).

[ako]

And "politeness" pretty much means, "not being rude", which could, in turn, mean "using 'I' statements a lot" (if the non-'I' statements are considered rude by your opponents).

Only if your opponents are allowed to unilaterally define what's rude. Consideration for others is an important factor in politeness, but it doesn't mean giving people whatever they want. If I statements are unimportant to you, and important to them, then politeness dictates using I statement. If, however, you have important reasons for not restricting yourself to I statements, (such as the ones Fred outlined), and they're merely expressing a preference, you can politely explain why you can't follow their guidelines. If they consider it terribly important that you use I statements, and you find it important that you don't, it's more complicated, and the disagreement's not likely to be immediately settled. Politeness does not, however, require you to concede whatever is asked.

[Tom]

What's the relevance of 信 in the image? Or am I being too slow on the uptake?

[Bugmaster]

@ako:

My point was not that everyone should be polite, but that "politeness" and "civility" are almost synonyms. I think that, "if they consider it terribly important that you use I statements, and you find it important that you don't", then your only options are to accept their judgement (and begin using "I" statements), leave the conversation, or be rude (and keep using objective statements). I don't think that attempting to persuade the other side that you are still being polite, even though you're speaking in a way that offends them, is a viable option. It takes too long, and will most likely fail anyway.

And besides, why should you coddle the weak ? Be rude, if that's what it takes to get your point across. As I see it, being rude is not the same thing as being an asshat. Personal attacks are the tool of asshats. Objective statements, backed up by evidence, that demolish your opponents' most cherished traditions -- that's just run-of-the-mill rudeness.

[Joshua]

Very well said. This reluctance to make objective -- therefore refutable -- claims has been one of the most infuriating things about being a liberal for the past six years. The Democratic party, the mainstream face of liberalism, have almost uniformly taken an "'I' statement" sort of approach to being an opposition party -- if not exactly literally, at least in spirit. Worse still, they've actively repudiated good progressives like Howard Dean who rejected that approach.

The fact is, making "'I' statements" is little better than making no statements at all, especially in the realm of politics. It's too safe to be any use. People don't take you seriously because you're not putting anything on the line. And if you're not putting up and taking risks, why should anyone listen to you?

You're absolutely right, as well, that not owning your ideas is profoundly uncivil. A number of the other liberal bloggers I read, like the folks at Orcinus and Brilliant at Breakfast have been rightly criticising the far right wing for hiding the reality of their racist, eliminationist tendencies behind their coy faux outrage at those darned rabid liberal blog -- er, anonymous commenters -- and their dirty words, shame on them, as well as generally speaking in code and refusing to own up to the real basis for their beliefs. (Ask a Minuteman whether he's trying to keep America white, for instance; it's clearly what they're about, but they'll never admit it.)

It would be better for everybody if people just spoke what they really meant, so we could have a real debate on the issues, rather than debating one watered down stand-in versus another, just because that's "polite".

[Baxil]

I don't want to dispute your larger point that direct statements are useful and necessary. But let me play devil's advocate for a second here.

I believe you're wrong in saying that "I statements" make content irrelevant. Effective debates include a mixture of fact and opinion. Using "I" statements, facts can still be presented forcefully while the conclusions drawn from those facts can be presented respectfully.

Contrast that last paragraph with the one your guideline would construct: "You're wrong ..." Which is more effective in drawing the reader in and getting the *real* point across (the following two sentences)?

An argument filled with nothing but "I" statements is pointless, but an argument without any is abrasive.

[Jim]

Fred, It seems to me...(I'm sorry...I couldn't resist...) OK, to be serious here, there are times, such as when one is discussing things like art or religion, that all you actually have is personal opinion unless, in the case of art you are talking about the physical composition of the work of art. Most of us, and I include myself in that category, simply don't have the requisite knowledge to objectively critique a work of art be it visual, performance, written or whatever. All we can do is give our opinions and feelings about the work. Now, when one wants to talk about things like FEMA, then one can make objective, factual statements and then proceed to discuss the merits of that particular view of reality.

If I say that Bush is one of the worst presidents this country has had the misfortune to have to endure, I am making a statement about how I see reality. Now, I had better have objective facts to back up my statement should it be challenged, otherwise that statement will become merely personal opinion and, thus, more about me than about whether or not Bush is horrible.

