by Doctor Science
A couple of weeks ago I happened to catch a couple of minutes of the Fresh Air interview with Frank Calabrese, Jr., who testified against his own father in Chicago’s Operation Family Secrets mafia trial.
What if what I was doing was wrong? How could I live with myself? I loved my dad dearly, and I love him to this day. But I was repulsed by the violence and his controlling ways. I had to decide between doing nothing and cooperating with the Feds, two choices I hated.
I went to the NPR site to listen to the rest of the program and get more information, and read the comments there.
I’m reluctant to make sweeping generalizations about humanity based on news site comments. However, I was surprised at how many of the comments expressed the feeling that Frank Jr. was a “traitor” or “rat” — I make it about 1/3 of the comments that evaluate his actions (praise or blame). For instance, commenter “J C (JC1530)” wrote:
I have strongly ambivalent feelings about this. On the one hand, his father was a criminal and deserved what he got, on the other hand, nobody deserves a son like this. He committed treason against his family, and however noble his intentions were, that is not something I can see as honorable or forgivable.
I would expect this attitude in a lot of traditional cultures — including the Mafia — but I’m surprised to encounter it in general American culture, if that’s what the NPR comments represent.
I’ve actually seen quite a few discussions of family secrets/family betrayals, including ones where someone is struggling with the decision to turn a relative in to law enforcement. But in the circles I travel, the issue has always been child abuse (present or past). Traditionally, abuse has been the kind of secret families keep, “dirty laundry that you don’t air in public”. That has changed enormously in the last 4 decades or so, and I now expect people in general to agree that children do not owe loyalty to their abusers.
It was clear to me, listening to Frank Jr. and reading the excerpt from his book, that Frank Sr. was at least emotionally abusive to his children, and that his murders and other crimes were of a piece with the abuse. He was a murderer and an abuser for the same basic reasons, they both came out of the same basic personality and way of dealing with other people: ruthless, self-centered, and fundamentally cold. Sociopathic, in fact.
Do you-all find it surprising that a significant number of people think Frank Jr. is a “traitor”? My gut reaction is that those comments are from, well, the Mafia, and *highly* unrepresentative of the population at large, but I’d like to triangulate with your reads on the situation. I also don’t know whether the fact that the relationship is father/son is important for people’s expectations of loyalty — my unscientific guess is that people would be more shocked at “betrayal” of a mother than of a father, and less shocked by the disloyalty of a daughter.
The underlying question I’m chewing on is to what extent we expect family ties to override the law or fundamental morality. How much damage does a first-degree relative (parent, child, full sibling) have to do to a stranger before you tell the authorities? (abuse and injury to other family members is always weighed differently) How do you-all think this is weighed by people you know?
UPDATE: Can any of you-all think of a movie or TV episode which revolves around a conflict between loyalty to first-degree relations (parents, children, full sibs, spouse) and damage to a stranger? (Except for Hawaii 5-0 1.18, which is part of what prompted this post.)
My experience is that many Americans are raised with a strong inhibition against being snitches or tattletales, regardless of the situation, even when personal danger is involved. I’ve seen parenting guides refer to it as assumed in discussions of how to deal with bullying and harassment: “Obviously no parent wants their child to be a tattletale, but…”
While I do believe that the natural impulse to protect close family members is quite strong beyond groups with special cultural traditions (e.g. the Mafia), I would also consider the following.
We live in extraordinary times, one aspect of which is that government, law enforcement, and the judiciary in the U.S. are held in remarkably low esteem by large portions of the population. Sad to say, much of the distrust is understandable, given the dishonesty, patent unfairness, and abuses that plague those three immensely important institutions/sectors. So, I imagine that many people whose moral compasses may be fully operational are inclined to rationalize their choices on the basis that their loved ones are unlikely to get the proverbial fair shake.
I think the prejudice against being a tattletale is focused more on relatively minor offenses. Or at least offenses which are regarded sometimes inaccurately, as minor. Thus it is only recently that bullying and harassment have moved from the “don’t be a tattletale” category to the “this is serious enough that you have to report it” category.
In the particular case of Mr. Calabrese, I suspect that a significant number of those denouncing his “treason” are simply unable to get their heads around the concept that their own family environment is not the one he grew up in.
It is, at heart, the same inability to accept how bad someone else’s situation might really be that leads people in the US to reject complaints about situations elsewhere with “how bad can it really be?” The one which gets to me most often is complaints about conditions in facories in other countries. An American can comprehend how bad conditions in a factory can be. Similar situations are recent enough in our history that they get it — and object. What they cannot wrap their heads around is the idea that the people working in those factories find conditions a substantial improvement over the subsistance agriculture that was their previous lot. “Subsistance agriculture,” or even just what kind of work is involved in agriculture are beyond American comprehension.
Very little about human behavior surprises me anymore. But I think it’s really just an extremum of tribal thinking. We are more like real people than they are, just because of our we-ness, and so are inherently more deserving of loyalty and obedience than absolutely any of them.
And of course silly laws that constrain our behavior were written and enforced by them, and should be ignored when convenient.
People who revile Frank Jr are just announcing their tribalism. It’s nice to have them self-identify like that. Perhaps we could just round all of them up and shoot them.
That wasn’t a serious suggestion, in case anyone is confused.
Madoff’s son also snitched on his father, and thats how he got caught. But nobody called him a snitch, especially not his father or mother. Obviously there was no manipulation and abuse in this family.
Frank sr. is obviously continuing manipulation and abuse of his son even after going to jail.
Didn’t we talk recently here about how the worst ‘crime’ a policeman can commit is to report a fellow policeman’s crimes? (Not sure it was here). Same holds true for clerics, esp. in the RCC (where it actually is a crime if the person reported on is higher up in the hierarchy). Family is just a subgroup of tribe.
Hartmut:
Family is just a subgroup of tribe
Just the opposite, I think. “Tribe” is always an expansion or re-definition of “family”. Family relationships and expectations come first, developmentally — other groupings can be like family or can try to take the place of family, but family is first.
A few related points that may be of interest.
In Soviet Russia and Communist China, I believe that there are examples of children informing on their parents, to the acclamation of authorities. This NYTimes op-ed from the site of the author, an MIT professor named Gary Marx talks about some of the questions we deal with children informing in the US legal system. Obviously, Frank Jr. is old enough to more effectively weigh the costs, but this abstract from LexisNexis chillingly has this:
In the past decade, parents have been called upon to testify against their children, and children to testify against their parents, on many occasions. In at least two instances, the parent or child has been jailed for refusing to testify. Only a single federal court and a handful of state statutes and courts have recognized any sort of privilege that would permit a person to refuse to testify against her parent or child.
The issue of compelling parents and children to testify against each other involves a conflict of deeply rooted societal values. Family love and loyalty are pitted against the asserted need to obtain all relevant evidence for the sake of truth and justice.
I have seen a variation of this in regard to the ownership or treatment of animals. QUite a few people who neglect or mistreat animals have custody of a dog or cat that belongs to an absent relative. Even if the realtive has shown no responsibility toward the animal in months it is hard to convince the abusers and neglecters to release the animals because they don’t want to give away a pet that doesn’t belong to them.
Its like the abtract idea of protecting their relative’s property rights is more important than the welfare of the pet or more important than the fact that the property owner has in effect abandoned the property and dumped a unwanted responsibility on them.
I’ve updated with this question:
Can any of you-all think of a movie or TV episode which revolves around a conflict between loyalty to first-degree relations (parents, children, full sibs, spouse) and damage to a stranger? (Except for Hawaii 5-0 1.18, which is part of what prompted this post.)
For what its worth, my wife grew up in a family that would have reacted just like the newspaper commenters: testifying is treason. Your loyalty is to your family, etc. They were not in the mafia; they were just your standard authoritarian honor culture family.
I actually think that this response is fairly common. You can operate a cell phone without knowing a darn thing about electrical engineering or antenna design or electrodynamics, in fact, you can do so even while believing that electrons don’t exist. In a similar manner, you can happily navigate a society where ‘treason to the family’ makes no sense while you believe it is vitally important.
I agree with Turbulance. It isn’t a Mafia thing, it’s an authoritarian thing.
I suspect that if you surveyed all the people in the comment thread who called it “treason”, you’d find a statistically significant correlation to conservative politics.
I don’t understand how much of the “traitor” sentiment is based on people reacting to the “betrayal” and how much is related to the loss of face implicit in having your son publicly appear in court and…tell the truth about you. In other words, if the son collected some evidence that Dad murdered a bunch of innocent people and then anonymously mailed it to the FBI, I’m not sure the people screaming “treason” would react the same way. Or maybe they would.
I don’t see where you owe any duty to your family to cover for their criminal activities. Not only are you helping them (potentially) victimize others by your silence, but you can end up suffering legal and social ills that may follow you around for the rest of your life.
I know that I, personally, am very reluctant to get law enforcement involved even in dealing with perfect strangers unless the situation really is that serious, or I have no other recourse. Put simply, I don’t trust the justice system. I’ve been railroaded by it and know exactly how easy it is for someone to trash your life with little or no evidence based solely on their ability to lie convincingly.
I trust individual cops that I’ve dealt with and who have dealt with me fairly and respectfully. But by and large, getting the police and justice system involved in a dispute is like dropping a bomb: once you pull that trigger, you can’t stop the chain of events that follows, and it’s all too likely to cause harm to more people than you intended–including yourself.
And that’s for strangers.
Short of murder or some other crime involving actual serious harm to another person, no, I would not turn in a family member, nor would I admit to knowing anything if asked. I’d give the family member in question the full brunt of my opinion on the matter, and that’s not to say there wouldn’t be consequences in my relationship with them. But the police and courts are far too much of a blunt, imprecise instrument for me to entrust a loved one to a fair treatment in that system.
But that’s more of a general principle. In this specific example, I don’t see how the son is a traitor. I can easily see how he might feel that way–I know I would–but the crimes are serious and numerous enough that I still think he did the right thing. His father was not a good man, and the things he did were beyond the pale.
Yeah, Amezuki, what really surprised me was that so many people (for internet commenter values of “many”) think blood is thicker than water even when the crime is *murder*.
I do agree with those of you who said it’s very authoritarian — about loyalty to the father, not just the family. I don’t recall people recoiling in horror when Ted Kaczynski was basically turned in by his brother.
Turbulence, do you think your wife’s family would think betrayal of a mother worse than that of a father, not as bad, or just the same?
my own brief and unhappy, though somewhat successful, experience of whistle-blowing in 2002 confirmed for me that the world is unequally divided between those who consider corruption shameful and those who believe the greater shame lies in exposing the corruption. i was shouting the dirt about corruption at a respected boston-area publication at the same time that survivors of abuse by boston-area roman catholic priests were bringing those shameful deeds to light. the parallels between the hostile reception for their courageous witness and the hostility directed my way by some of my former colleagues was illuminating. and yes, as someone suggested above, i think the impulse to shoot the bearer of unpleasant tidings maps pretty neatly onto the authoritarian personality.
I don’t see where you owe any duty to your family to cover for their criminal activities.
It’s not so much that, but it’s a mindset of “law enforcement can do what they need to do, but I’m not going to do their job for them.”
Criminal cases are “The People vs. John Smith.” Now, if you’re John Smith’s son, you might not approve of what he did, and you might not want to take his side necessarily, but I can certainly see how you’re not going to take the side of “the people” against your father.
wj: You’re probably right about bullying/harassment, that until recently it was regarded as a minor thing kids should handle themselves, and that conditioned attitudes toward reporting it.
My own, very minor and silly lesson in the wages of tattling was in junior high in the early 1980s. Summoned by the school authorities as a witness, I informed on some kids who had been playing around with a cigarette lighter in class, melting stuff and starting small fires. The kids in question were psychological bullies who had actually been harassing me for a long time, but this wasn’t about that; the lighter incident, while dangerous, had done me no harm, it was immediately obvious to everyone involved that I was the informant (I’d been called out of the lunchroom in full public view), and I caught hell for it.
Had I done the right thing? Even if so, it may not have been for the right reasons. At the time, I was mostly indignant that I was expected to feel solidarity with people who’d shown me nothing but cruelty, but my teenage moral reasoning wasn’t that advanced.
I did learn the lesson that the authorities who used me didn’t care about my well-being and would not have my back, regardless of my reputation as a good boy.
Turbulence, do you think your wife’s family would think betrayal of a mother worse than that of a father, not as bad, or just the same?
Alas, she doesn’t know.
I lost all ability to be surprised by this attitude back when people made exactly the same sort of comments about David Kaczynski when he turned in his brother Ted, the Unabomber.
For some people there is simply nothing, including multiple murders, that a family member can do that would make it acceptable to turn them in.
Do you-all find it surprising that a significant number of people think Frank Jr. is a “traitor”?
Yes.
That wasn’t being a tattle-tail.
LoriK:
I stand corrected, I didn’t remember that. If they were angry at David Kaczynski, they really would be angry at *anyone* who turned in a family member.
I find it a little surprising that there would be so many people who would take the time to comment that Frank Jr is a ‘traitor’, but then again, they’re the ones who are more likely to comment at all, since they feel strongly about it. And I don’t think that its being an NPR site means much. People Who Care, Google.
I basically agree with Amezuki: I don’t trust the Criminal Justice system very much, and am reluctant to get it involved in any dispute, familial or not. But I would certainly testify against a father like Frank Sr.
my unscientific guess is that people would be more shocked at “betrayal” of a mother…
Hmmm, not so sure about this. In 1950 perhaps.
It is okay to rat on your brother, so long as your are ratting him out for murdering you, you are now a ghost, and you are ratting your brother out to your son. At least that’s my understanding.
…but then again, they’re the ones who are more likely to comment at all, since they feel strongly about it.
My thoughts exactly.
I think that whether (or at what point) a person is willing to “betray” a first degree family member has a great deal to do with what the family’s essential values are. Does the family value loyalty above all else? Does the family value honesty? What about respect for the law, or authority? I would think the prominence and order of values like these (as perceived/internalized by the person in question) would contribute heavily to that person’s inner debate over whether or not to testify against a family member.
Growing up, my family held both “honesty” and “secrecy about money” very dear. As such, I suspect that it would have been much easier for me to testify against a family member who had committed a murder than it would have been to disclose the family net worth. If I’d had a parent like Madoff, I would have been in a quandary for sure!
I am surprised that the thread has not one mention of Oedipus. There is a reason why that goes back to the Greeks.
I suspect that an authoritarian mindset would see less problems with a father turning in his son than with a son turning in his father. Son and son, not sure. Don’t remember the problems with David Kaczynski, though he came forward after a very long and difficult thought process iirc.
About folks saying family is all, I think that under the cloak of anonymity, no matter how threadbare it might be, folks might express opinions that are more pungent than ones they might have expressed if they have to put their name to it and there is never going to be a perfect match between the opinions that people express with society’s approval and the one’s that some may hold in their hearts. I can also see a notion perhaps buried in the folks calling Frank Jr. a traitor that if the authorities were actually doing their jobs, the child wouldn’t have to inform. I think that is kind of silly, but it is a way to allay the conflict between obeying the laws and being true to one’s family.
There is also this theme in stories about organized crime about the father who wants to give his children respectability, and so keeps them in the dark about what they do. I don’t know if this is simply wishful thinking on the part of authors, but it is certainly a story we want to hear, because it lets us think that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong, like some universal line. I know I certainly would as well, but I really doubt it.
Also, one has to consider the nature of the crime and how the person knows it. Coming of age literature is full of stories where the child thinks that one thing is happening when actually another thing is, and the child either reveals what s/he thinks is happening, leading all hell to break loose, or the child has a realization that what they thought is wrong, and they now realize that their parents are actually good and they can live their lives like their parents.
Also, there’s a real problem with determining at what point we view when an ‘intervention’ should take place. Obviously, your dad being a mob boss is pretty far over the line, but precisely when should Frank Jr. have testified is a real interesting question I think. The child informing the authorities in Nazi Germany or under Stalin that their parents have disloyal tendencies is something that we can see, from our sufficiently elevated vantage point, as being a bad thing, but one can see how ‘never trust authority’ can lead to the situation of people calling Frank Jr. a traitor.
When you have a child inform on a parent about drugs, there is a very interesting tension, in that one can condemn the parents for not being honest with the child, but one can condemn the child for taking things out of the home. A lot of it, for me, would depend on the nature of the drug and what kind of offense the parent was committing (smoking the occasional doobie at home versus dealing in heroin for instance)
There is also a class component to this. Presumably, the wealthy family has the money and resources to ‘keep things in the family’, so that the children can perhaps unite and force an intervention of a parent for something like drugs (again, murder is another thing), while in a poorer family, the only alternative maybe to turn to law enforcement.
And then you have child or the family who takes it upon themselves to punish the parent because they feel that the justice system is insufficient. Like I said, there is a reason all this goes back to ancient Greece
In Plato’s Euthyphro, the reason Socrates figures (correctly) that Euthyphro must consider himself a great expert on religion and morals is that Euthyphro is bringing charges against his own father in the death of a slave.
…actually, I’m not sure the guy his father killed was a slave; the guy who was killed had killed a slave.
I’ve always associated things like this moreso with the views people have towards people in “The Game” or “The Life.” The people in the game know the consequences so there is little moral obligation to feel empathy for people that fall victim to it. Calabrese was a murderer… but he was a murderer that killed other mobsters. To be part of this life, and know what all this leads to, then to turn on the guys you do crime with, most likely to save your own skin… that’s definitely a rat (although that isn’t necessarily Frank Jr’s situation, but who needs nuance).
BUT, in the grand scheme of things, this is a really sanitized view of it all. Organized crime violence doesn’t just stay with the criminals. Drug dealers aren’t the only ones affected by drug dealing, and Gang members aren’t the only ones affected by gang violence. So in essence there is a bit of romantization and glorification that goes with outlaw lifestyles that fools people into believing these things aren’t our business.
“Oh, what, so just let the animals wipe themselves out, right?”
“God willing. Fuck ’em, and everybody that looks like ’em. ”
I am surprised that the thread has not one mention of Oedipus. There is a reason why that goes back to the Greeks.
Perhaps because mentioning Oedipus doesn’t advance the discussion?
I mean, the dominant culture in Greece circa 700 BCE is extremely different from the dominant culture in the US today. For example, pederasty has gone from universally practiced to loathed and worthy of criminal sanction. Given that Dr. Science is trying to understand an inconsistency in public ethics among people in our own culture, I don’t see how introducing the mores and stories of a radically different ancient culture helps.
It seems a bit disrespectful to both ancient Greek culture and our own to immediately reach for parallels. Cultures are serious things and deserve to be dealt with on their own terms. I think we do everyone a disservice when we pretend that the ancient Greeks codified some sort of universal human experience.
But I might be wrong…so, what insights does the story of Oedipus bring to us that are relevant to this discussion?
Console,
that’s a good observation. This is not to discourage you from commenting, but I should let you know that we have an anti profanity policy here that basic revolves around George Carlin’s seven words, though in practice, it is more like 5.2. We started this because some folk’s work computers had profanity filters, but we’ve found that it serves to smooth things out here. This applies even for things in quotes and we encourage folks to do the #&%$ readaction. Thanks
Matt, in thinking about your experience (being called to testify), it occurs to me to wonder if those who hold family loyalty high would distinguish between going to the authorities voluntarily, and merely testifying when called upon to answer specific questions.