Having said and brought up what I consider facts to back up my statements that Bush is a bad president, civil discourse demands that neither I nor the person with whom I am having this dialogue descend into ad hominem attacks or throw up "straw men" to divert the discussion. Civil discourse does not mean one has to end up agreeing; just that one respect one's opponent's right to hold a different view of reality.

[yesteray]

Tom: That image is from the cover of 'Standing by Words' a book by Wendell Berry, that as I recall doesn't have very much to do with this posts.

I don't agree with Fred's pronouncement on I statements. In other words, Fred is wrong.

Whether I say the first or the second, my opinion is the same. Fred is wrong that saying "I think that Fred is wrong" puts the focus on me and off the wrongness of Fred. My saying "Fred is wrong" has exactly the same truth content as, "I don't agree with Fred's pronouncement on I statements," but "I don't agree with Fred's pronouncement on I statements" is much more civil than "Fred is wrong."

Why? Because when I say "Fred is wrong" I overreach. I deny my own error-prone humanity. I lack humility. I proclaim that I am not open to seeing that I have made a mistake. I fail to see myself as fallible and I create a false distinction between Fred and I.

I don't actually think that this distinction makes too much difference in this particular conversation. We are talking, as people who are in general agreement and have mutual respect for one another, and we are inclined to assume goodwill. If something strikes me as wrong or insulting in what you say, I will think again about what you have said before taking umbrage.

You say, "The Ramones rock." That is a statement about the world that we both inhabit. I respond, "The Ramones suck." This is also a statement about the world, but I don't know how we go about having a civil discussion from those premises. Instead of having a civil discourse, we either throw up our hands and go along thinking that the other has poor taste in music, or we describe exactly how poor the others taste in music is. Neither of us learns more about the world and neither of us learns more about the other.

On the other hand if you say, "I enjoy the music of the Ramones," I can respond, "Really? What do you like about it? I thought, 'End of the Century' was interesting." I can do this even if I still think, "The Ramones suck." Saying "I enjoy the music of the Ramones" gives me some purchase on your soul, which interests me, even if the Ramones don't. Maybe I learn something about you, or maybe I learn something about how you see the Ramones that causes me to see the Ramones in a new way. There is room in the conversation for me to tell you the things that I don't like about the Ramones without attacking your taste in music. Either way, our shared understanding of the world is enlarged.

Moving on to more significant matters, when you say, "FEMA's response to the flooding of New Orleans was a national disgrace," I agree with you 100 percent. I don't think that this makes too much more room for conversation, though. What do we talk about now? There's no room for me to even agree with you. "I agree." Nope, I statement. "Right." So what, and there is no difference? "It's not a disgrace. It is a shame/satire/comedy/farce." Now we are in conflict, even though we agree.

The I statement idea is about being in a conversation. I believe that the conversation is more important the whether you or I are right or wrong because if we are in conversation we can both learn and grow and in conversation we are smarter, or become smarter, than either of us alone (or both of us separately.)

I don't see that becoming smarter in conversation is a particularly strong idea in Christian epistemology, at least on the Protestant side. This is more like Aikido which doesn't rely on a historical dialectic. It doesn't matter if the end times ever arrive. You peacefully coexist with your opponent and you engage them. You thank them for engaging with you because they make you stronger.

You occupy your space. You don't back down on your "Ramones rock," and I don't back down on my "Ramones suck,"" but we don't attack with them either. If you attack me with "Ramones rock" I seek to blend with you, not attack you. I use your strength against them and using force makes you vulnerable.

Aikido is a philosophy of peace.

[Bugmaster]

@yesteray:

I personally agree with Paul Graham that the quality of art is objective. But, even if it were not true, there are still statements that can be objectively true or false. For example, Bush either did or did not lie to the American public about his reasons for invading Iraq. The Earth either does, or does not, go around the Sun (*). Humans and apes either did or did not evolve from the same ancestor. Stem cell research either is or is not murder.

These questions are not matters of personal taste; they are statements about the world that can be objectively verified (well, maybe except for that stem cell thing). What's worse, the answers to these questions actually matter a great deal; it is important for us humans to obtain correct answers to these questions (or, at least, to get as close as possible to the correct answer). We simply cannot afford to use wishy-washy aikido on them.