Just brainstorming here. In one case, you might be “snitching,” because you volunteered the information when you didn’t “need” to. In the other, you are merely answering honestly questions which you had no part in having raised to begin with. Anyone find the distinction significant?
Something that I haven’t seen mentioned is the penalty that the person who talks to the police (or other outside authority) might face from other family members within an authoritarian family. I’m thinking of verbal abuse, physical abuse, or emotional abuse such as shunning. There’s also the possibility that a powerful family member might take out their anger at the “betrayer” indirectly, by action against someone that person loved.
Such possible retaliation might make someone more wary of taking the step to contact police than someone in a different family who didn’t face these kinds of things.
Gee, son turns against father, I’m not really sure how that doesn’t apply Given that the question is that of how one balances obligations to one’s family and obligations to society, why would one possibly think that it doesn’t apply? Were Greeks not people with families who had to deal with larger society?
Matt pointed out the Socrates example, which I wish I had remembered. Seems relevant to me, but I didn’t think I had to write ‘your mileage may vary’ but I thought people would take it as a given when they read something.
The whole question of how man balanced the requirements of family versus the requirements of the larger society seems to be at the heart of Greek thought and the tension between what society demands and what families are supposed to do is laid out pretty well in Antigone. I’m not sure why the change in the status of pederasty implies that we should not look for parallels in other realms. I think it is more disrespectful of Greek culture to claim that it has nothing to do with the current situations we find ourselves in.
Ronald W. Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican.”
GOP is another “family”.
There’s this sci-fi pic where this guy falls in love with his sister and then ends up killing his father. Name escapes me.
I was thinking about how organized crime is treated as a romantic subject in America, esp in movies (or, that’s where Ive seen it most often, I dont read a lot of true crime books). Maybe some of this is confusion between fiction and reality- Ive often wondered how much of the rules of fictive reality seep into one’s map of the real world after extended exposure…
Scales of justice, Ngaio Marsh.
I’m a little bothered by the assumptio that a perso who is reluctat to rat out a ear relative is actig i a tribal manner or as part of a authoritarian family. Those are possible explaatios, but the non-ratting person might simply love the person who did wrong and might ot want to be resposible for bringing thesuffering of a prison sentence on that person.
Which brings up questions about the nature of love, of course.
Hi Carleton, the romanticization of outlaws is an interesting point, but I don’t think it is just organized crime. Bonnie and Clyde, Ned Kelly. Wikipedia points to a book by Eric Hobsbawm called Bandit. I’m a fan of Hobsbawm, but I didn’t know about this one.
Ian M Banks, a science fiction writer who created The Culture, a fictional interstellar society with a lot of dystopic elements, was asked if he thought that was how the future would be and he replied something to the effect that no, he didn’t think it would happen, but in order to write about interesting things, you had to create conflict, which I think may be at the root of some (most?) fictive reality.
“Which brings up questions about the nature of love, of course.”
Yes, the nature of love, the nature of loyalty, the nature of family. Why love? Why loyalty? Why family? Where to put love, loyalty, family versus personal integrity, morality, values, religion. How far does empathy, tolerance of weaknesses, compassion for frailty go?
It’s complicated. People are heroic to confront these things and make choices in the context of wrenching emotional conflicts.
Gee, son turns against father, I’m not really sure how that doesn’t apply
Oedipus killed his father without knowledge; he had no idea that the man he was killing was his own father. There was never any question of conflicting loyalties or obligations because Oedpius’ actions were without knowledge. Therefore, I really don’t see what Oedipus has to do with this issue at all. Can you explain?
Given that the question is that of how one balances obligations to one’s family and obligations to society, why would one possibly think that it doesn’t apply?
Because Oedipus acted without knowledge. Again, I’m not seeing what insights the story brings to light. Can you explain?
Were Greeks not people with families who had to deal with larger society?
I suspect that people have had to resolve conflicting loyalties in every society on Earth, including ancient Greek society. But that doesn’t mean that every single story from every single society is relevant to this discussion. And I still don’t see why Oedipus is relevant. You brought it up so please explain.
The story of Oedipus evokes a larger theme of a son turning on the father. Turbulence is just being ornery and argumentative or perhaps simply unable to understand metaphors and themes.
“…a book by Eric Hobsbawm called Bandit.”
Not hobsbawm’s best, and certainly not an exegis extolling the virtues of banditry by any means. It’s an interesting little side trip into a not overly explored territory from a marxist perspective.
Other than that I bring nothing to this discussion….well, I couldn’t resist this
Tyro, Oedipus does not knowingly turn on his father. He kills a complete stranger. Since LJ doesn’t seem capable of explaining, why is a story about a guy who kills a complete stranger relevant? What insight does that bring us?
If you want a play dealing with the competing demands of family and society, go to Antigone.
But Oedipus *is* relevant in that it deals with the stigma of failing to uphold family obligations (to put it mildly). The fact that Oedipus did not know it was his father is not relevant to this theme. Shame/honor cultures, and the ancient Greeks particularly, are not as interested in intention as a basis for moral judgment as guilt cultures. (I’m now awaiting a smackdown from someone who knows more sociology or classics than I do.)
In Turbulence’s reading, it shouldn’t matter at all that it was his father, but of course it does. In a different culture, maybe Oed could divorce his mom and shrug the whole thing off because he didn’t know. But for the culture that produced that play, this wasn’t possible. Whatever he *thought* he was doing–who cares–he did in fact, murder his father. That’s what the play presents.
There once lived a man named Oedipus Rex
You may have heard about his odd complex
Turb, you’re right that not every story from every ancient text is relevant to any particular discussion. But Tom Lehrer always seems relevant, somehow, whenever a conversation needs to lighten up a bit.
–TP
Turbulence is right, from a Christian-minded moral perspective. Oedipus has no personal failing at all. However, in Oedipus, this act of killing a stranger in self-defense has far-reaching consequences to the society at large. It is revealed to be the reason why the city of Thebes is infested by a god-sent plague.
The gods of the Greeks were not interested in mens rea but in the fulfilment of certain religiously-inspired rules. In their mind, Oedipus had committed sacrilege and it was of no consequence that this was due to no fault of his own. His deed tainted even the society where he lived. Thus, the whole city of Thebes was punished. (In a similar vein, the Mosaic law requires a city to conduct sacrificial atonement rituals if there happens an unsolved murder nearby, in order to cleanse itself from the unavenged blood.)
Perhaps part of the idea about “treason against family” is not only authoritarian, but even more primitive: betraying one’s father feels a sacrilege, a crime against the natural law, even if the deed is morally correct from a rational point of view.
Since LJ doesn’t seem capable of explaining, why is a story about a guy who kills a complete stranger relevant?
Gee, Turb, I was at the dentist and then having an afternoon out with my daughter. If you think that my capability to explain is based on the fact that I don’t answer your questions immediately, you are laboring under a rather large misconception, one of many you seem to carry like a cross.
Furthermore, if you believe that the adjective ‘oedipal’ requires that the son doesn’t know it is his father he is rebelling against (Try this article and see if it fits your rather fanciful requirements), you might want to spend a little more time thinking and a little less time being a jerk.
Capability is one thing, but desire is another. I’ll try and give you that time for reflection by advising you not to ask me any questions, as I no longer have the inclination, nor the patience to answer them. On the off chance that, like a blind squirrel finding a nut, you stumble on an interesting question, I’m sure someone one else will be able to rephrase it, perhaps without the cursory google searches, massive misconceptions, and absence of interpretive charity, in a way that I’ll be willing to answer.
Maybe you sincerely believe that you are moving the conversation along, but the impression it gives me is anything but. I’m not banning you, but you’ll just be wasting your time addressing me, so don’t bother. Thanks for your attention to this.
Doctor Science, when I said that family is a subgroup of tribe I meant it in a strictly sense of category. Tribe is (originally) extended family, so what applies to a tribe will also apply to the smaller unit of family.
—-
As far as examples of movies go, some propaganda movies come to mind where the hero is split between loyalty to blood (family) and to the entity the propaganda is made for.
Eisenstein’s “Bezhin Lug” (Bezhin meadow) is an example that was based on an actual case.
Then there is a sideplot in Orwell’s 1984. Winston’s neighbour is ratted out by his own son and the general brainwashing is so effective that the father is actually proud of him for doing it.
A not uncommon trope is the dead relative that arranges for the authorities to catch a wayward/criminal family member, usually with some twist.
An ambiguous case is Barty Crouch sen./jun.in the Harry Potter novels. On the one hand junior is indeed the devoted servant of evil but his father’s behaviour is still seen as heartless to the extreme (and partially responsible for his son’s turn to evil too).
Roman history has several cases of fathers having their own sons executed for treason or disobedience (e.g. the Elder Brutus and Titus Manlius). Whether this was a sign of ultimate virtue or a crime against the clan (and family love) was a hot dispute for the contemporaries.
Ian M Banks, a science fiction writer who created The Culture
In before Gary: It’s actually “Iain.”
any of you-all think of a movie or TV episode which revolves around a conflict between loyalty to first-degree relations (parents, children, full sibs, spouse) and damage to a stranger?
The most recent episode of Castle.
I disagree. I suspect that loyalty to parents, even in the face of abuse is still the norm. Think it is very deep in culture to put up with abuse from parents. The late Alice Miller’s work focused on this (see http://www.alice_miller.com ). The psychological pressures to ‘honor thy parents’ are very strong, and the trope has been used to justify horrific abuse for centuries. Miller notes that most of us will make excuses or even deny that we have been abused at all until we pay enough attention to how others have come to terms with their own history…then very gradually we allow into our consciousness that …wow…that wasn’t OK… in fact it was abuse.
If you want a play dealing with the competing demands of family and society, go to Antigone.
Antigone would be better, but I still don’t see what insight it brings us here.
In Turbulence’s reading, it shouldn’t matter at all that it was his father, but of course it does. In a different culture, maybe Oed could divorce his mom and shrug the whole thing off because he didn’t know. But for the culture that produced that play, this wasn’t possible. Whatever he *thought* he was doing–who cares–he did in fact, murder his father. That’s what the play presents.
But his actions were very much irrelevant. He would have murdered his father no matter what affirmative choices he made: that’s the point of the play. His fate was predetermined, starting with his father’s horrific crimes which brought doom on him and his lineage. The only choice anyone really has in Oedipus is his father’s decision to commit horrific crimes; after he does that, Oedipus’ fate is set.
Again, I don’t see how this helps us analyze the case at hand….I don’t think that Calabrese’s fate was set by his father’s crimes. The whole point is that he very much had a choice about what to do.
However, in Oedipus, this act of killing a stranger in self-defense has far-reaching consequences to the society at large. It is revealed to be the reason why the city of Thebes is infested by a god-sent plague.
But it is not the ultimate reason at all: the reason is Oedipus’ father’s treachery. You can’t attribute Oedipus’ actions to Oedipus when they’re wholly determined by outside actors.
The gods of the Greeks were not interested in mens rea but in the fulfilment of certain religiously-inspired rules.
I get that, but that only underscores the question: what possible benefit have we derived from introducing Oedipus into this discussion? Unlike the gods of ancient Greece, we actually are interested in mens rea. Even the folks shouting treason are interested in it. So, now that we’ve muddied up the waters with a discourse on religious beliefs practiced by a small group of people nearly three millenia ago, how does that help us? Or was it just a useless distraction?
you are laboring under a rather large misconception, one of many you seem to carry like a cross…spend a little more time thinking and a little less time being a jerk…like a blind squirrel finding a nut, you stumble on an interesting question, I’m sure someone one else will be able to rephrase it, perhaps without the cursory google searches, massive misconceptions
Yawn. As usual, you’re incapable of participating in civil discourse without lashing out with random personal attacks. And as usual, you’re totally unwilling (or incapable) of substantiating the pointless things you write. I do hope your little tantrum made you feel better though.
Furthermore, if you believe that the adjective ‘oedipal’ requires that the son doesn’t know it is his father he is rebelling against (Try this article and see if it fits your rather fanciful requirements)
No one has used “the adjective oedipal” until you wrote this comment. So, I don’t think you should speculate on my beliefs on the subject. As for the linked article, it is also completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand in addition to being pig-ignorant psychobabble.
Of course, it shouldn’t surprise me that you cite an article whose publisher is so ignorant that it doesn’t know how to spell the word “Vietnam”…or should I say Vietnamas? The Newsweek article serves as a good distillation of your own behavior LJ. Emit random irrelevant comments alluding to ancient Greek culture and people will think that you’re seriously contributing to the discussion even though your comments don’t make any sense and aren’t relevant at all. When asked to substantiate your comments or explain how they apply, throw a tantrum.
‘Biblical’ Christians are great promotors of violence against one’s offspring, following the “he who loveth his son, he doth not spare the rod but he who spares the rod doth not love his son” dictum. Not to speak of the duty to put down rebellious kids like rabid dogs.
Why would you spend so much time interacting with someone you think makes irrelevant and nonsensical comments?
Why would you spend so much time interacting with someone you think makes irrelevant and nonsensical comments?
Because I have hope that they can one day stop and stick to making relevant and occasionally correct comments? Because I grow weary of faux intellectual pretensions associated with name-dropping Greek plays no matter how ignorant one is of their contents?
Do you exclusively interact with people who only make correct and relevant comments?
I had a good friend in high school who’s father was the head of the local mafia. My friend was made to practice the violin every day. He took private lessons from the lead violinist of the local orchestra. He was sent to Paris to further his musical education, and eventually became a concert violinist who toured Europe.
His father definitely wanted something better for his son.
Why can’t we all just get along?
People are acculturated as children not to be snitches. Of course telling who talked in line is not the same as not telling on your friend the murderer. But the snitch thing stays with us.
Fox news, as always when it comes to manipulation, has been successful in branding Obama as a snitch regarding the economy. According to Fox Obama shouldn’t be blaming George Bush for the economy because that is blaming someone else and he is president now. I have had conservative friends tell me they didn’t like Obama because of him blaming someone else. Kudos to fox for finding our worst instintcs once again (this time childish don’t rat someone out) and playing on those worse instincts to manipulate their audience.
Do you exclusively interact with people who only make correct and relevant comments?
No. But it’s a question of how much time (or energy or focus, maybe even passion), not zero v. non-zero. It makes reading the threads a bit tedious, Turb (IMO, of course).
Yeah, I know, no one is forcing me to keep reading this blog. But I assume no one who regularly comments here has as a goal to drive readership down even further than it seems to be relative to what it was a couple years ago.
I remember not long ago people complaining about the dynamic between Seb and Phil. There seems to be something like that going on with you and LJ, Turb, except that LJ doesn’t seem as interested. That and neither of you cracks wise with as much funny as Phil (again, IMO), which makes it even less entertaining.
/meta
I was supposed to read Oedipus Rex in high school but my shoddy memory of it strongly indicates that I didn’t. But WP’s entry on Laius doesn’t indicate which of his crime(s), if any, incurred his fate. It just says that he heard the prophecy. He apparently abducted and raped Chrysippus (never heard of him before), is that the crime or crimes you’re referring to, Turb?
It just says that he heard the prophecy. He apparently abducted and raped Chrysippus (never heard of him before), is that the crime or crimes you’re referring to, Turb?
Yes. Wikipedia explains it here:
I like the play; it is a fascinating piece of work which raises all sorts of issues to discuss. But it doesn’t really address the notion of a son knowingly betraying his father. And its relevance to the topic at hand as yet alludes me.
Or eludes. One of those.
Or eludes. One of those.
Ah, thanks for the correction Slarti.
No doubt the story of Oedipus Rex can give us great insight into the process by which you decide to correct spelling errors in comments! I won’t explain but if you ask me to, that just means you’re a jerk.
Turbulence:
Stop acting like an asshole, it’s unnecessary and unsightly.
Ginger Yellow:
Just to make sure I’m clear, do you mean “One Life to Lose”, or “Law and Murder”?
Was it Castle or Beckett who had to make the choice, or one of the other regulars, or an episode-specific character? And which way did the decision go?
Stop acting like an asshole, it’s unnecessary and unsightly.
Can you explain what exactly I’ve done that’s problematic?
Also, is calling other commenters jerks and assholes now consistent with the posting rules in general or is that behavior only considered acceptable when front pagers do it?
There’s a commenter who used to hang around here – no point in naming names – who at one point said that anyone who informed on a drug dealer, even for murder, deserved to be exposed, harassed and even killed… and this person was arguing this from (allegedly) a lefty perspective, because the drug laws are bad and the police are corrupt. But I’ve never heard anyone say that in real life.
I think Doctor Science’s guess that at least some of the commenters in question are gangsters – or more specifically, gangsters who know the father, and maybe some non-gangster relatives – is plausible. (I always figured Paulie Walnuts spent a lot of time trolling blogs.) I also can easily believe that many of them are random dudes who’ve never committed a crime besides drunk driving, but who like the idea of the Mafia.
But the general authoritarian/conservative connection doesn’t ring so true for me, because among people like that that I’ve known, the law-and-order reflex trumps honor-thy-father… at least if they’re talking about someone else’s family.
I’m going to take a crack at this.
Turb, we get that you think Oedipus is irrelevant. That’s fine. The question is in the necessity of certain subjective characterizations of LJ and what he writes. Quotes from your comments with my emphasis are as follows:
I personally don’t get your motivation here, regardless of whether or not I agree with your position on the relevance of Oedipus. It strikes me as an attempt to provoke an argument in such a way as to piss someone off enough that they write something in anger so you can then play the victim. I’m not claiming to be a mind-reader here. But that’s the impression I get when I read this kind of stuff from you.
The question is in the necessity of certain subjective characterizations of LJ and what he writes.
hsh, have you read the entire thread? LJ raised an irrelevant issue, I pointed out that it was probably irrelevant and asked him to clarify, he got angry, called me a bunch of names and insisted he was not going to respond to me. AFTER that, I made some negative characterizations about his comments. I think those characterizations were accurate. I haven’t seen anyone explain why they’re not.
Were all of my comments “necessary”? I don’t know; is any comment on OW necessary? The question seems a bit absurd. When you post comments in response to Brett Bellmore’s comments, are those necessary comments?
Do you think LJ’s calling me a jerk and Dr Science calling me an asshole were necessary comments? Why did you choose to highlight only my characterizations without any context while refusing to acknowledge theirs’?
I personally don’t get your motivation here, regardless of whether or not I agree with your position on the relevance of Oedipus.
Um…so? I don’t get the motivations for most people on the internet. I mean, I genuinely don’t understand why you’re asking the questions that you are.
It strikes me as an attempt to provoke an argument in such a way as to piss someone off enough that they write something in anger so you can then play the victim.
hsh, I’ve been writing here for several years now. In all that time, have you noticed a pattern where I’ve done that? When I was arguing with Seb about healthcare or with von about trains or with sapient about wikileaks or with Jes about the laws of war or with Gary about his crazy notion that authors shouldn’t be burdened with any laws whatsoever?
More to the point, this doesn’t even make sense: how could I be made a victim? What’s LJ going to do, write a fascinating comment explaining precisely what insights Oedipus gives us into the issues at hand, thus proving that I was wrong all along? As you can tell, I don’t think that’s very likely. This is a major problem for your theory.
What’s more, I think your attempt to frame this as a deliberate provocation is wrong. People are responsible for their actions. There is no provocation here. When they behave badly, its cheap and easy to say “I was forced to do it” but that’s usually absurd. LJ wrote something. I asked a question. He couldn’t answer it and got upset. End of story.
I’m not claiming to be a mind-reader here. But that’s the impression I get when I read this kind of stuff from you.
hsh, I really find mind reading to be…not helpful. I could speculate about your motives for writing these comments but that would just be pointless and wrong, just like your speculations on my state of mind are both pointless and wrong.
I apologize in advance for not using italics, which might have made this post clearer, because of my fear of screwing up the rest of the thread.
Turb, I agree with you re Oedipus (for whatever the opinion of someone who never read Oedipus Rex is worth), but I see hsh’s point.
“More to the point, this doesn’t even make sense: how could I be made a victim? ”
By provoking a reaction from someone which would violate the posting rules, and then using their error to gain the moral high ground. See:
Also, is calling other commenters jerks and a[$$]holes now consistent with the posting rules in general or is that behavior only considered acceptable when front pagers do it?
To be sure, name-calling and especially profanity are not defensible. And furthermore, the posters on this blog are presumptive adults and responsible for their own outburts. That does not negate the fact that you came off as though you were taunting LJ, and I think it is a reasonable interpretation of your posts. Whether that taunting is permissible under the posting rules seems to me an academic question, because what hsh is addressing here seems to me to be civility and not necessarily an issue which provides bright-line rules.
Please know that I am not countenancing what LJ and Doctor Science said. I feel that they and you are both at fault. And I’m not arbiter and have no power, but it did seem to me that you were being careful (and for this you should of course be commended) to not violate the posting rules while still showering lj with scorn and condescension. That’s permissible within the rules, but I think a more important consideration is whether improves the conversation here.
Please also know that I truly value your contributions and I think you’re an excellent writer. However, it makes this board and these threads less interesting to read when the conversation deteriorates. And I just want to submit that it is possible for one to contribute to a thread’s deterioration even while respecting the letter of the law of the posting rules. And I think that the passage hsh quoted was an example of precisely that.
As for why you have been singled out before lj and doctor science, I’d guess favoritism, or something, but I don’t think that’s a reason to refrain from engaging criticism directed at you.
The fact that you are technically in the right because you have refrained from using profanity does not, in my opinion, exculpate you from participating in further personal attacks.
By provoking a reaction from someone which would violate the posting rules, and then using their error to gain the moral high ground.
That’s a good theory but it has one problem: I already think I have the moral high ground. I mean, on hocb, LJ has explained to me in great detail how people who rent are inherently less trustworthy than people who own their homes. I don’t need to look at some blog comments to feel morally superior to a guy who thinks that owning a house proves one’s moral superiority.
Plus, I’m not asking for LJ and Dr Science to be sanctioned in any way (and I don’t think that would ever happen in any event). So how do I benefit from this high ground?
That does not negate the fact that you came off as though you were taunting LJ, and I think it is a reasonable interpretation of your posts.
Julian, perhaps you can explain: where exactly is my “taunting” of LJ? I’ve compressed my comments made before his outburst down below. Which specific phrases constitute “taunting”?
The fact that you are technically in the right because you have refrained from using profanity does not, in my opinion, exculpate you from participating in further personal attacks.
I’m not sure personal attacks are wrong when they’re accurate. For example, Gary has responded to DaveC’s comments by reminding people that DaveC boasted about trolling here whenever people at his church disagreed with his politics. Was that a personal attack? Was that uncivil? I don’t recall seeing any pushback in those cases.
I think you’re proposing a different set of norms than is currently recognized here. My guess is that since LJ is popular, there’s a lot of sympathy for the idea that people shouldn’t dissect his arguments in the way that one should argue with Marty or Seb’s comments. No one wants to admit to that, so instead we just selectively enforce existing norms to absurd levels whenever I dare to take LJ’s comments seriously. And then we invent new norms, like this idea that saying accurate things constitutes a “personal attack” or that asking a commenter to clarify a vague unformed comment is now “taunting”. But even that’s not enough so we have to start ignoring long existing norms like the prohibition against mind reading so that hsh can indulge in random speculation on my mental state.
Note that this is not the first time that Turb picked a fight like this over essentially nothing, in an effort to be (incorrectly) pedantic and draw attention to himself.
As you say, you believe you have the moral high ground, but that does not preclude you from claiming higher, more moral ground (the moral high ground extends infinitely upwards). I can’t read your mind, so I don’t know if it’s the case that you “don’t need to look at some blog comments to feel morally superior to a guy who thinks that owning a house proves one’s moral superiority,” but your prior comments belie your words.
The words I’m referring to now (and to which I referred to as “taunting”) were the ones hsh quoted in his 1:23 p.m. comment. I know that lj’s outburst preceded the comments I have labeled “taunting,” but I still think you’re on the hook for them.
“I’m not sure personal attacks are wrong when they’re accurate.”
In my opinion, a false dichotomy; there’s more to this than right and wrong. If you had confined yourself to pointing out that LJ was not engaging with the substance of your criticisms, and so on, you could have both accuracy and civility. You seem to be adopting a sort of “truth is no libel” defense. However, because we’re dealing with a much less stringent standard of conduct and speech (basically, what makes reading and contributing to a blog productive), I think it’s better to err on the side of not condoning abusive language and tone even if the substance of your points are valid.
I am not proposing a different set of norms, or I don’t mean to be. Maybe there are logical consequences of what I wrote which I did not appreciate.
I don’t at all advocate that any statements made here should be free from scrutiny.
I don’t know if you take me for a disinterested observer, but it truly looked to me in this thread like:
LJ was wrong
you were right
LJ was petty
you responded politely
LJ was petty
you started being rude.
The real reason I am addressing you and not LJ, Turb, is that you’re still replying and he isn’t. I think LJ was wrong on the merits and that he did not engage you properly. But I do think that you responded to his improper response poorly. I have no objection with your posts that preceded his “outburst,” to use your term.
I think the word Julian is looking for is not “taunting,” but “hectoring.” Particularly asking a set of questions at 10:24pm (or, really, the same question repeatedly), then complaining 27 minutes later that they had not yet been answered to your satisfaction.
But I do find it amusing that Turbulence is apparently still holding a grudge, or nursing a wound, or what have you over an argument that took place somewhere else entirely some four years ago. And which appears to be blessedly un-archived, but was not exactly as he portrays it here.
Can you explain what exactly I’ve done that’s problematic?
Turb, this was the question I was responding to. I probably should have quoted it in my last comment. But that’s why I focused on what you wrote and not what LJ and Doc Sci did. No, LJ shouldn’t have said you were being a jerk and Doc Sci shouldn’t have said you were acting like an asshole. Then again, if you were just a little nicer about things, the whole episode could have been avoided.
Since LJ doesn’t seem capable of explaining, why is a story about a guy who kills a complete stranger relevant?
I should have included this, too, which is really what started things going downhill. So, yeah, I did read the whole thread.
The issue isn’t your dissection of LJ’s argument. It’s more of your tone in doing so and the subjective characterizations you add. I also don’t think you can state the irrelevance of Oedipus to the subject of the post as a matter of fact. Other people might see relevance that you don’t, as it seems several people did, which is fine. But I think LJ made a reasonable attempt to explain what he thought was relevant. Perhaps that wasn’t going to change your mind, which is also fine. But you unfairly insulted him with the quote above, I think, with no real purpose.
The degree to which people engage in arguments and dissect what others write may or may not seem appropriate given the nature and/or importance of the subject. If we’re discussing policies with people’s lives in the balance or getting into nitty-gritty details on a technical issue, dissection and passion don’t seem so, well, wanton, I guess. This is admittedly subjective, which brings me to this:
But even that’s not enough so we have to start ignoring long existing norms like the prohibition against mind reading so that hsh can indulge in random speculation on my mental state.
As I said, I’m not mind reading. I’m simply telling you what the impression is that I get from what you write. It’s not random. It’s pattern recognition. My best guess could certainly be wrong, which I acknowlege by characterizing it as an impression. I didn’t say “You must think X, because you said A, B and C (which don’t equal X).” I’m simply letting you know how you are coming off to me because I thought you might want to know. Maybe you don’t, which is cool, too.
Other people have covered the ground for me — thank you, all — but please note: I did not say that you *are* an asshole, Turb, just that you were *acting* like one.
Remember the Principle of Proctouniversality: “There’s a little asshole in all of us.” Just try to restrain your inner snarkbeast a little.
On the issue of Greek mythology:
Oedipus is not IMHO relevant to the issue, and neither is Antigone, really, though that’s closer. The closest Greek example is The Oresteia, where Orestes has to wrestle with whether he should punish his mother for murdering his father.
But The Oresteia isn’t truly an example, either, because both crime and punishment are intrafamilial.
Thanks for the Plato cite, Matt, now I’ll go look it up.
Doc,
Sorry to have led to such a mess in your thread.
I only mentioned Oedipus because of the notion of son vs. father, but given that the play shows that poor behavior towards one’s parents is something that the gods will curse you for seems to explain a bit of why people feel that Frank Jr. is a rat. Oedipus is cursed even though he doesn’t know it is his father, so someone doing that to his father and knows it is even worse. Logically, there is no reason why one should view the pronouncement of one’s father as having any more basis in fact than some guy off the street. But given that this is part of a tradition that extends back to the Greek antiquity, it does perhaps explain why people were so visceral in the denunciation of this.
Turb,
I dont think this about many people, but I think the site would be better off if you left. Maybe temporarily, until you find that you can constructively contribute to a conversation like an adult. Maybe permanently. Whatever.
I have not seen a single thread that was improved by your presence, and many (like this one) where it turns into your posts alternatively taunting others and then claiming victimhood. You’re practiced at making your snide attacks sound like disinterested inquiry. But I notice that, the longer people are around, the less interested they are in playing with the tarbaby…
I think Calabrese jr is a snitch and a traitor with all of the connotations of such.
There is an old saying, “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. Jr benefitted from his father’s criminal activities; from being a member of the family. He didn’t complain until he was jailed.
I am not a gangster, although I have known a few. Calabrese jr is a con and Dr Science has been conned. There is more to this story, I’m sure. Jr got in trouble and made a deal that involved selling out his old man to get himself out of trouble. Anyone who has been around would know this to be more than just likely. If Jr was not not a con he would not have access to the inside information sufficient to get the old man busted for good.
Regardless, cops are as bad, if not worse, criminals as any gangster. The justice system is the best gangsters can pay for. When one gangster (or politician) goes down, it is for the benefit of a competitor ready – and all paid up – to take his place. So Jr wasn’t doing anything for the benefit of society. He knows better than most here. He was doing doing it for himself. Therefore, he is a snitch/traitor; not a hero in any sense.
My guess is that he will be on the wrong side of the lawn in short order. Good ridance.
Turbulence, it’s unintentionally hilarious when you complain about anyone else’s “mind-reading” shortly after you’ve caricatured someone else’s reason for speaking as “Emit random irrelevant comments alluding to ancient Greek culture and people will think that you’re seriously contributing to the discussion.”
No, I take it back: it’s not hilarious, it’s sad. You’re smarter and saner than this.
It depends on the crime and the circumstances that led to it. If your child comes to you for for help because it got involved with drugs and committed some commonly associated crimes, would your first thought really be to ring the police so that they will be locked up for a couple of years? I would find that rather counter intuitive.
As you say, you believe you have the moral high ground, but that does not preclude you from claiming higher, more moral ground
This is now a claim that cannot never be refuted, no matter what I actually believe. If you have to resort to such claims, then perhaps your argument is incorrect.
You seem to be adopting a sort of “truth is no libel” defense.
I very much am; actually, I thought of using that phrasing originally. I still want to know though: what is your answer to my questions about the Gary/DaveC interaction?
However, because we’re dealing with a much less stringent standard of conduct and speech (basically, what makes reading and contributing to a blog productive), I think it’s better to err on the side of not condoning abusive language and tone even if the substance of your points are valid.
Ah, we’re now going to be tone policing. Awesome. Tone policing certainly correlates with productive blog discussions in my experience.
I don’t know if you take me for a disinterested observer, but it truly looked to me in this thread like:…
Seems like a good summary to me.
The real reason I am addressing you and not LJ, Turb, is that you’re still replying and he isn’t.
I trust that you realize the main reason I’m still writing now is that hsh and you keep asking me questions?
I think the word Julian is looking for is not “taunting,” but “hectoring.”
Makes more sense to me. I’ll cop to hectoring.
Particularly asking a set of questions at 10:24pm (or, really, the same question repeatedly), then complaining 27 minutes later that they had not yet been answered to your satisfaction.
That wasn’t my intent, but now that you mention it, I can see how one might read it that way. In my mind, I was just replying to Tyro. Thanks for explaining.
But I do find it amusing that Turbulence is apparently still holding a grudge, or nursing a wound, or what have you over an argument that took place somewhere else entirely some four years ago. And which appears to be blessedly un-archived, but was not exactly as he portrays it here.
I’m not nursing a grudge. How could I be when I haven’t been wronged? Ditto for nursing a wound. But I do think it is strange that a guy who calls himself a liberal buys into an absurdly reactionary notion like the notion that homeowners are more trustworthy than the peasants who rent. Strange things tend to stick in the memory. And the post is right here. I can’t link to comments because hocb is broken, but LJ did write:
Note that I wasn’t the only one who noticed the anti-renter hatred; Donald Johnson and russell and I think even marbel commented on it too.
Carleton Wu —
That’s over the line. *Not your call*.
Then again, if you were just a little nicer about things, the whole episode could have been avoided.
Highly unlikely. This bit of wishful thinking seems very much in the spirit of earlier claims that I “provoked” LJ, so I appreciate your consistency.
But I think LJ made a reasonable attempt to explain what he thought was relevant.
There’s no there there. Certainly nothing coherent. But hey, LJ’s a popular guy and since he managed to string some words together, we can all pretend that he wrote something coherent, right?
I dont think this about many people, but I think the site would be better off if you left.
So, to summarize, you have nothing to say about this thread, but you can’t resist an opportunity to insult me. Awesome. And so civil!
Julian and hairshirthedonist, I trust that Carelton’s “tone”, both here and in, well, basically all his comments, will not be policed, amirite? Ah, but he’s slagging me in service of the vitally important and weighty topic of…slagging me, and that isn’t “wanton”, right?
To be clear: there is a double standard here. I’ve actually got no problem with that as long as people are honest about it. I accept that seriously addressing the incoherent comments of a popular poster like LJ will bring lots of criticism down on me. And I accept that the vicious and seemingly unending stream of bile that Carleton produces in most threads is perfectly acceptable and even welcome because he targets conservatives. I’m not a victim here. But I do think we should be honest about the norms this place operates under.
it’s unintentionally hilarious when you complain about anyone else’s “mind-reading” shortly after you’ve caricatured someone else’s reason for speaking as “Emit random irrelevant comments alluding to ancient Greek culture and people will think that you’re seriously contributing to the discussion.”
Hob, if no one can explain what insight Oedipus adds to the issue, then can’t we assume that it doesn’t actually add any? But perhaps someone did and I missed it: can you point to any comment in this thread where some insight is drawn from Oedipus? Because if you can’t, then I’d like to know what possible reasons you think someone might have for name-dropping ancient Greek plays that are totally irrelevant? I hope explaining that wouldn’t make you sad though.
Doc- any line in particular?
Reflecting on why people don’t like snitches: everyone breaks some rule or law. There are so many rules/laws that it’s impossible not to unless you are some neurotic balless freak. Most every snitch we encounter snitches a) because they are that neurotic freak or b) more likely for personal gain; even if as petty as to become the teacher’s pet. So what is there to like about snitches?
To make matters worse, the receivers of the snitches’ information are usually hypocrits whose compromised sense of fairness, justice and law and lack of general ‘coolness’ is usually well recognized.
Finally, real men (and I guess, women) solve problems by facing them – and the associated people involved – head on. They don’t go sneaking around behind backs, cutting secret deals to bring about the downfall of their opposition. This is the way policiains operate; and who likes politicians? There is no honor in this method.
So snitches get stiches. Snitches are antithetical an honor bound character culture.
This is what an effette like Dr Science can never understand.
It doesn’t matter that senior was a murderer. All of our leaders, who make the laws and selectively enforce them, are murderers too. If Jr couldn’t hang with his dad’s way of making a living then he shouldn’t have been sucking off dady’s wallet for so many years. If dady was ‘abusive’ – god I love the victim language of the lib.s – then jr should have walked away, or killed dady if walking away was impossible. But waiting years until both were jailed to subversively entrap the old man and have govt system do jr’s dirty work for him? That stinks. And I don’t believe jr when he says he got nothing out of it.
I remember my brother wondering how a brother could turn in the unabomber. As to TV episodes, there was a fictionalized version of the unabomber case on Law and Order, taking on the brothers feeling of guilt for turning him in.
avedis, it sounds like you’re making an argument that there should be no laws whatsoever. Since politicians and cops are all murderers, and honorable people deal with problems themselves, we should just handle these things the old-fashioned way.
The way the mob does already.
Well, in my case it certainly made no difference. But that wasn’t about family loyalty at all.
Still, I doubt it would matter much in any event. Family loyalty is often about keeping secrets. It doesn’t make it less bad to give up a secret you’re supposed to keep just because somebody asked you. If law or violence doesn’t make a difference, I doubt that would.
And, one more thing, jr chose a life of crime himself. Did he snitch himself out? Confess to all of the crimes he committed that he was never tried for? No. Of course not. So how committed is he to justice? What a load of crap.
Abusive father? Jr stole hundreds of thousands from his father and blew it on hookers and cocaine. The father got angry (what father wouldn’t?) and stuck a gun in jr’s face. Note; he didn’t pull the trigger.
Look at the list of dad’s victims. The spilotro bro.s? Come on. These guys were arch criminals. Vicious murderers. Calabrese killed them. Again, all of these people chose a life of crime.
Jr looks like a real piece of work to me…. and a rat.
Carleton:
I was thinking of “I think the site would be better off if you left.” It goes too close to “ad hominem”.
Thank you for asking.
Matt M., mostly I have no use for the law and would prefer to do as you suggest. The law is real good at protecting your dead body by drawing a nice chalk line around it. Otherwise, I have never seen them protect anyone. They probably have, but I have seen it despite ample opportunity. Go ahead and wave that restraining order in a violent attacker’s face. See how well it stops him.
However, I recognize that there are many people who cannot/will not take my approach (for various reasons). Therefore we need laws to make sheep feel safe and there probably is a time to call the cops. Sigh, there must be civil order and all that. That being said, it doesn’t change the fact that the criminal Calabrese jr is a rat.
Jr chose a life style, lived it, and then violated one of the key rules of that life style.
All I was trying do in my previous comments was give a perspective on why a lot of folks don’t like snitches; and I guess, why I personally don’t either.
avedis:
I’ve never been called “an effette” before, but I’m guessing it’s not intended as a compliment. If you meant “effete”, that sort of implies that I’m too femme — an accusation that is frankly hilarious.