For example, if stem cell research is murder, then it should be banned, immediately, because we'd be murdering hundreds of people every time we obtain a new stem cell culture. If it is not murder, then banning it would set effectively kill a lot of adult people, who could've benefitted from the fruits of this research (check Fred's sidebar for an example). There's no room for aikido here.

The Ramones may rock, or they may suck, but it doesn't really matter much either way. But, most questions in life do matter, and if we refuse to debate them because we're afraid to offend someone, then, as a society, we're doomed to failure.

(*) Oh how I wish I didn't have to use this one as a real example... :-(

[Bugmaster]

...then banning it would set effectively kill a lot of adult people...

Dur, I don't know how that "set" got there. Those pesky Egyptian gods... Anyway, disregard the "set".

[RARodger]

Amen! Sing it, Fred. I get so sick of this some times. At the very least, why can't one be bothered to do the onerous work of testing a statement to determine if it's based in factual reality or is an opinion. I mean, how hard is it to hear "The Ramons rock" and make the connection that it's some guy's opinion?

[A. Kennedy]

You occupy your space. You don't back down on your "Ramones rock," and I don't back down on my "Ramones suck,"" but we don't attack with them either. If you attack me with "Ramones rock" I seek to blend with you, not attack you.

In blending, you enlarge. In facing your antithesis, you transcend. You and I, if we are willing to be open to our enemy, become greater, the more that we live in the fire of our opposition without allowing it to consume us, or be extinguished.

[yesteray]

Bugmaster,

Let's start with some objective facts. If stem cell research is murder, we only murder one human when we obtain a new stem cell culture. Each culture is derived from the cells of a single human embryo, although multiple cultures can come from a single embryo.

Beyond that, I don't know what you are reading into what I wrote. I never said that there wasn't an objective reality, or that objective reality doesn't matter, or that we shouldn't engage in a vigorous debate about those issues. I said explicitly, "The conversation is more important than whether you or I are right or wrong because if we are in conversation we can both learn and grow and in conversation we are smarter, or become smarter, than either of us alone (or both of us separately.)" In case I wasn't clear, smarter is a measure of our knowledge of objective reality.

The point is that I am fairly dubious that you, I, or anyone else has a lock on objective reality by themselves, and I believe that conversation can produce more knowledge of objective reality than we can when we are locked in our entrenched positions. The model for this type of conversation is science.

Science has the advantage of the participants presuming a high level of mutual respect and shared understanding between the participants, which doesn't easily transfer to the stem cell research is murder discussion, so we need to modify the rules, and I statements are one way to do that.

Of course the Earth goes around the Sun. Bush did lie to the American people. Humans are apes. Those are objective facts, but beside my point. (Although your notion that these facts can be objectively verified would have some trouble overcoming the resistance of a radical skeptic. "A demon just put the ideas of a spaceship and the solar system I saw into my mind." "The liberal media is lying about what is happening in Iraq." "God created humans and chimpanzees with 99.9% common DNA to test our faith.")

My point is that if someone doesn't believe that humans are apes, they aren't going to be convinced by me starting a conversation with, "Humans are apes," and they especially aren't going to be convinced if I start, "What you learned in church, from you parents and from every important person in your life about the origins of man is wrong." They may not be convinced by a conversation that starts, "I believe that humans are apes," either, but at least there is some finite possibility that we can have a conversation on the subject and maybe both of us can learn something, which increases the sum total of knowledge of objective reality in the world.

By the same token, I am reasonably certain that you aren't going to get very far toward either banning or universally permitting stem cell research by starting a conversation with "Stem cell research is/isn't murder." There just aren't that many objective facts, and evaluating the facts that exist depends on subjective values. Personally I believe that embryos are humans, but I don't consider destroying them for research purposes to be murder. This is a value judgment that I believe I can defend, but beside the point here. You aren't going to convince me by any obvious set of facts, because the point has to do with weighing the facts in a context.

While we are on the subject, Aikido is neither wishy, nor washy. It is completely grounded in physical reality. You don't throw your partner without physics. That's another objective fact.

[Bugmaster]

@yesteray:

I said explicitly, "The conversation is more important than whether you or I are right or wrong because if we are in conversation we can both learn and grow and in conversation we are smarter, or become smarter, than either of us alone (or both of us separately.)"

Well, this is exactly what I disagree with. I don't think that conversation is of supreme importance; I think that getting the right answer is of supreme importance, and, if conversation gets us there, we should engage in it. If something else -- such as experimentation, or math, or perhaps even prayer -- gets us there faster, then we should do that. In other words, at some point we should stop talking, and start doing things.

Now, I'm sure someone here will be quick to point out that there is no such thing as "the right answer", and that no one died and made me the Right Answer Pope, or that every answer is right to someone, etc. But, if objective reality does exist, then it stands to reason that some answers will be more wrong than others; for example, "I can fly by flapping my arms, let's go !" is the wrong answer when you ask yourself, "should I jump off this cliff or not ?". Gravity is not a matter of opinion; it exists whether you believe in it or not, and it really helps to find out how it works (Google Earth is just one example of this) -- and talking about it endlessly and valuing everyone's opinion equally is not how you do it.

While we are on the subject, Aikido is neither wishy, nor washy. It is completely grounded in physical reality.

Are we talking about Aikido, the discipline of "beating the beejesus out of people" (with apologies to Neal Stephenson), or Aikido, the metaphor for conversation that you invoked ?

[Ian]

' "I enjoy the music of The Ramones," is a statement about me. '

Right, in serious debate we need to come to grips with the facts, not (just) how we feel about the facts. This might be an exception: "Speaking as a professional engineer, I think that bridge is structurally unsound" seems appropriate in debating public policy. She has told us her opinion, and given us a reason to think that her opinion is true. I'm with Baxil, here.

So, I think that "I" statements can sometimes useful even in issue-oriented political debate, when they are backed by objective reasons or when the speaker puts her deserved reputation for good judgment on the line.

Tom, yesteray: I think that the Chinese character displayed in the post ("xin" in pinyin) means "trust." (correct me if I'm wrong) Seems relevant, and pretty.

[Jesurgislac]

Bugmaster: Are we talking about Aikido, the discipline of "beating the beejesus out of people" (with apologies to Neal Stephenson), or Aikido, the metaphor for conversation that you invoked ?

Aikido means "the way of martial spiritual harmony". Neal Stephenson, if that's who you're quoting, plainly doesn't know a whole lot about it. Aikido is a defensive martial art: you cannot use it to attack people, but if someone attacks you, their own momentum and strength is used to defeat them.

[Francis]

*sigh*

I believe that the problem here stems from soundbyte culture and the need to make your sentences short rather than allowing time for proper nuances. As I understand it, the actually courteous approach to a statement of desired action would be

I believe we should do [action] because [fact] and [fact] combine with [argument] to show that this is the best available course of action. I also believe [course of action] to be wrong because it hasn't taken account of [fact] and also the conclusion should be [conclusion] because [flaw in logic or extension of logic].

Yes, it clunks. And fits much better into flowery language. But there is a distinct difference between the facts and your favoured course of action based on those facts. And a further one based on how well supported courses of action are based on those facts. And much is lost from discourse by the lack of distinction between those concepts in contemporary culture (everything phrased as absolutes is as damaging as everything phrased as opinion).

[Francis]

Jesu, any martial art that teaches the throat punch, the katana, the jo, and a few other strikes (as Aikido does) is hardly one you can't use to attack people.

[lalouve]

I statements work for when the subject under discussion actually is your feelings - as in personal conflicts. If the subject under discussion isn't your feelings, using I statements will promptly assure the shifting of the discussion onto that subject, which is frequently a bad idea. It's all about suiting your technique to what you want to achieve.

[Jesurgislac]

Francis: Jesu, any martial art that teaches the throat punch, the katana, the jo, and a few other strikes (as Aikido does) is hardly one you can't use to attack people.