My guess is that it’s intended as an ad hominem — or, in my case, ad feminam — attack, though, which is over the line. No more, please, lest I be forced to reach for the BanHammer.
Doc,
Maybe he meant “aesthete”, but aside from that, avedis’ argument boils down to the fact that we’re all brutes. Life is nasty and short. Eye for an eye….yadda’ yadda’. And this leads to…..well, a society where all things are permitted. And logically this would include ratting out your daddy, if you have what it takes.
You just need to ‘man up’ and laugh at him. He cracks me up.
I’m really puzzled about why this topic resulted in a thread with so much acrimony.
The case of Ted Kaczynski’s brother is, I suppose, more interesting. This is a guy who, as far as I know, wasn’t involved in any sort of criminal behavior himself, and given the situation, it was unlikely he’d be able to personally stop his brother from blowing people up (I don’t know if he even knew where Ted was).
But he could tell the FBI that the guy who wrote the manifesto sounded like his brother, and that probably saved at least several strangers’ lives. Yet apparently that struck some people as an unconscionable act of familial treason as well.
…Huh! Apparently David Kaczynski actually hired a private investigator to seek out Ted, in part to manage the FBI’s eventual contact with him to keep it from turning into a Ruby Ridge-style bloodbath. That’s going the extra mile. He might have saved Ted Kaczynski’s life.
Turb, you claimed that my theory re: the moral high ground was good, except for the fact that you already had it. My point was merely that already possessing the moral high ground, as you claimed to, did not render you immune. I was not trying to pose a testable Karl-popper style claim. Just meant to say that your defense did not preclude my claim, and that seemed to be your implication.
Regarding tone policing:
I’m not certain what you mean by this. Like I said, I am not an arbiter. I have no coercive power. If you mean a weaker form of tone policing, as in, why are we pestering you with this rather than leaving you alone, it’s because your position is more interesting to me, because I think (if I may flatter myself) it’s one I often occupy.
W/r/t to the DaveC and Gary exchange, I am not able to pass judgment on it without having seen it. I am suspicious of the “I’m just telling it how it is” defense because there is so often elaboration designed to infuriate your opponent that nevertheless passes a strict test of what is permissible. I don’t know Gary did that; if he was being flatly factual, then it sounds unobjectionable. Do you feel that you’ve behaved unimpeachably the entire time? I think that what hsh quotes of you in his 1:23 post is what constitutes the problem. As I said, I thought that your posts before that were fine.
I have said that you were within the rules (in my opinion). I conceded that LJ and Doctor Science were in breach of the rules. I don’t know what kind of denunciations will make you willing to consider my criticism.
I am asking you to reconsider the tone you use because it results in bogged-down discussions like this. I also ask people like LJ and Dr. Science and Carleton Wu, who find themselves rubbed the wrong way by your prose style, to refrain from being antagonistic themselves (even if in rule-permissible language, as in Carleton Wu’s case), and certainly from being openly insulting.
I’m sorry to butt in, I just like to make sense of things and I thought I could contribute to the metadiscussion about how to have an appropriate discussion. Carleton, I thought you were definitely uncivil. It’s really hard to not sound like a schoolmarm or a self-righteous oaf saying this sort of thing, but I really do mean this: let’s try to make sure that what we say adds value to the discussion. If what you say is intended to make someone else on the blog feel badly, even if it can be defended as a legitimate contribution, it might be a good idea to phrase it more carefully than you otherwise would. There are countless different ways that you could’ve rebuked Turb and I think those with more detail would’ve been more helpful.
I decided to turn an adjective into a noun and used what would be the french fem. form if there was such a noun in french. I like the word that way. Everyone will be using it as a noun in twenty years. It will be in all the dictionaries….
The noun denotes not just an effeminate nature but also, Lacking strength or vitality; feeble, powerless, impotent; decadent, self-indulgent…which is how I also see Calabrese Jr. and snitches in general.
I mean, do actually write stuff like, “…it was clear to me, listening to Frank Jr. and reading the excerpt from his book, that Frank Sr. was at least emotionally abusive to his children…” with a straight face?
How could you possibly overlook the fact that Jr is a hardened criminal himself? That he stole from his father? That he is a racketeer like his old man. That he has now written – and is most likely profitting from – a book that tells his smug little story?
You seem, to me, with your spin, to be justifying and supporting snitching without qualification. What you are saying here is that to kill other people who have chosen a life of crime and evil is bad, but to chose a life of crime and at least be guilty of murder via conspiracy/association and then weasel your way into book deals and out of your father’s control by cutting backroom deals and betraying said father is just fine.
Kaczynski’ is different than Calabrese.
Ted was a psycho loner that did not act as a brother in any way shape or form to David. David had not in any way bought into Ted’s life style. David, therefore was not betraying his brother. David did the right thing and he expressed his love for his brother by doing everything in his power to ensure that the law didn’t kill him. That is loyalty to both family and country.
Jr Calabrese was a voluntary and benefitting partner/participant in his father’s criminal – and family – business. he led his father to believe that he was still “in” and used that deception to betray his father to the law and personally materially benefit from that betrayel. That is a sneaky rat.
I remember a period, oh, it must have been back in the nineties when there as a effort in various localities to get school children to rat out their parents for drug use in the home. There was one high profile case of a kid who reported the parents for smoking pot. In my view the school program that encouraged this behavior was deeply stupid. I feel that way, of course, because I do not see pot smokig as a particlualrly bad thig. I believe the school programs that ecouraged this type of sitching were severely criticized.
On the other hand schools routinely teach kids that they should tell if they are being sexually or physically abused. I do think that most people support this.
I acquaintance of mine became aware that her brother had embezzled a great deal of money from his employer. She did not tell on her brother because she knew he’d get caught by the employer. (He was).
So I think there are a couple of axises (axi?) to consider: the degree of badness of the behavior, the liklihood of the malefactor getting caught without the tattling of a relative, and the risk of more victims.
Snitches are antithetical an honor bound character culture.
Such cultures are, in their own way, rather lawless. It’s by creating a law-bound culture that we have an assurance that anyone outside our immediate clan can be trusted.
In a law-bound culture, I can go walking at night and be safe, knowing that any malefactors will be given up to the authorities. In a so-called “an honor bound character culture,” I’m vulnerable to whomever decides I’m a target, and that person will be protected by those he regards as his “family.”
Nice devil’s advocate attempt, though.
I’m really puzzled about why this topic resulted in a thread with so much acrimony.
Because Turb decided to pick a fight.
I was thinking of “I think the site would be better off if you left.” It goes too close to “ad hominem”.
Well, I dont mean it in the sense of attacking his argument by attacking him personally. I think that Turb is a troll, in the sense that he doesn’t really try to add to the conversation; he disrupts the conversation for his own purposes.
Id been holding back saying that for a while- after all, there are a lot of people here with different styles and opinions and not all of them are going to jive with me. But I’ve seen thread after thread get this treatment- if he could easily be ignored like a viagra ad that’d be one thing, but he tends to take over the thread with insults and claims of victimhood.
I mean, I *rarely* get into discussions with Gary F. But he has tons to offer and seems like a genuinely nice guy. He adds a great deal more to ObWi than I do. So it’s not that I want to see people gone who I don’t interact with.
And I used to get into ugly spats with Charles Bird, but again Charles was really actively participating in threads in the sense of moving conversations forward. He’s one of the few people I’ve seen on here for an extended period that I *wouldnt* want to have a beer with, but he was genuinely participating in a relatively hostile forum and I appreciate that.
And I don’t read every thread, or even most of them these days. So maybe Turb is offering a lot on threads that I havent seen. But that doesn’t change my assessment: I havent seen a thread improved by his participation, nor have I seen what looks like a good-faith effort to keep the tone from degenerating whenever he’s involved.
Julian, I hope that addresses your concern as well- Im not trying to make Turb feel bad. Im hoping that this leads to either him recognizing his behavior and how it needs to change, or the kitty taking a more serious look at his behavior going forward.
There are countless different ways that you could’ve rebuked Turb and I think those with more detail would’ve been more helpful.
I, on the other hand, doubt that any style of rebuke would’ve been useful. Ive been an @sshole on ObWi before and doubtless will again. And when someone points that out Ill sheepishly admit it (sometimes I even do this myself nowadays). And I do try to add to the conversations.
But I have not ever seen Turb admit to anything like a tone error- always he is the victim of double-standards and abuse by others. That this happens to him over and over again is just a sign that the world is arrayed against him somehow, not a sign that he might have a bad habit that ought to be looked at.
wonkie, agreed, but you left out the most important axis; the degree to which the rat was a participant and benefactor of the crimes to which he wishes to see someone else punished and the degree to which he avoids accepting responsibility himself.
In the situation where your acquantance’s brother stole money, what if the sister had been in on the theft as well, but then ratted out the brother? What if it wasn’t an isolated incident, but that they had run a theft ring together for years? And she snitched on her brother, but avoided mentioning her own involvement? Or did mention it, but got leniency because she snitched while the brother got the full sentence?
I think most people would view the sister negatively in those scenarious.
So I think there are a couple of axises (axi?) to consider: the degree of badness of the behavior, the liklihood of the malefactor getting caught without the tattling of a relative, and the risk of more victims.
And, as avedis ungracefully pointed out, the motives of the informant: all the way from “being threatened” to “informing to gain personal advantage”.
btw wonkie, I see you got your “n” back, congrats. What was your solution?
I think most people would view the sister negatively in those scenarious.
Except that the final outcome — people no longer stealing money — is a positive one. The reason people would be upset is not out of any personal regard for family bonds but because they wanted the sister to spend more time in jail, but will simply settle for money no longer being stolen, even if the sister wasn’t punished as heavily we might have preferred.
In an “honor bound character culture,” the sister or friends of the brother would have been punished for aiding the authorities in stopping the theft whether they were involved in it or not– in part because the victim of the theft, not being part of the “clan”, is considered “fair game.”
“In a law-bound culture, I can go walking at night and be safe, knowing that any malefactors will be given up to the authorities.”
Really? I know a lot of places right here in the good old USA that I would dare you to go walking around at night. I know of honor based societies where you could walk around at night becuase the deizens have no honor based reason to harm you.
Now you will probably tell me that any society where you can’t walk around at night is not a law bound society; a no true scottsman type thing.
I guess the only law bound US societies are suburban housing tracts.
But yeah, after your dead there is some probability that the law might catch those malefactors; or not.
I know a lot of places right here in the good old USA that I would dare you to go walking around at night.
Those are the places where they sell the “stop snitchin'” tshirts. That’s your “honor bound character culture” for you.
What you don’t realize is that even in your “honor bound character culture,” what you have is carte blanche for anyone “protected” to target anyone outside the clan– but it doesn’t end there— because someone who feels free to attack “them” will eventually turn on “you.”
“Except that the final outcome — people no longer stealing money — is a positive one. The reason people would be upset is not out of any personal regard for family bonds but because they wanted the sister to spend more time in jail…”
Yes, they will be happy that the theft has stopped, but I still think they will view the sister negatively for other reasons. The sister has displayed treacherous qualities beyond the thefts. She has shown that she has no loyalty to anyone; not even her partners and family and that strikes deep for most people.
The utter untrustworthyness of the sister in our scenario totally outweighs any positive contributions to society that may have resulted from her going to the authorities in the minds of many.
I think that many tattle tales, whistel blowers, snitches, etc make this miscalculation. In their minds they think they will come out smelling like a rose because some greater good was achieved. However, observers often tend to evaluate them instead on a personal level and on that level they are found to be wanting in character.
Trust is a rare commodity in this world. People will weigh the trust factor more heavily than the crime revealed depending on the crime. Murder of other criminals, drug dealing, even bank robbery are often viewed as less important than trust. Some crimes like child molestation and random terrorism are weighed more heavily than trust.
Yes, but Tyro, in your law based society, the same things happens. It’s just a matter of method. One societal type uses a gun or knife and the other uses lawyers, the justice system, both closed country club door and public media character assassinations, lies and inuendo and, of course, warships and planes.
So your point is ultimately moot. You’re putting lipstick on the pig and calling it a lady.
Trust is a rare commodity in this world. People will weigh the trust factor more heavily than the crime revealed depending on the crime. Murder of other criminals, drug dealing, even bank robbery are often viewed as less important than trust
The thing is, though, that the circle of trust in your “honor bound character society” is much more limited than in the law-based society: there is no ability to transact business with anyone outside your immediate relatives or other clan members, because you know that you will be fair game to be cheated and stolen from, and the malefactor involved will be protected by his own clan, leaving you with no recourse. This is one of the reasons that the economies of those societies that you valorize are much more primitive– because you have very limited ability to trust anyone.
Julian and hairshirthedonist, I trust that Carelton’s “tone”, both here and in, well, basically all his comments, will not be policed, amirite?
I share my thoughts as I see fit and when I have the time, Turb, but since you brought it up, I’d say Carleton’s tone was out of line. I was also surprised to read that, since I usually find your comments to be worthwhile, despite today’s kerfuffle.
But I don’t recall the bile you wrote of coming from Carleton. I’d say what I saw from you today was a puzzling “much ado about nothing” sort of thing. Carleton can nail people, but my memory is that it’s much ado about something, thus not so bile-like, IMO.
Anyway, I’m going to bed. Night all.
Tyro, have to disagree. The mafia developed a strong internal economy that lasted decades. Drug dealers have flourishing cartels. Business is business. Money is sobering and leads to rational capitalist methods. Again, in your “law based societies” all sorts of screwing of business partners happens. Monopolies develop. Regulations are removed through backroom lobbying and favor trading. Hundreds of billions are taken from tax paying citizens to be funneled into the coffers of the big banks and other conglomerates; all approved by the law makers. Again, this is done with lawyers instead of guns, but the end result is the same.
“Law based society”? Come on, who do you think you’re talking to here?
There is no “law based society”. It’s a mirage designed for suckers to buy into for the material benefit of those controlling the image and the medium.
Tyro, Your problem in comprehension is a common one. You fear physical violence and are willing to trade all sorts of freedom to avoid it. Understandable.
But then you want to convince yourself that you are superior because you are physically safe.
Therefore, you have no problem with mega banks and the military industrial complex wrecking the economy, stealing your tax dollars and leaving you and your neighbors high and dry.
But you do have a problem with roaming gangs of thugs armed with guns.
The former you call “law based” and the latter you call “honor based” and “primitive”.
But you do have a problem with roaming gangs of thugs armed with guns…. you call “honor based” and “primitive”.
Actually, you are the one who calls those violent societies without trust “honor based”– I was simply the one who called you on it.
W/r/t to the DaveC and Gary exchange, I am not able to pass judgment on it without having seen it.
Now you’ve seen it.
Do you feel that you’ve behaved unimpeachably the entire time? I think that what hsh quotes of you in his 1:23 post is what constitutes the problem.
No. I’ve never met a person in my life who I thought behaved unimpeachably, so that doesn’t overmuch concern me.
But I have not ever seen Turb admit to anything like a tone error-always he is the victim of double-standards and abuse by others.
Ah, so this never happened then. I mean, it could not have — I’m always the victim. Even when I explicitly say that I’m not a victim.
I do not understand what bizarre pathology compels you to fabricate such a complex and contradictory inner life for me, but in the words of Dr Science, stop acting like an asshole Carleton.
But I don’t recall the bile you wrote of coming from Carleton. I’d say what I saw from you today was a puzzling “much ado about nothing” sort of thing. Carleton can nail people, but my memory is that it’s much ado about something, thus not so bile-like, IMO.
I take it you missed out on the recent Libya thread where jrudkis noted some concern about a peripheral issue and Carleton proceeded to dominate the entire thread obsessing over it, all the while demonstrating, let’s say a certain “tone”. At the time, no one complained about his “tone” or his fixation on a minor point. Now, it is certainly possible that Eric Martin, Jacob Davies, jrudkis, McTex and myself were all wrong together and at the same time while Wu was correct, but that seems…a bit unlikely. The five of us as a rule tend not to agree about much. And with respect, Carleton often employs bile when nailing conervatives after he grows a bit weary of them. You may not notice it because they’re not LJ, but the bile is still there.
So when I said I hadnt seen it & went out of my way to point out that I dont read every thread on here- which part of that did you not get?
I do not understand what bizarre pathology compels you to fabricate such a complex and contradictory inner life for me
There is nothing particularly complex about trolling, or the motives for it. Don’t flatter yourself.
I take it you missed out on the recent Libya thread ….At the time, no one complained about his “tone” or his fixation on a minor point.
When no one else is noticing things that seem obvious to you- my bile, lj’s vacuousness, etc, then you might want to consider that you’re consistently misreading things (rather than: you’re consistently seeing true things that no one else can see). Just as how you’re constantly getting into spats here, but they’re never your fault- unless we’re all picking on you because of your name, there might be another reason why that keeps occurring?
I mean, on that thread, I was arguing with Eric– yet Eric managed to not notice that Im consumed with bile? I was not agreeing with Jacob, and he also managed to miss this obvious fact? Im just insufferable to mcTex, and he doesn’t seem to hold anything against me?
But since you asked- did I jack the Libya thread? Yeah, sort of. I took it off on a tangent. Maybe that was bad of me. Did I try to engage in reasonable discussion? Yes, I think I did. In the end, I did get pretty snarky with jrudkis, but as hsh(?) pointed out, I did that bc he make an extravant claim and then refused to even acknowledge it or give specifics about it. I snarked some at Eric too, but IMO mostly constructively.
Could I have had better tone? Sure. Was I trying to argue actual points and move the discussion forward? I think undisputably yes.
I compare that with what you’ve done on this thread- if you did want to have a real discussion with lj, you went about it completely & obviously wrong. Starting with snide comments generally ends badly, and when things went bad you gleefully threw yourself into it rather than trying to get things on the right track. And, again, I’ve seen that over and over from you- a nominal attempt at conversation with more snide than content, and a quick rush down the slippery slope to trading invective rather than having a discussion.
Now, it is certainly possible that Eric Martin, Jacob Davies, jrudkis, McTex and myself were all wrong together and at the same time while Wu was correct, but that seems…a bit unlikely
Really? It’s not likely that 5 people on this blog think something and are wrong? And speaking of misperceptions, I dont think either Eric or Jacob came out strongly for the thesis that the EU couldnt do a NFZ. As for McTex, quoth the Texan “Well, you are positing a massive effort by NATO and asking, if NATO does all of this, can they be militarily defeated? If that’s the question, I turn over my king. No, Libya cannot defeat NATO under any set of circumstances imaginable.”
So, now it’s you and jrudkis. Are you going to stick with the thesis that you and jrudkis together cannot be wrong?
A word to the wise, h/t russell.
Seriously, it’s time.
So when I said I hadnt seen it & went out of my way to point out that I dont read every thread on here- which part of that did you not get?
Oh I got it all right. Rest assured, your weasel words did not go unnoticed. But I also noticed that your statement “always he is the victim of double-standards and abuse by others” is completely wrong.
Starting with snide comments generally ends badly
I can’t believe how snide I was in this comment or this one. Which part of that do you think was the snidest? Was it the part where I suggested that I might be wrong and then asked for LJ’s help?