"Aikido is a Japanese martial art developed by Morihei Ueshiba (often referred to by his title 'O Sensei' or 'Great Teacher'). On a purely physical level it is an art involving some throws and joint locks that are derived from Jujitsu and some throws and other techniques derived from Kenjutsu. Aikido focuses not on punching or kicking opponents, but rather on using their own energy to gain control of them or to throw them away from you. It is not a static art, but places great emphasis on motion and the dynamics of movement." link

I've never studied Aikido myself, but I have several close friends who have, and all of them say emphatically that Aikido is not about attack: even considered as a martial art rather than an exercise/meditation technique, it's about using your opponent's momentum when he attacks you.

"Aikido is a modern martial art (gendai budo) developed in the early 20th century by Morihei Ueshiba, known as O-Sensei ("great teacher"). Although the term aiki ("harmonising of energy") was in use before this time, the Art of Aikido as martial discipline designed to control aggression and violence without inflicting destruction was the creation of O-Sensei himself. Therefore, the story of Aikido is in large part the story of O-Sensei.

Aikido is an art that uses throws, locks and pins as its principal movements. At all times, it is stressed that power does not come from raw physical strength. Instead, one makes use of the energy contained in the incoming attack, and channels it using one's centre (the abdominal region, which Eastern thought holds to be the seat of vital energy in a human being). Aikido principles hold that when the body, mind and spirit act as one, and the body is unified through a stable, energised centre (rather than the comparitively weak strength of individual limbs), it is possible to join with even the fiercest attack and redirect its power safely and effectively." link

When someone says that aikido is about learning how to attack people, or is used to attack people, it's a given that this person does not know anything about aikido.

[Scott]

Would civility rule out the left throwing terms like 'racist' around against their political opposition? How about 'greedy'? How about puffing their own moral stance up to imply the other is morally inferior: "I want this because _I_ (unlike you, by implication) am a wonderful human being"?

[Francis]

When someone says that aikido is about learning how to attack people, or is used to attack people, it's a given that this person does not know anything about aikido.

Jesu, you're trying to shift the grounds of argument. First you said that "you cannot use [Aikido] to attack people" - which as I pointed out was wrong. Now you are trying to claim that it is not about how to attack people (which is right) but you are also trying to claim that the two statements mean the same thing. To use an analogy, my kitchen knife is not designed as a weapon and using it is not about attacking people - but it would still be a very nasty weapon if used as such.

Aikido is not about attack but the element of attack is there as a necessity for the practice of defence. And the attacks at higher levels are only slightly formalised (they are extremely formalised at the
lower levels). Regardless of its focus, it is still a martial art, and off the top of my head I can think of four methods I've seen demonstrated by a couple of Aikido senseis (most of which were intended starts for the Uke*) that would make perfectly respectable opening attacks. And that's in addition to the "provoke them into attacking you" method usable by such a defensive martial art as a form of aggression.

Also, Aikido uses locks and grips that are simply more dangerous than just about any other martial art I can think of. This is because when the attacker and defender/thrower are working together rather than directly competing, there is far less likelihood of an accidental injury by an unwanted twisting of a locked joint and therefore certain locks, and throws are permitted when they would not be safe to use in "harder"** martial arts.

When someone says that aikido is about learning how to attack people, or is used to attack people, it's a given that this person does not know anything about aikido.

And when someone says that a martial art can not be used to attack people, it's a given that they know very little about either martial arts or movement in general.

(Incidently, there are also a lot of dangerous strikes practiced slowly in Tai Chi that aren't used in "harder" martial arts for analogous reasons to Aikido using dangerous locks and throws).

* In Aikido, any given round is opened by the Uke attacking and the Nage defending then throwing him (with some help from the Uke who is supposed to let himself be thrown).

** Hard/soft has nothing to do with the difficulty of the martial art and everything to do with the seeming level of aggression and preponderance of aggressive strikes (kickboxing being the archetypal hard martial art).

[Jesurgislac]

Francis: First you said that "you cannot use [Aikido] to attack people" - which as I pointed out was wrong

Actually, no. You stated your uninformed opinion that you can use Aikido to attack people. I rebutted that, with sourced links. You want to show that you can use Aikido to attack people, please link me to some site with resources by an aikido expert expounding how Aikido can be used to attack people.

And when someone says that a martial art can not be used to attack people, it's a given that they know very little about either martial arts or movement in general.

Okay. So, you think all of the black belt instructors in Aikido whom I've heard explaining how Aikido cannot be used to attack, only to defend, knew "very little about either martial arts or movement in general". Fair enough: you're entitled to your uninformed opinion.

[Axiomatic]

I think I'll just bask in the glorious irony that the left is the side being accused of portraying itself as morally superior and calling everyone else names.

This parable occurs to me about beams of wood in one's eyes.

[Axiomatic]

So...does Aikido teach the throat punch, the katana, the jo, and a few other strikes?

[Axiomatic]

Also...kekekekeke...you said "Uke"...kekekekekeke...

[nieciedo]

When was the last time anyone on either side of the right-left divide managed to change the opinion of someone on the otherside with words and rational arguments?

It would be nice to return to civility, but civility is dead. We killed it and it can never be resurrect. The only way to get your point across -- to convince others to follow your opinion -- is through force and emotional manipulation.

Those are the depths to which our species has fallen.

[Jesurgislac]

I think I'll just bask in the glorious irony that the left is the side being accused of portraying itself as morally superior and calling everyone else names.

But we are morally superior!

:-D

And seriously: I'm not about to get into any more fights about aikido. So to speak. In this instance, we have me (half-informed, but at least directly from people who have been seriously studying aikido) and a bunch of people who know nothing about it but equate all martial arts with the ability to beat people up. On that level, we'll get nowhere.

>So...does Aikido teach the throat punch, the katana, the jo, and a few other strikes?

I love this argument (the entire exchange actually). I think the problem is one of labels; yes, Aikido can contain these moves, however I think its entirely context. Since the entire principle of Aikido is using defensive actions, one could argue that using these moves in an offensive manner would disqualify the actions as being Aikido. Just as using a butcher knife to carve a side of beef could be seen as part of cooking, but using a butcher knife to carve a body for means of disposal (been watching too much Sopranos) defiantly isn't cooking.

[Francis]

Actually, no. You stated your uninformed opinion that you can use Aikido to attack people. I rebutted that, with sourced links. You want to show that you can use Aikido to attack people, please link me to some site with resources by an aikido expert expounding how Aikido can be used to attack people.

Start here. Then ask one of your aikido trained friends to demonstrate kaitenage and nikkyo (both banned in Judo - although BJJ allows nikkyo (and wouldn't use kaitenage anyway)) - and I wouldn't advise that he demonstrate the former on you (and he won't even offer if he has any sense - the result looks like something out of Power Rangers and you really need to know how to fall for it to be safe as uke).

Incidently, Sensei Williams (a student of O-Sensei and head of the UK Ki-Aikido federation - the only Aikido group I have first hand knowledge of) is highly anti-intellectual and in favour of aural teaching rather than writing things down - and has passed this on to the federation. Also to most of the more knowledgable Aikido practitioners, what I'm saying would be equivalent to information about how to fight using a kitchen knife - it's not what it's for and not the point but something you can do with it effectively if you must. Still, there's no point trumpeting that. (I feel as if I'm editing wikipedia here).

So...does Aikido teach the throat punch, the katana, the jo, and a few other strikes?

Practicing with and against sharp katanas has recently been removed from the ki Aikido 3rd dan grading due to the insurers throwing a fit (they still use bokken). The jo is taught - a 1st dan friend of mine is currently learning it. The throat punch is not explicitely taught - the uke is taught to come in in a certain way which is the same movement as the karate throat punch - if you know what you are looking at (which takes some cross-training in Aikido and Karate), yes.

Okay. So, you think all of the black belt instructors in Aikido whom I've heard explaining how Aikido cannot be used to attack, only to defend, knew "very little about either martial arts or movement in general". Fair enough: you're entitled to your uninformed opinion.

It depends on exactly what they said rather than what you heard. If they said it was designed to defend and that's what it was good at and that you weren't directly trained to attack (although the attacks are there - but if you don't unpick them the training is actually negative) they were right. If they were laying an absolute prohibition about what is possible with Aikido, they were wrong and are contradicted by all the cross-trained black belts I know. However, as is obvious from your attempt to shift the ground earlier, this isn't the type of distinction you reflexively see - so I'm going to assume that you misunderstood either based on one of the black belts who has fallen for the Aikido mythology (which is somewhat understandable because a lot of the chi techniques work much more easily if you believe the Aikido explanations despite them being wrong).