Just as how you’re constantly getting into spats here, but they’re never your fault
It is really odd how you keep ignoring reality. I’ve screwed up many times in the past. And I’ve apologized many times. I just gave you a link to one such case. And yet you still insist that this never happens. I don’t know what pathology makes you so resistant to evidence, but I don’t think that it is worth my time. The pig enjoys it after all. Have a good night Carleton.
“What if it wasn’t an isolated incident, but that they had run a theft ring together for years?”
sin. the fall. forgiveNESS. REDEMPTION.
Halleluja! The sinner shall be SAVED!
One of the oldest stories in THE BOOK. You might have missed it.
Oh I got it all right. Rest assured, your weasel words did not go unnoticed.
Yes, when I explain that I can only comment on what I’ve seen for myself, those are weasel words. Weasels being known, apparently, for scrupulously trying not to overstate their case.
But I also noticed that your statement “always he is the victim of double-standards and abuse by others” is completely wrong.
Not at all. Hard to notice something that’s not true, but you’ve been quite good at it. The very example you cite to disprove this has you claiming that you weren’t trying to start a fight, you were trying to do the guy a favor! And, for some reason, he reacted to your kind favor by getting in some kind of snit!
Naturally, you question various peoples’ intelligence, grasp of reality, etc.
This is the thread you nominate to show how reasonable you are? Heck, I think Ive seen you do better, and if you hadnt noticed Im not exactly your biggest fan.
Yeah, actually that is snide. Tons of snide.
You start by accusing lj of not advancing the discussion. Then calling his comment disrespectful of both ancient Greek culture and our own. Then explaining, as if to a child, that “cultures are serious things”. And then accusing him of “pretend[ing] that the ancient Greeks codified some sort of universal human experience.”
And you wind it up with the snide ‘while Ive called you four kinds of idiot, maybe I dont understand and you could clarify for us?’
The second supposedly non-snide comment has the irritating rhetorical method of asking the same question repeatedly in the course of a comment, where naturally there is no opportunity to respond. I occasionally resort to that when someone repeatedly refuses to answer a question- but it’s definitely a provocation and uncalled-for when the person hasn’t even had a chance to respond in the first place.
If you don’t see that these comments (“cultures are serious things”!) were unlikely to precipitate a good conversation- if you do in fact believe that they ought to have been interpreted as genuinely friendly, curious attempts to probe at a point- then you have to understand that no one else is going to see it that way. I don’t know how else to explain this, I feel like Im talking to a &$%^$#* Martian. People do not enjoy being lectured. People do not enjoy having their comments dismissed as irrelevant. People do not like being told that they know nothing about a subject they’re talking about.
So if you wanted to make the perfectly reasonable points ‘Oedipus didn’t knowingly betray his father’ and ‘is it a good idea to generalize from ancient Greek culture to ours’, you could’ve done that easily without adding all of the “cultures are serious things” snark.
It is really odd how you keep ignoring reality. I’ve screwed up many times in the past. And I’ve apologized many times. I just gave you a link to one such case. And yet you still insist that this never happens.
I said you’re constantly getting into spats here. In my experience, that’s true. A single instance where Slarti called you out for stepping over the line, you apologized, and immediately got back into squabbling with the new guy doesn’t invalidate that.
Somehow, you think that “you’re constantly getting into spats here” is disproved by ‘here’s an example of me apologizing’. I don’t know why you think that. But then, I dont understand a lot of your thought processes.
I just don’t see where Dr. Science is lauding Frank Jr. for being a generally good guy. Maybe you can point that out?
Sure, it’s possible that Frank Jr. has less than noble motives for ratting on his father. Sure, he might be completely unworthy of praise for having done so. Even taking all of that as a given, though, his having done what he did turned into a good thing for all of the rest of us.
Honor is between individuals, not between individuals and “society” (unless of course that individual has some societal responsibilities; if he/she is an elected official for instance. Frank Jr. might have dishonored his family, but that is between him and his family. You should not be concerned with it; it is none of your business. He has not transgressed against you.
Isn’t that how honor-based societies work? People mind their own business when matters of personal honor are not involved?
He might have shame. Or he might have redeemed himself. I don’t know, or particularly care. It’s a little unseemly, methinks, to argue so vociferously against (or on behalf of) Frank Jr.
I, too, am puzzled. I can only imagine the dismay with which hilzoy would be experiencing, when happening upon this thread.
That’s pretty much my gauge (not that I consult it frequently enough): if my participation in a thread makes my mental model of hilzoy sigh in dismay, I stop, disengage, change the subject; whatever it takes.
Again: not that this tactic always works for me, or is used in time. But I try, and I think I have improved myself by doing that.
I’ve actually considered that we might close comments on this thread, but I’m curious to see how we recover from this little dustup.
I can only imagine the dismay with which hilzoy would be experiencing, when happening upon this thread.
Glad I missed it then.
I was not agreeing with Jacob, and he also managed to miss this obvious fact?
Well, there was this from Jacob on that thread:
CW: “It wouldn’t bother me to not have to refute another boatload of your poor reasoning and reading skills.”
Please dial it back a bit, applies to all parties. This is an interesting discussion in itself. If you’re too frustrated to keep it civil, take a break.
Everyone has bad moments, some more than others. Sometimes people notice and bother to say something and sometimes not. Some people have particular beefs with certain others, or they just rub each other the wrong way for whatever reason. With that, I don’t think it boils down to a blog-wide double standard.
None of that would matter if we could stick to pointing out defects in arguments rather than speculating on the defects of the people making them.
I’ve probably thought and written too much about this already, so that’s the last from me on it.
I come back from visiting the boys in Vegas and find out Joe Pesci is missing. I’m told he messed wid a made man and there was nothing we could do.
Seems he a ended up, as avedis put it many comments ago, on “the wrong side of the lawn”, swimming wid da worms.
Easy come, easy go.
^
|
|
This. We should all remember this.
Myself included; even especially included.
I think it’s all my fault fo not commenting on this thread in the first place. But I can’t be everywhere.
I blame you too, Marty.
None of that would matter if we could stick to pointing out defects in arguments rather than speculating on the defects of the people making them.
Absolutely. We should focus on defects in arguments. Arguments and tone also. Tone matters too. Plus, motivations. OK, arguments, tone, motivations, and whether arguments are in service of major issues as opposed to side points. Those are our four weapons.
On topic though, I have had the experience of wondering what to do about a relative who I knew was doing things in the mob that I thought were beyond looking past.
However, I didn’t have concrete evidence to hand anyone so my “turning them in” would have been less than useful. There is a certain level of knowledge that is required to be useful in many circumstances that then incurs the thought process of shared guilt, thus bringing into play the “snitch” mentality. It also brings into play the thought process around putting ones self in jeopardy for a questionable outcome by legal system.
Between family loyalty, the level of crime required to overcome that natural desire to protect a loved one and the questions around what actual good you can do, and at what risk,it is more complex than just ratting someone out.
In the unabomber case it is more straightforward, the authorities didn’t know who it was. Just giving them a name and location was enough to be helpful.
In the Calabrese case it required someone with facts that could be corroborated to be helpful to advance the cause of law enforcement. They already knew who they wanted too arrest. Frank Jr wasn’t exactly spilling the beans that dad was a bad guy.
The situations and actions are very different. The family dynamics were different. The culture of the families were different.
Just to lighten things up:
Today’s boingboing.
Between family loyalty, the level of crime required to overcome that natural desire to protect a loved one and the questions around what actual good you can do, and at what risk,it is more complex than just ratting someone out.
To me it comes down to what means of intervention are available, and that there are different means available to family members (and very close friends) that don’t exist for strangers or acquaintances. There’s nothing inherently wrong with handling things on a personal level without involving the law, yourself and directly, at least, or at least as a first step.
Now, if your father is a repeat murderer whom you believe is capable of acting violently against you despite your relationship, the law (broadly speaking, including “the authorities”) just might be your only recourse. But that’s an extraordinary case that most people won’t have to deal with.
Let’s say your father (or brother or mother or sister or child) habitually drives drunk but hasn’t harmed anyone. You don’t necessarily go straight to the police without saying anything to your offending relative. (I don’t think they could do anything about past offenses, anyway. Any criminal lawyers in the house?)
But now you’re at a wedding, Pop’s loaded and decides he wants to hop in the Caddy to go buy a pack of smokes. It’s just the two of you outside smoking his last two butts. You try to talk him out of it. You try to take his keys. He pops you in the jaw and trots off while you’re stunned and trying to pick yourself up off the ground. (Dad’s a badass, but wasn’t a generally abusive father.)
What do you do now? It’s too late to stop him. He’s pulling out of the parking lot, hammered. You have a cell phone.
None of that would matter if we could stick to pointing out defects in arguments rather than speculating on the defects of the people making them.
I don’t want to stop with that. Attacking people is one thing, but attacking reasonable arguments in an unreasonable way is IMO just as likely to cause a problem in terms of keeping conversation constructive.
It’s odd to try to explain to people who are new here and get their feathers ruffled: “When he said your argument was stupid, that was considered Ok, but when you said *he* was stupid, that was over a line.” The end result of that sort of parsing is a bunch of people who know what’s permitted and what’s not and can moderate their tone as required without stepping over that line.
And that is a very different thing than genuinely enforcing the rule about being constructive. It’s a clear line, and that’s a good thing about a rule, but it’s not all hard to work around the letter while violating the spirit.
I guess Im saying- that’s a fine thing to remember, but it just isn’t the case that attacking arguments instead of people would magically create a good atmosphere or force people to either stay silent or constructively contribute to conversations.
Also check out Slashdot and xkcd. Bizarre, what xkcd has done.
Also, Scalzi has something quite elaborate cooked up.
Attacking people is one thing, but attacking reasonable arguments in an unreasonable way is IMO just as likely to cause a problem in terms of keeping conversation constructive.
I agree. But attacking reasonable arguments in an unreasonable way isn’t (validly) pointing out defects in an argument. (Well, maybe…) Really, neither is saying an argument is stupid; that’s a subjective characterization. Factual and logical errors and omissions are defects.
Of course, some arguments are by nature subjective and the arguments are more emotional and personal than factual or logical. But, even then, one can express disagreement or question what someone is saying without making it about the person.
At any rate, yeah, I suppose you could, with enough effort, follow my golden rule while still finding a way to piss someone off. If you demand answers in some unreasonably specific format or within an unreasonable amount of time, that sort of thing, it might do the trick. I don’t know if it would be just as likely to cause problems, but it could cause them. I just think it’s easier to respond to that sort of thing (“I’m not your monkey” works) and laugh it off.
The most likely way to piss people off in an on-line discussion is to say or imply that they’re stupid in some way, I think.
But I’m not opposed to expanding the definition of incivility, so long as we can still argue.
Tough question here, actually. First of all, the odds that he’s going to kill someone are low. Most likely he’ll get there and back without getting caught. Possibly he’ll get into a minor accident or be pulled over for erratic driving. Getting a DUI will seriously cause trouble in a person’s life, and while he may deserve it, it’s possible that you don’t want to be the one to “do the police’s job for them.” It seems like you’re doing something vindictive since, as yet, there isn’t any victim (but there could be).
Ideally, you would hope he doesn’t hurt anyone and then have the family take him aside and drive home the consequences of his destructive behavior.
I think there’s sliding scale of so-called “loyalty” from “snitching” to the police where no one has gotten hurt (very disloyal, almost vindictive to your family), cooperating with the police when you’re asked to or when someone is being victimized (a good balance of protecting society’s interests and your own family’s), and actively covering up for someone to shield them from the police (actively harming society in order to protect a family member).
Clearly, this article is on to something.
Getting a DUI will seriously cause trouble in a person’s life, and while he may deserve it,…
May deserve it? In the scenario hsh described, the guy is driving a car. And he’s had a lot to drink. So he’s driving under the influence. By definition.
Yes, DUIs can screw up your life. So can getting killed by a drunk driver. There are all sorts of crimes I can imagine looking the other way on. But DUIs kill innocent people; we’re not talking about minor embezzlement or tax fraud here.
What do you do now? It’s too late to stop him. He’s pulling out of the parking lot, hammered. You have a cell phone.
A better question might be, what do you say to the family of the person he kills because he’s a drunk driver? Will “sorry your kid is dead, but I figured not hurting Dad’s feelings were more important than a 1/100 chance of killing someone” cut it?
Oedipus killed his father without knowledge; he had no idea that the man he was killing was his own father.
That’s not quite right. Oedipus knew of the prophecy that he was going to kill his father. Knowing that, he went out and casually killed a stranger of the right age to be his father. This culpability on the part of Oedipus is the whole point of the story.
A better question might be, what do you say to the family of the person he kills because he’s a drunk driver? Will “sorry your kid is dead, but I figured not hurting Dad’s feelings were more important than a 1/100 chance of killing someone” cut it?
Isn’t that a follow-up question for someone who decides not to call the police (after doing what was in his power to stop his father from driving in the first place)? If you did what you could at the time, but failed, and immediately called the police, that question (at least the second part) wouldn’t make any sense, I don’t think.
Isn’t that a follow-up question for someone who decides not to call the police (after doing what was in his power to stop his father from driving in the first place)?
He was replying to my comment, which was about having reservations about calling the police after he drives off.
Even so, is it a better question, or is it a follow up question?
On the family v. non-family front, what do you do if a stranger is at the same wedding and decides to drive off hammered? Calling the police seems uncontroversial, but taking steps to stop him yourself, not so much, right? (Wrong?)
That’s not quite right. Oedipus knew of the prophecy that he was going to kill his father. Knowing that, he went out and casually killed a stranger of the right age to be his father.
That’s a good point. But it is not clear that he had a choice: he got into an argument with an older man who tried to kill him. In the heat of the moment, while trying to defend himself, he kills the guy. I’m not sure how much culpability one can have in that case. Now, you can move the same argument back and say that he should never have put himself in a position where anyone might attack him and give him an opportunity to kill a man in self-defense. But I’m not sure that a Greek noble circa 700 BCE could so easily avoid all situations where violence might occur. I really don’t know; my sense is that life for such people involved a good deal more casual violence than it would for us today.
This culpability on the part of Oedipus is the whole point of the story.
I’m not so sure of that. An alternate reading is that Oedipus can’t escape his fate because his fate was sealed before he was even born. If Oedipus was culpable, then he had a choice, which doesn’t really fit earlier claims that ancient Greek gods sought vengeance not mens rea.
It is a fascinating work that raises all sorts of questions and that is precisely why I don’t think it adds anything relevant the discussion here.
Even so, is it a better question, or is it a follow up question?
I guess it is a follow up question. That seems like such a minor trivial issue though. I feel very hectored: you asked the same question twice in 12 minutes. Was once not good enough? Why exactly would you choose to focus on such a trite insignificant issue anyway: what is your motivation?
hsh, to be perfectly clear, I only kid.
Family Business seems spot on, no?
To be sure, it was a somewhat disappointing, less than the sum of its parts, movie, but that’s not what you asked. It’s also not terrible; merely not great.
However, aren’t all three Godfather movies obvious? Or is that too obvious?
A real life example, FWIW.
Woollard, of Dibden Purlieu, Hampshire, joined protesters who stormed the Millbank complex in London that houses Tory Party headquarters on November 10.
His mother Tania Garwood encouraged him to give himself up to police after he was pictured by media organisations during the rioting.
I sure do. His brother’s traitor / A conflicted life after fingering the Unabomber
August 12, 2001, by Matthew Purdy, New York Times. Or: Unabomber Writes of Brother’s `Treason’ / Kaczynski’s new book full of anger, denial
March 01, 1999, by William Glaberson, New York Times.
Etc.
Axes:
Then:
The tedious, annoying complaints of public radio listeners, Farhad Manjoo. Funny piece.
Gary, I’m not sure if David Kaczynski having his doubts, or Ted Kaczynski being angry at his brother turning him in counts as people upset at David Kaczynski in the way those NPR commenters were talking about Frank Cabrese jr. You might be referring to the title of the article, and this blogpost has this
But there are no pleasing some people. For certain folks, out of a perverted alienation from what is good and right in our culture, find Ted admirable – and David abhorrent, as David turned his own flesh and blood over to law enforcement. The San Francisco Chronicle [sic] even dared to call him “His Brother’s Traitor” in an article headline.
Though it seems that the title is less an ethical statement and more an attempt to catch attention and it is tied up with people who admire the Unabomber’s world view rather than being against it, but thinking that family comes first.
However, the Washington Post had a piece back in the day that quoted G Gordon Liddy as being disapproving
“It violates the taboo against turning on one’s family,” argues [G. Gordon] Liddy, the convicted Watergate felon who spent time behind bars rather than turn informant. “He went out and took action which led him to believe his brother may be the Unabomber — and then turned his brother in.”
though I can’t say that surprises me. Unfortunately, the rest is behind a paywall, so I don’t know if it has examples of people other than Liddy expressing those opinions.
anthony:
I’m not sure which one you mean. If somehow you’re referring to Star Wars, that’s not what happens. The father sacrifices himself to save the son’s life, and is killed by Emperor Palpatine.
None of us can say for sure what advances a discussion unless we can already predict everything that will be said and thought by everyone who might contribute.
Were that true, it would seem a waste of time to have said discusison outside of one’s own head.
It’s fine that you don’t see it, but there’s a reason most people recogize the name “Oedipus,” and innumerable people know at least a one-sentence version of the story.
Oedipus: “About 5,070,000 results.”
I think Google answers your question. Millions of people outvote your personal opinion by a citable metric.
One could be more specific by discussing how Greek mythology, culture, literature, drama, and philosophy have been formative in the direct line of descent to American culture, but this is so generally accepted that my own opinion is that it scarcely needs elaboration.
It apparently does, at least slightly, so I now have.
Carleton:
Fiction tremendously affects culture. Specifically, portraits of the Mafia in books popularized through movies and tv have given models to people in the Mafia as to how they should act.
And so on throughout various behavioral models for all sorts of situations and cultural dynamics and references.
Humans think and exchange information with each other in narratives.
Narratives reflect reality in some way, or we can’t identify with them, and when narratives are propagated, they resonate with our ways of thinking, they stir our emotions, and they become part of our thinking, and that’s what we call “culture.”
The thread of such narratives throughout history, as weaved together from different cultures as people intermingle in ever-increasing globalism — which is hardly a new thing, cultures have been intermingling since the Stone Age, and on through the beginning of history, the Egyptians, Hittites, Biblical era, Greeks, Alexander, and Romans, the Silk Road, the Sahelian kingdoms, Aksumite Empire, the first contacts of Europe and China the Islamic caliphates of the Umayyads and Abbasid, the Mongel Conquests, the Renaissance, Venetian Republic, here, there, and everywhere, and antepenultimately in the pre-WWI period when large-scale warfare was thought impossible because global trade had made national economies so interdependent (ha!; lesson learned?) — is the story of both global culture, micro and macro, and interpersonal psychology, as well as the interior of everyone’s mind.
It’s why fiction is.
“What do you do now? It’s too late to stop him. He’s pulling out of the parking lot, hammered. You have a cell phone.”
Thought about this for a while, I don’t do much. I am probably going to complain to someone in the family about what an a$$ he is being and hope like heck he gets back with no harm done.