[Jesurgislac]

Thanks, Francis: both the article you linked to, and the comments, were interesting.

I'm still not going to get into a fight about aikido, but will let your own momentum defeat itself. ;-)

[Francis]

And seriously: I'm not about to get into any more fights about aikido. So to speak. In this instance, we have me (half-informed, but at least directly from people who have been seriously studying aikido) and a bunch of people who know nothing about it but equate all martial arts with the ability to beat people up. On that level, we'll get nowhere.

You mean you have you who is half informed from people who are seriously studying aikido and me who is likewise with some aikido background and some background in other martial arts. Oh, and I know no practitioners of Aikido who have been in more than one serious fight in their lives - i.e. they don't equate martial arts with the ability to beat people up but they do recognise that the potential is there in them and that that is the root of the martial arts.

Since the entire principle of Aikido is using defensive actions, one could argue that using these moves in an offensive manner would disqualify the actions as being Aikido. Just as using a butcher knife to carve a side of beef could be seen as part of cooking, but using a butcher knife to carve a body for means of disposal (been watching too much Sopranos) defiantly isn't cooking.

So the question is, by analogy, whether Aikido should be the knife or the action. Me, I'd say that comparing it to the action comes under the heading of the True Scotsman fallacy.

[Rosina]

This is why I'm impatient with the whole "'I' statements" approach. It has its place, I suppose, in family therapy and the like, but it undermines responsibility. It aims to force us to phrase statements in a way that cannot provoke offense, but it winds up also forcing us to phrase statements in a way that makes their content irrelevant.

Thus, in the name of "civility," I've been told that I shouldn't say, "FEMA's response to the flooding of New Orleans was a national disgrace." Instead I should say, "I think FEMA's response ..." or "FEMA's response made me feel ..." And suddenly we're not talking about FEMA anymore, but about me. An objective declaration is reduced to a subjective preference and thus I'm relieved of responsibility for the truth or falsehood of my claim.

This seems to me to be is a cowardly, irresponsible way to talk. It is, in other words, uncivil.

This is a cultural difference. Given a scale between dogmatic and deferential, different people feel comfortable at different places, due to age, sex, upbringing, education, nationality. At the far end of the scale, some societies consider it impolite to contradict anyone - it does not mean that they agree with you, just that they will not say 'you are wrong'.

At times it is right to be dogmatic. We must come off the fence on some political questions, and nail our colours to the mast. We must admit scientific, objective facts. But whether you start with "I think" or not, the statement 'The Ramones rock' is only your opinion, a subjective view. For someone in the middle of the dogmatic/deference line, to imply that a subjective view is a fact, not an opinion, is arrogant. It does not inspire discussion - it brings a conversation to a dead stop. My only way of disagreeing is, effectively, to call you a liar.

Now Fred is not stupid - he would not take a cultural difference in manners and stereotype the other as 'cowardly, irresponsible and uncivil'. That is the sort of demonising of people who not exactly like you, that leads 84% of Right-wing bloggers to believe that the majority of Democrats in Congress would like to see us lose in Iraq for political reasons.

So who fell for it?

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: My only way of disagreeing is, effectively, to call you a liar.

Actually, there are many ways of disagreeing with a statement like "The Ramones rock!" But, if I were to point this out to you, with a list of the methods you could use to disagree, now that you have made a dogmatic statement that there is only one way to disagree, are you going to feel that I am calling you a liar?

[the opoponax]

ok, semi-OT, but i thought it was interesting:

Most of us, and I include myself in that category, simply don't have the requisite knowledge to objectively critique a work of art be it visual, performance, written or whatever. All we can do is give our opinions and feelings about the work.

if you read art criticism (outside of maybe, like, reviews; i'm talking academic/curatorial art criticism), you see that interestingly, the writers generally spend a lot of their time talking about objective realities, or things that could be argued to be grounded in objective realities.

you're not so much talking about "Why Jackson Pollock Was A Good Painter", so much as "this interesting feature of Pollock's work indicates that he meant to convey X". and in order to do that, one must build an argument on ideas that are at least remotely related to objective statements about the painting.

[colin roald]

I refuse to believe there exists a team called "Scunthorpe United", playing anything.

[Bugmaster]

Regarding Aikido:

That's why I said, "with apologies to Neal Stephenson". You should really read The Diamond Age; it is the last good book Neal Stephenson wrote before he had some sort of a life-altering experience and began believing that he is the Techno-Pope. Aikido is never mentioned by name in the book, in case you're wondering.

[hf]

This conflates two or three different issues even if we ignore the discussion of Aikido (which I gather changed after the war, and at various other times in Ueshiba's life. Just to muddy the waters further.)

We can prove certain claims objectively. For example, we could prove at the time that GW Bush's original plan to 'fix' Social Security would not work as advertised, and that 2+2 does not equal 5. I wish more people had pointed this out in the 2000 campaign. On the other hand, we cannot objectively prove a definition of "good art" or Aikido or journalism, or indeed any definition at all. You probably have a better chance of affecting other people's decisions by describing what happens if you apply a certain set of objective rules and perhaps explaining why you care about those rules (e.g, because if nobody practices this form of journalism then voters will make decisions from false information).

[Kate]

At the risk of inserting a comment when the thread has moved on... I find that the best quote I've heard when discussing civil discourse is "You cannot reason a man out of holding a position that he did not reason himself into."

I think that's the biggest difficulty in this. Too many people *on both sides* hold positions that they are emotionally attached to, and too many people have been taught that changing their minds is a sign of weakness, not strength.

[Raka]

there are also a lot of dangerous strikes practiced slowly in Tai Chi that aren't used in "harder" martial arts for analogous reasons to Aikido using dangerous locks and throws

My Tai Chi instructor would occasionally show us the applications of the form (Chen style). It was always an eye-opener, particularly when he could only start the demonstration with a volunteer victim because finishing the move (even at slow-mo speed) would've required that the volunteer's spine assume some profoundly unhealthy positions.

Sword form also started feeling much less peaceful once I realized that the little decorative twirls at the end of moves were intended to open up the wound and break the suction formed by impaling someone.

Good times, good times.

[Doctor Science]

I mostly agree with yesteray, and disagree very strongly with Fred and Bugmaster.

Putting on my scientist and historian of scientist hats:

Science is *all* about I-statements. It is *all* about conversation. There is no conflict between "searching for objective truth" and "comparing personal experiences", because scientists search for objective truth *by* comparing personal experiences. These personal experiences are called "experiments" or "scientific observations". The experiences are limited and controlled, we describe them in exacting (frequently mind-numbing) detail -- the better to compare them to other experiences, while knowing exactly what all parties are talking about.

Every experience is personal. The first step in getting to an objective, impersonal truth is to know the personal: to know where you stand, to know what your lab chemicals are made of, to know what time it is and how fast the wind is blowing. That's why it's so important that scientific results be reproducible: when we do that, we're saying that two people can have the same experience.

[Rosina]

But, if I were to point this out to you, with a list of the methods you could use to disagree, now that you have made a dogmatic statement that there is only one way to disagree, are you going to feel that I am calling you a liar?

Of course not, because it only appeared to be dogmatic - actually, I was just giving my off-the-cuff opinion. And 'effectively' is a weasel word, which leaves me enough wriggle-room to avoid being caught out.

Who are the Ramones, anyway?

[hf]

Thank you, Doctor.

[Fraser]

I count Fred's blog as the equivalent of a column. And columnists don't have to use I statements, because it's a given that any nonfactual statements in a column are the writer's opinion.

More generally, I agree with Fred. I have no qualms about (for example) stating evolution is reality without prefacing it with "I believe" (which wouldn't make the creationists I know any more inclined to listen).

[bulbul]

Doc,

There is no conflict between "searching for objective truth" and "comparing personal experiences", because scientists search for objective truth *by* comparing personal experiences.
I believe what we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the meaning of the term "personal experience". Calling an experiment a "personal experience" seems like an insult to me.
OK, let's try an example: the temperature in the room is 22°C. I stay in the room for 10 minutes, I would start to feel hot (= my personal experience). Jesu stays in the room for 10 minutes, she feels cold (= her personal experience).
The temperature in the room is 22°C = fact, i.e. a partial description of the objective reality.
I'm hot = My personal experience.
I'm cold = Jesu's personal experience.