I guess there is some part of me that would like to think I would call and get someone to stop him, but I would rationalize that the store isn’t far, they probably won’t catch him by the time he gets there and back, he is pretty good at driving drunk anyway, blah blah and I would hope like heck he didn’t hurt anyone. But I probably wouldn’t call the cops.
Thats what I would do. My Dad didn’t drink, his dad was killed by a drunk driver when I was eight(with my dad in the car), I don’t drink, but that’s still what I figure I would do. Not sure just why.
“Ian M Banks, a science fiction writer” (as I see was noted, actually “Iain M. Banks”) is also Iain non-M Banks who doesn’t write science fiction.
They’re both extremely highly critically regarded, best-selling in Britain, and to a moderate degree in the rest of the world, writers, who happen to be the same guy, but this is the effect of both genre ghettos, and the way mass market publishing is author-brand-name-dependent.
Thus the same writer may use several different names for different fiction categories; usually they’re more radically different, but that’s Iain’s sense of humor, and it’s worked pretty well for him:
Thus.
If you don’t have conflict in a story, you have no drama. Stasis, well, now we’re getting into literary theory, but many argue, and I’m not inclined to argue back, that stories in which characters don’t change, and there is no drama, are stories, but they’re a very particular type of story, which tend to not engage people emotionally, because they lack narrative drive, narrative spine, character development, and thus emotional engagement.
To be sure, this starts to go into the divide between popular fiction and what some call “literary” fiction, and I don’t want to go there, here and now.
On some later discussion, yes, name-calling is a violation of the Posting Rules, specifically:
And while “Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake” is also there, generally speaking, writing abusively, which includes calling another commenter an insulting name, is something we discourage anyone and everyone from doing, including front pagers.
However, we’re also all human, have our own stresses, lose our tempers, say things we regret, and so on.
I’ve not read all the comments yet, but I’d like to think that the above is all that need be said, save to emphasize and acknowledge that, yes, the Posting Rules do apply to front pagers, and we can chastize each other, although we also like to maintain what good relations are possible, though ObWi also has a history of that not always being the case.
A practice that has often been followed is for people, both front pagers, and non-front pagers, to self-ban themselves for a day, after losing their temper too badly. This is also hardly mandatory, but it’s one method of dealing with things.
Generally speaking, any and of all us who aren’t robots can sometimes do with a time-out. Goodness knows that I’ve needed to do so innumerable times, and have not.
It’s also very easy for some of us to sink our teeth into a point, worry it like a dog with a bone, and not want to let it go.
We’re all flawed. It behooves all of us to recall that, attempt to grant each other belief in the other’s good faith, and actually act in good faith, or, at the least, treat each other as best we can as if we believed the other is acting in good faith.
And it’s also always easiest to say this of and to others, when one is not emotionally engaged. So it also means that all of us, at one time or another, will be saying “do as I say, not as I do.”
And then we might return to the concept of the Golden Rule, and the notion of forgiveness.
Add to that the notion that time can heal most wounds, and wound most heels, and I hope enough will have now been said.
I think Google answers your question.
Which question would that be? You quoted a question I asked, but I can’t imagine why you think a google count for the word Oedipus answers it. So please, tell me, what question did I ask whose answer can be provided by google?
Sooooo, how about those Red Sox?
Too many meta comments, people.
Turb:
So please, tell me, what question did I ask whose answer can be provided by google?
Drop it, please.
hairshirthedonist, keep it dropped.
Carleton, ditto.
Slarti, way back: Honor is between individuals, not between individuals and “society” … Isn’t that how honor-based societies work?
I don’t know about that. If you steal my lunch money that’s between you and me. If the other kids see me meekly give you my lunch money because you threaten to break my nose, that’s different: you have robbed me of “honor”, as well as lunch. “Honor” is just shorthand for “What will the other kids think of me if I don’t defend myself?”
“What will other people think?” is the main concern of individuals in honor-based societies, I claim. That’s why insult is often resented more than injury by “men of honor”.
This thread makes me think, by the way, that ObWi is almost a pure “honor-based society”. For sure injury is not an issue here; text on a screen, however vitriolic, doesn’t injure anybody. It’s insult that gets people fired up, because letting an insult go unanswered seems, to many of us, like losing face in the eyes of “society”. We care what other people think of us, but the “other people” we care about are not specifically those who offer us the insult; they are the “society” at large.
–TP
avedis:
The only reason I’m not banning you for attempting to insult me is that you failed so laughably.
I mean, do actually write stuff like, “…it was clear to me, listening to Frank Jr. and reading the excerpt from his book, that Frank Sr. was at least emotionally abusive to his children…” with a straight face?
Yes, why not? All accounts — not just Frank Jr.’s — make Frank Sr. look like a real, true sociopath. Such men are, in fact, *extremely* dangerous to society at large — and possibly even more dangerous to their families.
One of the biggest problems with honor-based cultures (and subcultures), in my observation, is that they give abusers a lot of cover. Frank Jr. was IMHO raised by an abuser, and cutting away from that life is *really hard*.
I think it’s great when people can get themselves out of horribly abusive situations, but I don’t expect it nor do I despise people who can’t. I’m sure this is because, as an “effete” woman, I know a lot of women, and that means knowing some who have had abusive families and relationships.
Because I listen to a lot of women and to people working against abuse (of all sorts), I think of family secrets, family honor, family loyalty, and “don’t air the dirty laundry” as ways for powerful abusers to keep their victims close and quiet. If we’re going to talk Greek & Roman mythology, I think of Saturn.
In the case of the Calabreses, they were all in jail already when Frank Jr. decided to work with the Feds. The charge he helped them nail his father on was *murder*. Unlike G. Gordon Liddy, I think you do not owe your family that kind of loyalty, ever. Not least because murder is the benchmark for other crimes.
I don’t know anyone who’s had to debate turning in their father for murder, but I know *at least* two who’ve had to think about taking action against their fathers for their own childhood rapes. AFAIK both decided not to take legal action, but getting to the point where they could seriously think about it required (among other things) dismantling the idea that “family loyalty” is an overriding value.
Just to make sure I’m clear, do you mean “One Life to Lose”, or “Law and Murder”?
Was it Castle or Beckett who had to make the choice, or one of the other regulars, or an episode-specific character? And which way did the decision go?
It was Law and Murder. And neither Castle or Beckett. I could go into detail, but I’d rather not spoiler. There have definitely been other Castle episodes with similar family/justice loyalty ties, but this one was both extremely relevant and timely.
Look at the list of dad’s victims. The spilotro bro.s? Come on. These guys were arch criminals. Vicious murderers. Calabrese killed them. Again, all of these people chose a life of crime.
You know what? Mafiosi make their living from the threat of violence against other people. It’s what they do for a living.
Dad’s victims were not just other bad guys.
Junior made a deal and sold out dear old dad? Well done. Good job, Junior. Dad shouldn’t have shoved a gun in his face. Payback’s a b*tch.
Doc science, yours is a most extreme example of adled liberal thinking. It is most disappointing that so many others here appear to agree with it, though not surprising.
Jr wasn’t like a rape/incest victim at all. He was a willful participant in a crime syndicate. he knew the rules. Sr stuck a gun in Jr’s face because Jr stole money – lots of it – from Sr. Anyone else who did that would be dead.
Jr chose a life of crime, violated the rules of that life when convenient to him.
Where is the sense of personal responsibility on your part?
Turbulence:
No, you haven’t.
Turbulence, if you’d like to go back and link to all of DaveC’s original attacks on Hilzoy, myself, and indiscriminately all Democrats, liberals, commenters and readers here, as al Qaeda supporters, traitors, people who wanted to see our friends murdered, people who wanted U.S. troops dead, and so on, the dozens and dozens of comments by DaveC which led Hilzoy to ban DaveC after months and months of this, knock yourself out.
Otherwise, please don’t point to a years-later comment and assert that you’re presenting relevant details to the history.
In any case, I unbanned DaveC myself, so the relevance escapes me. But please DON’T EXPLAIN. Thanks.
I’ve now more or less caught up on this thread, as of russell’s April 01, 2011 at 05:07 PM.
There’s been a lot of excess name-calling going on here, and a lot of unpleasantness.
There’s been way too high a ratio of commenting on other commenters’ motives and alleged general behavior, to comment on the substance of the thread.
There’s been way too high a ratio of people making allegations about other commenters’ personalities, and going back to previous conversation to attempt to support claims about other commenters’ personalities and writing styles.
This is not helpful. It is not substantive. Too many adjectives and nouns have been excessively thrown at other people here to the point of not being “reasonably civil”.
We’re not into rules lawyering here, and the front pagers do not have to answer demands that we justify our decisions.
Neither does any commenter here have to justify their comments to other commenters.
Some of these comments have been “disrupt[ive] or dest[ructive of] meaningful conversation” about the issue of what constitutes “treason against family,” because the conversation has excessively turned to personal attacks on other commenters, and discussion of personalities.
Some of these comments have been in the realm of “consistently abus[ing] or vilify[ing] other posters for its own sake.”
Please turn it down considerably, dial it back, chill out, mellow the harsh, and don’t run with those scissors.
If some commenters don’t do so, the next step would be for individual commenters or a commenter to receive a Warning that said commenter or commenters will be banned from commenting for a short period of days, ranging from 24-36 hours.
A relevant number of front pagers have briefly exchanges some views on this, and I’m holding back from saying more, but there hasn’t been disagreement voiced as to who might be Warned.
If you’re reading this, there’s no harm in considering the notion that if you’ve been discussing the personalities of other commenters, you might be someone we have in mind.
If you feel impelled to defend yourself from such a notion, consider that a sign you shouldn’t.
Consider this a generalized warning about being Warned, and let’s leave it there, and everyone try sticking to substance, rather than comments about personalities, writing styles, or past inter-commenter history, okay?
Thanks for your attention to helping the Obsidian Wings community be something of a community, where people are able to address each other with some good faith and civility.
Play nicely. Remember to be kind.
And on a separate scale and issue, Avedis, you’re mind-reading again, and making claims about what other people know and think, that could only be based on mind-reading. Please don’t do that. It’s not helpful to anyone.
Stick to responding to what people say, please, without making assertions as to what other people think.
None of us is entitled to do that, because all we know is what the other person writes, and what we make of that.
And none of us perfectly reproduces the entirety of our thinking in a few paragraphs, and few of us summarize it well, and we certainly don’t tend to do it in a hasty blog comment, and I most surely don’t exempt myself from this.
A good rule of thumb is to simply never make claims about what other people “believe” or “know” or “think.”
Respond to what they’ve written, and refer to that.
Thanks.
And, again, everyone: no rules lawyering about any of this, please. It won’t get you anywhere but deeper in any hole you’ve been digging.
“Neither does any commenter here have to justify their comments to other commenters.”
Thanks so much, Gary. I was experiencing writers block trying to put my justification into words. I am so relieved.
But well said, sir.
“The only reason I’m not banning you for attempting to insult me is that you failed so laughably.”
Um, we don’t have a rule against attempting to insult anyone. Neither do you have access to the password to ban anyone.
But if you did, oh, dear, I’ve really got to get that draft of the rewritten Banning Rules done and sent around, and hope that we can all agree, and then have it posted. Meanwhile, these remain our rules, and what’s relevant remains:
A problem here is that when this was written by Edward, January 26, 2005, it presupposed that the person/people with the SuperUser password either was reading most of the blog on a daily basis, or was answering the email at the ObWi email address: obsidianinfo@yahoo.com
Then that person or persons would institute such a ban.
Then:
Someone can only legitimately be banned for violating the Posting Rules.
We don’t have a rule against insulting front pagers. If one of the front pagers asked that someone be banned because they felt insulted, I, for one, would vote to lift said temporary ban, because the Posting Rules would not have been violated.
We have to live with being insulted.
Meanwhile, the rule is, and the rules are, as posted:
That’s always been interpreted to mean either amazingly over the top stuff, or stuff done over many days, or weeks, or months, or usually, both.
And as you may be aware, the mail went unread for two years.
If the current front pagers wish to suggest new Posting Rules, I’d be very happy to have that discussion behind the scenes. Meanwhile, all I intend to do is pretty much restate the current rules in a more coherent fashion, so they aren’t a series of updates to a seven-year-old post and don’t say that the people to appeal to are:
Any more radical changes than that would certainly have to be discussed.
But meanwhile we have only one set of Posting Rules, and they’re right here.
If any of us threatens to ban someone, all that person has to do is write the kitty, and ask what Rule they violated; then we’d have to discuss it, such as we, you know, do or don’t.
It’s probably useful in such a case for any front pager who wishes to see a commenter — and that includes a fellow front pager — banned for violating a Posting Rule to be able to quote which rule was violated.
Discussion of precedents would inevitably follow, and both what degree of consistency is reasonable or unreasonable, and naturally we’d ad hoc it since we’re a different bunch of folks than Charles Bird, Andrew Olmsted, Von, Edward, or Hilzoy, or Katherine, etc.
What we do have for continuity back to when the Rules of both types were created, and for years afterwards, through today, with some interregnums, are Sebastian, Slart, myself, Russell, and LJ, and more recently, Eric, then more recently, Jacob and yourself, and now Fiddler, and now, though it’s Not Yet On The Sidebar, Thomas Nephew.
That’s in terms of being active at ObWi and familiar with how the rules have been implemented, rather than, of course, seniority as a front pager.
And, as you know, we all get an equal vote. More than this we should discuss privately.
Avedis:
Avedis, we have, recently, between 80,000 to 60,000 visitors a month, and 130,000 to 150,000 page views a month (we’ve been steadily, overall, dropping since Hilzoy left, but that’s a separate point); you have no way of knowing what most readers think, no way of knowing how many people lurk and read a given comment, but certainly should be aware that fewer than 1%, or even .1%, of readers comment.
Of the semi-regular or most regular commenters, you still don’t know what anyone does or doesn’t agree to unless they write it down in words.
If someone does, please quote them.
If not, claims as to what you think anyone who hasn’t written something “appear[s] to agree with it” are based on what, exactly, besides your imagination?
You can’t draw conclusions from what people haven’t written.
You can certainly make assertions as you wish, but then other people will draw their only conclusions based upon their own interpretations of what you’ve actually written.
Possibly something to think about?
Meanwhile, Doctor Science is quite right to feel personally insulted by you. We don’t have a rule against it, but it’s most definitely uncivil, and if you do it repeatedly, you will be violating the Posting Rules, and will be within consideration of a Ban.
So please also give a bit of effort towards trying a bit of civility, okay? Do recall how many people — a majority of commenters, in my recollection — called for you to be banned for the first month or so of your heavy commenting, some months ago, and consider that some of us were very civil to you because we felt you were someone who could be reasonable.
I believe you are. But do please make an effort to avoid making personal characterizations, in particular, okay?
And as someone who should understand tactics and strategy, you might consider the lack of wisdom in the tactic of personally attacking and angering someone who has a vote as to whether or not to ban you, however short or longer term, and consider that while each front pager is very much an individual, of different mind, we also desire, I should hope, to get along with each other.
In short: please also dial down uncivil remarks towards Doctor Science, individuals, and also keep in mind this part of the Posting Rules:
And, yes, I try to remind those on the left/liberal side to knock off the wild generalizations about All Republicans and All Conservatives and All Libertarians, as well.
The blog has swung back and forth a lot over the years, as the commentariat has evolved, the blogosphere has developed, and the sets of front pagers have turned over, and we’ve had tons of inconsistency, but it’s not great for any of us to violate the above principle, which remains A Rule, such as we loosely have them and loosely and very inconsistently enforce them.
(All of which is why I intend to codify both those posts into something short and sweet and coherent, since as they are, they lack at least two out of three, and it’s no wonder that few people read all the way through all the “updates,” or make much sense of them, at this point, if they read them at all.
I also hope to have the font enlarged on the link to them on the front page.
But this all will take time. Meanwhile, if anyone is wondering why you’re not seeing posts on, say, Libya, well, a person can’t read all these comments and also write a post at the same time.
I’d like to apologize to anyone for whom I Spoiled the Star Wars hexalogy.
It’s always best to not faceplant the spelling when trying to insult someone else’s intelligence.
Dr. Science’s views in this regard aren’t a whole lot different from mine, and mine are not in any way liberal. Adled, well, we may have to have a reader poll.
One more thing: if someone else’s thinking is addled, it’s generally more effective (not to mention, more deserving of audience applause) to demonstrate that it’s addled, rather than just planting an addled flag.
FWIW. Now, please play nice.
Just want to add my pair of € cents to the Mr. Swollen Feet controversy. The way I remember it, he ran away from his foster parents to avoid the prophecy because he believed them to be his real parents. So he had no reason at all to believe that the guy he met on the way had anything to do with it. On the other hand his killing of the stranger was not necessary (two mens’ lifes for a horse?). Of course the whole thing could have been avoided by suicide (assisted or not) ;-).
—
On the views of relative culpability regarding different degrees of relatives: Crimes (in the widest sense) traditionally ranked by severity with father as victim leading the list, followed by brothers. I assume the mother came at #3 but have no proof of it. Friedrich Schiller (who originally studies law) discusses the topic in ‘Die Räuber’. In the drama Karl is spared the necessity to kill his brother because the latter commits suicide just in time.
Gary, I hear you. Ok.
In summary, what disturbs me about Dr. Science’s perspective is that the fact Jr was a sworn member of a fraternity, participated in the activities of that fraternity, benefitted from those activities and then betrayed the fraternity to its arch nemisis in a most devious way only when Jr himself was in a compromised situation and the betrayel could be beneficial towards improving that situation. To make matters worse, it turns out that the key target of the betrayel was Jr’s own father. Then we have evidence that Jr had a history of irresponsible behavior (i.e. stealing large sums of money from his father and blowing it on drugs and women).
Dr. Science and some others here focus on the fact that the fraternity was criminal. As such, they appear to me to be saying, there is no betrayel. There seems to be some implied lauding of Jr’s “snitching” behavior from these folks. Some see it as a positive because a criminal fraternity was damaged and this is good for society. Then there is a further attempt to muddy the waters by comparing Jr to a victim of a rape or incest. There is an apparent inability to recognize the difference between adult voluntary participant in a profitible criminal enterprise/fraternity and senseless involuntary forced victimization.
I am reacting to only Dr Science, but also to a great swath of liberals I have encountered who are so quick to identify a “victim” in a scenario that their ability to see the characters as they really are is impaired. Perhaps this is unfair to Dr Science. Then again, perhaps not.
Thus, I am saying that it doesn’t matter that the fraternity was criminal. Betrayel is betrayel. Dr Science wanted to know why people had posted comments on the NPR blog that were derisive towards Jr. I explained how I see it that way. I am focussed not on the benefit to society, but on the reflection of Jr’s behavior on his character. I have a suspicion that my views may be representative of a large proportion of those who wrote negative comments at NPR. Jr is publicly interviewing and he is trying to advance his book in which he tells the tale of his betrayel of his father and the fraternity. It makes sense to me to respond to Jr’s character as opposed to concocting musings about larger societal gain.
I think it’s fair to note that Frank Jr. is no angel, and it’s also fair to note that he can stand to profit monetarily from his book.
But the facts that he’s not really a nice guy, and is looking to cash in, those don’t make his snitching an objectively bad thing. But I can see how they can make his snitching subjectively bad. So it all depends on your POV, I think.
But where that objection is coming from bears some scrutiny, no? I mean, sure: the police sometimes (even frequently) do some bad things. But in a war between the Mafia and the police, do you want the Mafia to win?
Serious question.
The Mafia and Silvio Berlusconi: bunga bunga?
I’m basically with slarti.
It was definitely a betrayal. And that’s definitely a fine and dandy thing, because Pappa Calabrese is a parasite.
The difficult issues involved in someone choosing to do the right thing even if it means harming someone in your family (or tribe, however construed) are, I think, getting obscured in this discussion because Frank Jr appears to be something of an opportunist and a thug in his own right.
It may well be that he’s motivated less by doing the right thing, and more by saving his own hide.
If so, perhaps folks might prefer to think about Doc Science’s basic point using somebody else – David Kaczynski, frex – as an example.
Sure, betrayal is betrayal, but sometimes it’s a good thing. And the wider societal gain is something worth musing about.
The thing I don’t get is people’s romantic fascination with Mafiosi. They aren’t honorable people. It’s not a fraternity, criminal or otherwise. It’s a criminal enterprise made up of violent sociopathic creeps.
Unless you’re a criminal psychiatrist, they’re not even very interesting people. Even if you are a criminal psychiatrist, they’re probably not very interesting people. A very large number of them are lazy, dumb, violent bullying jerks.
“Mafia member” is probably the best gig they could get.
Yes, Junior betrayed his dad, I’m freaking glad he did, and it’s fine with me if Junior did so to save his own hide. I have no problem with exploiting the self-interest of one thug to end the career of another.
I agree with Doc Science, I find the “I have strongly ambivalent feelings about this” response to be highly weird.
I can understand Junior, or David Kazcynski, having strongly ambivalent feelings about it. Personally, I have no such ambivalence. I’m fine with it. I’m glad Calabrese Sr. is in jail (assuming he is) and no longer having people’s legs broken, and I’m glad Ted Kazcynski is no longer making and mailing finely crafted little bombs and living his crazy-man Thoreauvian dream in rural Montana.
Seriously, aren’t you?
I hope if I were in the same position I’d find it in myself to ignore the tribal claims and do the right thing.
We all belong to more than one tribe.
From Gary’s cite:
There is a fatal flaw in these guys’ plan:
Who the hell wants to see Silvio Berlusconi naked?
I told you these guys were dumb.
They should take some lessons from the Piranhas.
I Russel, “‘m glad Ted Kazcynski is no longer making and mailing finely crafted little bombs and living his crazy-man Thoreauvian dream in rural Montana.
Seriously, aren’t you?”
Of course. I have already stated that the Kazcynski episode is not at all analogous to the Calabrese’s; and why.
What is “subjective” here, and what I object to the most, is Dr Science’s insistance on turning just about anything and everything into his/her/it’s pet social science morality tale of abusive (usually caucasion) males and their “victims” and ignoring heaps of facts, not to mention nuances, to hammer a story into fitting that mold.
What is also subjective is cutting Jr slack because Sr is a criminal. I am quite sure that everyone breaks some law somtimes. Any cannabis smokers here (I am)? How would you feel about a smoking buddy that got caught and turned you in to avoid a harsher sentence? I’ll bet the words “rat” and “snitch” would cross your mind. How about if that person was your child?
How about a coworker that is getting in trouble with the boss and seeks to gain favor by pointing out to her that you are late for work?
Everyone has experienced these things. No one likes the snitch. There is transference to the Calabrese matter.
Finally, there will always be crime. As long as there is crime there will be people with the brains and brawn to organize it and enforce obediance to their syndicate’s rules; e.g. a mafia. Sr was taken down. Another has already taken his place. So I don’t see where any great social good arose from Jr’s actions. If you don’t want to be harmed by “the mafia” don’t do business with it. Don’t get involved. Pretty simple.
“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”
–Edmund Burke (apocryphal)
I think it’s more seeing that Jr. might have been guided into his lawbreaking ways by virtue of having been raised by Sr.
Which is not quite the same as excusing said lawbreaking ways.
Sure. But I’m adult enough to realize that (in this hypothetical) I brought it on myself.
One main reason I don’t smoke is that I don’t want to put my kids in the position of having to consider turning me in. The other is, of course, that my security clearance forbids it. Otherwise I’d probably indulge, occasionally, provided I enjoyed it. See, the thing about engaging in illegal activities is that you know what the consequences are, in general, and know that those consequences could be visited upon you, should you be caught doing them.
That’s all part and parcel of adulthood. People who expect others to not turn them in are not behaving as adults would. They’re abdicating responsibility for their own behaviour.
Dr Science’s insistance on turning just about anything and everything into his/her/it’s pet social science morality tale of abusive (usually caucasion) males and their “victims”
Seemed to me that Doc Science was just thinking out loud. “Insistence” is not a word that would have occurred to me.
Different strokes.
How would you feel…
How about a…
I’d think all of those things were crappy, at levels ranging from petty, to tragically and unnecessarily stupid.
Dope smokers and folks who are late to work don’t break folks’ legs for a living. Speaking for myself, I find this a very very easy moral hair to split.
If you don’t want to be harmed by “the mafia” don’t do business with it. Don’t get involved.
Two things:
1. Yep, that’s my plan
2. Sadly, that doesn’t insulate me or anyone else from the harm caused by gangsters, nor does it make them go away.
And I’m pretty happy to see as many of them behind bars as possible, even if and when it just clears the field for their rivals. We’ll go after them next.
Long story short, for reasons both obvious and personal, I don’t find gangsters in general, and mafiosi in particular, to be particularly interesting, romantic, or sympathetic.
The “brains” required to organize gangsterism is a pretty low bar. It probably takes more intelligence and basic leadership skill to run a McDonalds franchise. If you’re willing to beat the living shite out of somebody to get what you want, you don’t actually have to be that smart. You can, in fact, be a lazy dumbass. You just have to be a sociopath.
Seriously, the fascination with gangsters of all kinds – mafiosi, gang-bangers, what have you – is weird. They’re not really very interesting people.
I’m glad daddy Calabrese is in jail, and it doesn’t bug me particularly that it was his kid that put him there.
for reasons both obvious and personal
Sorry, that’s a little unclear.
“For both the obvious reasons, and for more personal ones, I don’t find gangsters” blah blah blah.
And yes I have met some, and no they’re not interesting, romantic, or heroic people. They’re punks.
If you don’t want to be harmed by “the mafia” don’t do business with it. Don’t get involved.
That’s not really how it works. I guess you could say, “never open a restaurant or other small business in a neighborhood where the mafia exist,” but that doesn’t seem like fair advice for law abiding citizens. And for the most part, the mafia hasn’t been replaced by other criminals. Dismantling the mafia turned it into a much less influential force today than it used to be.
Seriously, the fascination with gangsters of all kinds – mafiosi, gang-bangers, what have you – is weird. They’re not really very interesting people.
I’d say they’re interesting as specimens of humanity going wrong, like serial killers or despots. They aren’t people you want to spend time with or try to emulate. Romanticizing them is very weird and misguided, IMO.
Even the most successful mafioso or gang-banger never gets out of the “get the other guy before he gets you” paradigm. It’s a limited world view and/or limited prospects that keeps someone locked in that path. I can’t really see how anyone but a crazy person would choose (prefer?) a life like that. Even with money, houses, cars and access to various sexual partners (if that last isn’t animalistic enough), it still boils down to living like an animal. And the prospects for money, etc. are overblown in the popular imagination for all but a vanishingly small number of people in that life. Very few of the “bosses” really get much past, at best, a barely upper middle-class lifestyle, if that. (As russell said, they’re aren’t very smart for the most part, and even if they get a sum of money, they tend to blow it on silly extravagances – booze, gambling, blow, hookers; so it doesn’t last very long.)
They’re bottom feeders, like crabs eating dead fish on the sea floor. The only reason they can do much of anything is that they don’t give a f**k. Awesome.
“They’re bottom feeders, like crabs eating dead fish on the sea floor. The only reason they can do much of anything is that they don’t give a f**k. Awesome.”
Actually, they’re probably complicated human beings, just like everyone else. And they’re probably not all alike. And, when they commit crimes, they should go to jail because society has decided to deal with people who commit crimes by sending them to jail. Not that jail is going to help them, or help society. But it’s what we do until we come up with something else.
People do wrong and right things for reasons that are sometimes incomprehensible. I don’t mind “judging” them by saying that they should go to jail. I do think it’s worth pondering what their choices were, and how they ended up doing the things they did. That’s not romanticizing them – it’s a matter of trying to understand why some people end up making all the wrong choices, while others seem to make all of the right ones. Why it’s a struggle for some people, and a straight shot for others.
Actually, they’re probably complicated human beings, just like everyone else.
It’s kind of you to stand up for the basic, irreducible humanity of gangsters. No snark.
I’ll offer my opinion. I think HSH is right on the money here:
Participating in a systematic criminal enterprise stunts people’s growth as human beings. Especially when it’s based on violence.
So yes, everybody has value as a unique human individual. Some people trade that value away for money and power.
Not just criminals, of course, but certainly including criminals.
“So yes, everybody has value as a unique human individual. Some people trade that value away for money and power.
Not just criminals, of course, but certainly including criminals.”
Yes, I agree that people trade portions of their value (or integrity) for money and power. And some people trade it away for love, for loyalty, out of fear – for all kinds of reasons. Which isn’t to say that the philanthropic, humanitarian, artistic, law-abiding family guy is equal to the sociopathic (seeming) mobster, but oftentimes we don’t really know the whole story. Which is why I’m kind of perplexed by why people even have an opinion on this. There are so many variables in the lives of individuals that nothing is really all that surprising, including turning in your dad, not turning in your dad, etc.
Wow, what a bunch of goody two shoes pollyannish perspectives we have here.
First, not all mobsters are stupid. Myer lansky, Bugs Siegel and many others are considered financial geniuses. Like any successful organization you have intelligent leaders at the top and some grunts at the bottom doing the sh!t work.
I pity anyone who raised children that they fear would turn them in for something as simple as pot smoking. That points to misgiuded values, misplaced trust in the system and a lack of love.
All of the asserted negative aspects of organized crime can also easily and accurately be applied to just about any government on this planet; not excepting the US government and the politicians that run it. This includes, but is not limited to, shakedowns, murder for profit, price fixing, prostitution, gambling…..
“First, not all mobsters are stupid. Myer lansky, Bugs Siegel and many others are considered financial geniuses. Like any successful organization you have intelligent leaders at the top and some grunts at the bottom doing the sh!t work.”
Absolutely agree.
“All of the asserted negative aspects of organized crime can also easily and accurately be applied to just about any government on this planet; not excepting the US government and the politicians that run it.”
True too. Corporations every bit as much or more, since there’s a huge profit motive.
Oops. I’d missed William Shakespeare’s comment. Thanks, Bill!
Wow, what a bunch of pithy but useless generalities we have here.
You couldn’t possibly be further off base.
I should take that back; comments are still open.
Interest is subjective. I don’t find them particularly interesting, save that I find all people and categories of people interesting, and I find it interesting to consider what makes some categories of people particularly interesting to others.
In this category, we’re talking specifically about the romanticization of those who chose to live outside the law.
Outlaws have always been romanticized, because romanticization by definition (for a certain value of “romanticization,” without wanting to write at thesis on historic usage and evolution of the term) is based on, or tautologically defined on, mythmaking that has only a loose relationship with truth.
So outlaws, be they Jesse James, or Abbie Hoffman or Lucky Luciano or the Hells Angels or the Mafia or “pirates” (of almost any sort but those who actually intercept your own boat or that of someone you know; the fictional and more unreal the better), etc., are all romanticized, because they’re seen as either rather unreal, or as admirably rebellious figures against The Man, in some way.
Sometimes there are truly admirable things about outlaws; sometimes there are horrific things about outlaws. It’s a very broad category.
I tend to not romanticize people I don’t know, and then… it gets complicated.
I tend to not romanticize violence of people into it. It’s sometimes necessary, but I don’t find it admirable, and neither do I deny that it’s sometimes necessary.
And I’m my own judge of when I think it’s necessary, and it’s often a queasy-making call.
Which is another reason I’ve not blogged about Libya; I don’t have any easy announcements that I’m dead sure what the U.S. and other “allies,” are doing is clearly right or wrong.
I digress, but by no means entirely. But I don’t want to threadjack, either, so I’ll go back to saying that I find nothing romantic about mafias of any sort, gangs of any sort, mobs of any sort, and I believe a rule of law, humanely administered, with as much room for individual freeom as possible, is an ideal to be striven for.
Also, Facebook has spoiled me into desiring that we add a “like” button just internally to ObWi so I can agree with comments in lazy fashion.
^
|
|
Like
“So outlaws, be they Jesse James, or Abbie Hoffman or Lucky Luciano or the Hells Angels or the Mafia or “pirates” (of almost any sort but those who actually intercept your own boat or that of someone you know; the fictional and more unreal the better), etc., are all romanticized, because they’re seen as either rather unreal, or as admirably rebellious figures against The Man, in some way.”
Exactly. And that is why real people don’t like the rats that snitch out outlaws or the cowards that shoot them in the back, etc.
Real people know the man is as corrupt and insensitive to their needs as the worst outlaws. At least decent outlaws like Jesse James and many mafiosi take care of family and friends; which is far more than some cop or politician will ever do for them. And that is also why real children of real folks don’t rat out their parents to the man. They are taught what the real world is like; not babied into believing an authoritarian or liberal utopian fantasy (they are the same thing you know).
Then again, there are always the authoritarian personalities that advocate ratting and snitching, even of their own children against themselves. It’s that whole, “well if you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about – and the state knows best ” mentality.
Which is why I’m kind of perplexed by why people even have an opinion on this
My family owned and operated an Italian food business in New York from the mid-70’s until about 1981. We were made to understand who we would buy supplies from, whether or not we would sell wholesale, etc. I sat in the other room while a very pleasant and friendly fellow sat with my folks in the living room and laid it all out for them.
In the course of working with and for my folks in the family business, I got to meet some of the boyos. All strictly business, all on the up and up. Just buying cheese, as it were.
Nothing bad, threatening, or otherwise untoward ever happened. OK, there was the one time that the guy delivering the cookies threatened to kill a kid who cut him off in the parking lot. But in general, no. It was just understood that if we tried to work outside of the program, life would get very complicated.
It never even occurred to me that there was anything strange about it until later on in my life.
And yeah, other kinds of folks – cops, businessmen, etc – can make their presence felt in your life if they think you’re coloring outside the lines. The difference is that the way they make their “presence felt” doesn’t involve hurting you very, very badly.
OK, maybe cops. But you at least usually have to break the law to make that happen. Opening a pasta business is not enough to make them crack your head.
I could add other anecdota from my own and from my family’s personal history, but I’ll leave it there.
Maybe avedis is right and Lansky and Siegel were financial geniuses. The fact is you don’t have to be a financial genius to make a nice living as a gangster. You just have to be willing to f**k other people up for money.
It’s pretty damned simple, as it turns out.
Seriously, f**k gangsters. Whatever else you want to say about them, they’re bullies. Their entire livelihood, culture, and way of relating to the world is based on bullying.
And bullies suck.
So, asked and answered. That’s why people have opinions about stuff like this. Because creeps like Calabrese, Junior and Senior, don’t just show up in the movies.
First, not all mobsters are stupid.
No, but you can be pretty freaking stupid and be a fairly successful gangster. You will just have a relatively brief career.
What all mobsters have in common is a willingness to harm other people for their own benefit. So screw them. My two cents.
Outlaws have always been romanticized
I think that’s about the size of it. The colorful mafiosi live outside the law. And don’t we all dream of living outside the law?
In real life, these guys are not that colorful. They just want your money.
I’m dead serious when I say that living your life based on the principle of messing with other people to get your way stunts you as a human being.
I’m sure that deep down in the recesses of the consciousness of papa Calabrese, there’s a lovely human butterfly yearning to spread its wings and fly in the sun. Unfortunately, other aspects of the consciousness of papa Calabrese, and folks like him, have decided that beating the crap out of other people for money is more important than realizing and expressing their full human potential.
It’s a damned shame, but I’m also fine with sending their sorry behinds to jail.
I have more important things to shed my tears over.
decent outlaws like Jesse James
I invite you, from the actual historical record, to explain to me how Jesse James has earned the adjective “decent”.
Over to you avedis. Stick it to the man, dude!
Actually, they’re probably complicated human beings, just like everyone else. And they’re probably not all alike.
Well, they’re all alike in that they’re complicated human beings, just like everyone else. When I write of bottom-feeding crabs, I write metaphorically, within the context of complicated human beings. Whatever the many reasons for their being where they are, they are there, they are murderous, they are dangerous, they are sociopathic, they are destructive and they suck, as far as complicated human beings go. See the aforementioned serial killers and despots. Shall I go Godwin and mention a particular complicated human being? Should we have no opinion on him, either?
(Maybe I misunderstand what you mean here, sapient, when you say you don’t get why people should have opinions on this. I can understand if you’re referring specifically to Frank Jr.’s decision, but not if you’re referring to the generally suckiness of mafiosi.)
I do think it’s worth pondering what their choices were, and how they ended up doing the things they did. That’s not romanticizing them – it’s a matter of trying to understand why some people end up making all the wrong choices, while others seem to make all of the right ones.
Aside from thinking that just about no one, if anyone at all, makes all the right or wrong choices, I agree completely, which was my point in making the distinction between romanticizing and fascination. I’m quite interested in what makes people so dysfunctional, so outwardly and destructively dysfunctional.
Not to digress further, but I think I’ve actually formulated An Actual Opinion on Libya that may last four or five whole days. Now I just have to see if I can make time to write it up in the next couple of days. No promises.
Department of Typos Above: “I tend to not romanticize violence of people into it” should ahve been “violence or people into it.”
Most human behavior is comprehensible with enough information, for a certain value of “comprehensible,” which may include “this is how a particular mental illness manifests and causes certain behavior” or “this is how a certain set of neurological functions causes certain behavior,” or brain injury, or, more often, if one has sufficient knowledge of someone’s childhood, parents, infancy, youth, experiences, knowledge set, culture, and in short, all that goes into making them who they are, or, that is, enough knowledge of said sets.
Most things are comprehensible with enough information, when processed through the right accurate set of other information and algorithims, to put it in overly cold and rather robotic fashion.
Another way to look at it, though, is that it’s possible to understand people without empathizing with them, and it’s even possible to empathize with the suffering some people have gone through that made them into horrific human beings without sympathizing with the horrific behavior, or person, and without forgiving, and it’s even possible to forgive someone — though if someone has done something horrific, forgiveness is really only appropriate and applicable from the person or people they’ve wronged, not from others — without apologizing for them, or defending them.
I’d list a lot of smart comments above, that I agree with, but that’s why I want a “like” button.
And, yes, the set of ObWi commenters is one I’m generally proud to be associated with, which is why I’ve hung around here so long.
Even when some of us, including me, are jerks sometimes.
Because that’s comprehensible, if not always forgiveable. (And sometimes I haven’t forgiven myself, but one can only move on, after trying to right one’s wrongs.)
OK, there was the one time that the guy delivering the cookies threatened to kill a kid who cut him off in the parking lot.
I have a story where I was more or less the kid from the parking lot. Not fun. You might not really know about some of your Spidey senses until they start going off. It’s interesting, if nothing else.
And you were raised to be, and inculcated with, the values of the tough guy, the macho guy, the man who Defends; I think a number of us get that. And I don’t have any problem with it, save that it does make your views and the way you express them rather predictable at times, which is also fine, but the way your manifestations of toughness causes you to derogate the opinions of those you disagree with is often rather disagreeable.
I could put this into ruder terms, but that’s not the kind of guy I am, save when I feel like it. But alpha male chest-pounding doesn’t get one too far in a battle of wits and verbal debate. I’m sure you could beat me up, and quite a few of us up.
And if a bunch of criminals, or tough guys, or armed folk, were coming after us while we were trying to defend a fixed location, I imagine I’d want you with me.
But blog comment threads aren’t that kind of place.
I refer you to Howard Gardner.
There are many kind of intelligence.
And being sociopathic and stupid/intelligent in any way are orthogonal.
Your personal opinions of who are and aren’t “real people” are duly noted, but I won’t ask your pardon for mocking your attempts to declare your subjective approach an objective reality. Assertion and preference aren’t an argument.
You’re announcing your own personal set of mental categories. Fair enough. That’s nice. But implying that those who hold different views aren’t “real” and that your views are privileged and the only “real” ones are, well, let me say this: ahahahahahaha.
And ha. And haha.
So there. Because you know what? That isn’t very smart.
Neither are generalizations about all politicians or cops. You’re announcing your prejudices.
And that’s all.
Again, you’re entitled, but you’re simply making absolutist generalizations no different from “all soldiers are baby-killers” or, hey, “all liberals are air-headed pansy inteleckchul eggheads.”
It’s not really a very interesting conversational mode; that’s my own prejudice. I prefer a tad of nuance, and, yes, smartness, with my dose of opinion.
That’s the real opinion of a real man who is a real person who holds real beliefs that are really thought out, and who believes in real argument, rather than substituting assertion for argument.
Repetition is not an argument. Use of an adjective like “real” is not an argument. It’s simply repetition of an adjective.
I’m afraid I’ll have to return your submission for revision. It does not meet our needs at this time. (That’s a publishing joke; sorry; I’m not serious; I’m simply mocking you somewhat, because, you know, that’s what a Real Man does.)
You’re also deeply confusing the concept of rule of law with authoritarianism. I’d suggest reading up a bit more on both concepts.
But I’ll back up and ask you, avedis, since it seems that we can both agree that Authoritarianism Is Bad, as to how you feel about republican democracy with civil rights and liberties, separation of powers, or whether you have a preferred system of government.
Would you or do you prefer tribalism? Gangs? How do you think groups of people should best organize to live together optimally?
I will note that I do see considerable consistency in some of your views: personal loyalty and honor are values you hold, and I respect that.
But your implicit contention that they’re sufficient for people large masses of people to live well and fairly with each other, your eagerness to defend violence as not a last resort, but rather, you imply, as something Real People/Men leap to at least verbally defend the threat of, and your denigration of the concept of “law” as useful, do not appear to me to be well thought out. You may, of course, simply be expressing yourself poorly, or possibly I’m simply misunderstanding you, or even more likely, you’re expressing your views in sufficiently simplistic terms as to not be filling in enough of the rest of your opinion for your full opinion to be clear to me.
So I invite you to expand on what form of government you’d prefer to live under, since what you’re implicitly defending seems to be tribalism. You are, after all, literally defending gangsterism over the rule of law, and if so, why haven’t you decided that Somalia would be lovely at this time of year, or any time of year? There are plenty of places in the world where you can go defend you and yours with guns and have no useful law or “authority” at all, other than might making right, after all, if that’s what you truly think makes for a safer and better environment for folks to raise families in, or retire to.
What Real Men and Real Warriors wear.
“Another way to look at it, though, is that it’s possible to understand people without empathizing with them, and it’s even possible to empathize with the suffering some people have gone through that made them into horrific human beings without sympathizing with the horrific behavior, or person, and without forgiving, and it’s even possible to forgive someone — though if someone has done something horrific, forgiveness is really only appropriate and applicable from the person or people they’ve wronged, not from others — without apologizing for them, or defending them.”
Gary, this is a most intelligent and relevant statement, IMO. For the record, I do not like gangsters. I think they are parasitic sociopaths. That being said, I learned a long time ago that demonizing an enemy is a very poor method. Doing so colors and distorts the perception to the point where the ability to take correct action is impaired. Rather, it is better to understand the enemy in the context of their own, and then the larger, social and psychological melieu. Also, the world of men is so large and complex that decisions are rarely, if ever, made on a black/white basis. They are mostly made in shades of grey. Today an person or group is made an ally based on some characteristic(s), tomorrow an enemy based on some other characteristic(s); or maybe the same characteristic(s) which was once useful, but no longer is. Demonizing is for propaganda; for mobilizing the masses and is unbecoming an intelligent person.
I could give a flying f**k about either Jr or Sr Calabrese. Dr Science asked a question and I thought I would try to answer it in a tone and language commensurate with the position that holds that Jr is a rat. Personally, i do think he is a rat and that is, indeed, based on an assessment of character and a personal sense of honor. If I had to recruit a mafia asset to achieve a successful outcome to a mission/operation (and the US gov’t has done this on numerous occasions) I would look more deeply into Sr, but I would avoid Jr like the plague based on his retarded character development.
“I’m sure you could beat me up, and quite a few of us up.” Technically speaking, that is probably true. I still practice these skills and, as my wife says, I am “freakishly strong” from years of regular workouts and farm work. However, one should never assume the outcome of an engagement if recon has been insufficient to determine the size and composition of an opposing force :-). But seriously, who cares? Additionally, I do not want to beat anyone up. I prefer to select from a different option set: a) forgive and forget b) ignore c) predict potential sources of conflict and adjust so as avoid conflict d) my favorite, air differences, understand, find common ground and then work together to build something bigger and better than what we could have done as individuals. Any how, as I sit today, a toddler could probably kick my @ss as I find myself, again, laid up with crippling back pain; which makes me onery; which is an excuse for being a indelicate loud mouthed jack@ss. Not that I believe in excuses, but there you have it.
“You’re also deeply confusing the concept of rule of law with authoritarianism.”
Here we disagree. I think there is a distinction in theory, but not one in practice. Laws are made by governemnts and they are enforced by governemnts. There are no good governements. There are only varying degrees of badness in governments.
Right here in the USA we have a law based on on those good ideas; like civil rights. Yet, where are we? We spend $billions upon $billions to kill people in their native lands while right here at home the infrastructure that made this country an industrial power and thriving economy crumbles around us for lack of funding. The middle class is disappreaing for lack of gainful employment and big banks and other favored industry sectors rob us blind. Those were our tax dollars that went in to their coffers and bonus checks. Our children can’t get a decent education for lack of funding. Our citizens go without healthcare. The rich are getting richer and everyone else is getting poorer. Those civil rights seem to be eroding at a rate that correlates with all the other errosions above. Who supports all of this? Our government. What can we do about it? Nothing. Protest and you will be jailed and/or have your head cracked. Or maybe, if you’re lucky, you’ll just be ignored. For now. But believe me, you’re going to be on a list and when the whole sh!t house goes up in flames, they’ll be checking that list and you’ll be the first to go.
Rule of law my @ss. Even here in the USA the law is whatever the guys with guns and badges say it going to be today and those guys ain’t working for you and me. And it’s getting worse and fast.
So yeah, I know, I should shut up and …oh look…Charlie Sheen just said something wacky and so and so was seen at the galla whatever with that big football star…….oooh and some scary rag head dude is doing something bad, let’s go get ’em…….
“Would you or do you prefer tribalism?”
Yes, I would. A communistic tribe. However, I realize that there are way too damn many of us for that to work. So I sit back and sigh and pour another drink and watch the folly of the world of men as it unfolds.
“How do you think groups of people should best organize to live together optimally?”
This question deserves its own comment.
As I said, my personal preference would be along the lines of one of the more egalitarian Native American societies pre-white man. I’d be happy there.
Recognizing that we can’t go back there, as well that no system is perfect, I think the ideals and values of the US Consitution are as good a foundation for a large society as we can have.
But it isn’t enough. It isn’t working any more. It is on its death bed suffering from two forms of cancer; Greed and Complancency. Greed has always been there, but Complacency is particualry insidious, It lowers the immune system and allows greed to run rampant.
If the People would demand another Roosevelt and a redux of 1930s public works and workers’ rights and a cessation of sickening pandering to big corporate interests and foolish endless overseas military adventures we could get this thing back on track.
It won’t happen though. The Law (aka the corporate mafia’s button man) has gained too much power and control.
I do know how to kill you by poking my finger into your eyeball, or crushing your throat with a blow, or driving bones of your nose up into your brain, and a few other tricks, if I caught you by surprise and didn’t miss, just for the record. 🙂
But mostly I’d run away.
In the past. Now I’d mostly just shuffle, so I’d instead have to try to talk you to death. 🙂
Finally, Gary, I eagerly await your thoughts on what we should do regarding Libya. I have a hunch that you will be in favor of dropping a few $ billion worth of US of A wip @ss on those sorry brown heads.
I know you thought that way about Iraq. I, on the other hand, am on record as predicting that one as a complete farce, a tar pit, and being strongly opposed.
Funny, you complain about someone – like me – being an annoying unidimensioanl alpha male persona as opposed to diplomatic and witty, but then you want the the whole country to be alpha; The Alpha Country beating up anyone in the world that it thinks needs a thumping.
See, I too look for consistency and when I find it lacking……….
“…or driving bones of your nose up into your brain…”
That one is, actually, a fallacy. The other two methods are effective.
I guess we could have a duel, canes at one pace. A fine pair we’d be. I believe you have the advantage sir, your cane is made of metal and mine of wood.
On what fantasy planet does anyone who has been reading the internets for more than 24 hours believe that Gary Farber was a supporter of the Iraq War? Or war generally? Or gunboat diplomacy or American exceptionalism or getting our way by force?
russell: “I have more important things to shed my tears over.”
Me too. And I hope you don’t think I was glamorizing or romanticizing criminals. But they’re people who get caught up in circumstances just like everybody else. Some people have more obvious choices than others. For example, it would never have occurred to me to join the mafia because I wasn’t invited – had no contact with it as far as I know. I’m not smart enough to lead a life of crime on my own and not get caught. It’s easy to say that I’m beyond temptation, when actually it was that temptation was beyond me. I’d like to think that I’m not greedy or sociopathic (and I don’t think I am, honestly) but It just hasn’t come up enough for me really to be tested. I have been tested otherwise, with mixed results. And, some of my most honorable efforts have been unsuccessful, to the point that I now consider them to have been mistakes.
If, russell, in your family’s restaurant, you had made the wrong “choice” of wholesalers, something bad may have happened. If the guy who visited your family had made the wrong “choice” of careers, something bad may have happened to him or his family. As I understand it, the mafia and gangs thrive on the principle that people don’t have a choice. So they probably (just guessing here) exercise their humanity in more circumscribed way and learn to ignore the evil in what they’re doing.
We make laws because certain actions have bad effects on other people. I’m not unhappy when people who break those laws are zealously prosecuted and put in jail. I just prefer not to generalize that all of these people have degraded themselves beyond redemption. Some of them probably have. Some suspicion is justified. Some people may be “stunted as a human being.” But isn’t that the same thing as saying that they are subhuman? I don’t think dehumanizing people is ever a good attitude, especially when generalizing.
That one made me LOL a bit, too. I think we’ve got a case of mistaken identity, here.
But, russell I forgot to thank you for the story of your family’s business. As I said, I’ve had little direct contact with mafia (although I have known two or three people who were probably involved). It’s not romantic to me at all, but it is interesting how organized crime sets itself up in a community.
On what fantasy planet does anyone who has been reading the internets for more than 24 hours believe that Gary Farber was a supporter of the Iraq War?
I’m sure there’s an alternative universe in which Gary is a Steven Des Beste-esque character who floods comments sections with long linked screeds about the necessity of the Iraq war carefully linked with sources that “prove” the whole thing will be over relatively quickly after we find the WMDs being supplied to Al-Qaeda.
The bearded Gary. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, I hope slash fiction isn’t the next step.
Maybe I have the wrong Gary. I thought he was this guy.
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2002/08/ive-been-pretty-pro-war-on-iraq.html
and the guy that wrote numerous similar pieces during the build up to the Iraq war. If I have the wrong guy I apologize.
This
I have a hunch that you will be in favor of dropping a few $ billion worth of US of A wip @ss on those sorry brown heads.
I know you thought that way about Iraq.
is not the same as this
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2003/02/timing-im-still-on-fence-about-war.html
And this
I, on the other hand, am on record as predicting that one as a complete farce, a tar pit, and being strongly opposed.
Perhaps you could like to what you wrote in in the early naughts to verify that. As in math, just because you get the right answer doesn’t mean that you did the problem correctly.
Could you quote me my thoughts saying that, since you “know” that, please?
Thanks!
I think I’ve forgotten, but it’s been a while.
I don’t mean to be piece-meal, so apologies, but:
This is not something I believe, either, to put it mildly.
I don’t like to promise future posts; things have a way of coming up. It’s conceivable you may see a post from me about Libya in te next couple of days, but no promises.
I could give away the store with a link to someone else’s post that more or less sums up my key conclusion, but then there’d be no suspense.
But it doesn’t involve the U.S. continuing military action in Libya, if that helps. Not in any significantly scaled way, at the very least. Nor by way of fig-leafing it over to NATO, either.
But I don’t want to write a careless preview.
“I thought he was this guy.”
Yes, I’m the guy who wrote that post that said:
What other “pro-war” posts of mine can you turn up?
The worst you can say is that I’ve condemned myself many times for not vigorously campaigning against the war before it started, or for some time afterwards, and that I was on the fence for a time. That’s something I deeply regret, but taking a while to come out strongly against something is hardly the same as being either strongly for something, or for something at all.
Saying that at a given moment I hadn’t yet made up my mind about something, and here’s one predilection to consider, but here are a bunch of questions that would have to be answered (which never were) before I’d agree, isn’t saying that I’m for something.
I can see how you might be misled by just reading the the subject header, or by taking my first sentence as implying something the rest of the post should refute, and especially in light of lacking context of all the rest of what I’ve written, and all the rest of my positions over the years.
I, to the best of my memory, never wrote anywhere that we should attack Iraq. But if I did, please do quote it to me.
I’m not going to bother to list all the peace marches I’ve marched in, the thousands of links to anti-war posts and comments and so on I’ve made, most particularly about the war in Iraq, or how we should get out of Afghanistan. Lately, tweets and Facebook links.
And hooboy you don’t want me discussing Vietnam.
Or we could go back to my opposition to Gulf War I, although it was the fact that I later concluded that I was wrong about that that misled me into having doubts for a time as to whether opposing invading Iraq was also totally a bad idea.
It’s easy to fight or not fight the last war, or to make knee-jerk assumptions, and it’s easy to make knee-jerk assumptions based on having been wrong before, too. One situation is rarely exactly like another.
I guess, Gary, it is possible to see your stance on the Iraq War – pre-invasion – as being ambivalent, cautious and somewhat reasoned, but I don’t. Instead, I see your stance as being deliberately architected to contain a lot of weasel holes. To my mind,a principled stance would have been more like, “I am opposed to war. War should only be considered as an option of last resort and absolute necessity. Therefore, I want to see some hard proof that Saddam is a threat to the US. Absent that proof, I am opposed to war”.
The little “proof” that was offered to us was really lame. A laughing stock if it wasn’t so sad that our gov’t tried to pass it off on us; which should have been a hanging offense. To those with less background, it should have been enough to know that every time the gov’t offered “proof” that proof was discredited within 48 hours or so (e.g. the uliminium tubes).
Then there were inspectors in the country and they were coming up with nada. If we knew Iraq had dangerous sh!t then we should have been able to point the inspectors to at least a little of it, right?
Finally, even in worse case scenario (Saddam with nuclear weapons), there was never any serious discussion of how he could be a threat to the US. You know, litle details like nuclear weapons need to be, like, um, delivered to the target; usually via a long range missile or airplanse or submarines (none of which saddam had).
If you were opposed to the Gulf War, then I salute you and I suggest that your original stance was correct.
It must be difficult to be a lib. You have my sympathy. You want so badly for the gov’t to be the solution to your problems. You want so badly to be able to be dependent, but then you have to reconcile the fact that the gov’t is always lying, plundering and killing and turning a blind eye to those in need.
avedis/Gary discussion strikes a chord, probably somewhat unrelated to the topic, with me. It brings to full bloom an earlier discussion on Obama and whether he has principles and sells them out, never had them etc.
I find the constant juxtaposition of the hard right and left a discussion bordering on petulant, sorry for the harshness of the word but I did search for another, in a world where we all would like believe our core values are immutable and wee settle for compromise at the risk of our souls being lost.
I no less than anyone else.
I find myself at times reflecting on my admiration for the principled stance of the right in the face of what seems to be a perverse lack of principle on the left, even when I vehemently disagree with the stance they have taken. Then, in perhaps the next thought, wonder how the left can be so pedantic, on what is such a grey issue.
I am working hard on my internal conversations.
All this to say that I have greater respect all the time for a friend of mine who once told me that he had lots of strong views weakly held. That he worked to defend his positions vigorously while keeping his ears and mind open to the opposing views, just in case.
I have been trying that more lately. I just decided that I don’t want to be able to out argue everyone, I may feel right, but sometimes I just may be stupid.
But isn’t that the same thing as saying that they are subhuman?
No, it isn’t.
It’s saying that people have made choices that limit their ability to relate to other people as fellow human beings.
Sometimes people are born into, or find themselves in, circumstances that make it very hard to choose a good and humane way of life. That’s tragic.
But however they found themselves in a life of violent criminality, one of the consequences is that it limits how you relate to other people. It stunts you as a human being. Not in terms of your irreducible humanity, but just in basic, practical terms.
There are lots of things like that in life, becoming a mafiosa is certainly one of them.
You have my sympathy. You want so badly for the gov’t to be the solution to your problems. You want so badly to be able to be dependent
Feh. Lame.
You’re a smart guy avedis, if you put your mind to it you could do better than that.
“But however they found themselves in a life of violent criminality, one of the consequences is that it limits how you relate to other people. It stunts you as a human being.”
Cops, soldiers, real life sailors… all live lives that to some extent stunt their growth, lives of duty or loneliness.
The depiction in this thread of the average mob guy as living a life of violent criminality is pretty unrealistic. Like many things in our culture, like cops, most mob guys go through life never drawing a gun or beating up anyone.
Even the “enforcers” typically are two bit vandals sent to break a guys plate glass window or slash his tires as a reminder. It has been a long time since the mob figured out that crimes against persons were counterproductive and to be avoided as much as possible.
In general, most mob crime against people is against the people that are referenced here, snitches. Even in those cases that acticity is outsourced to people outside the inner circle, mostly nameless people who know people and can be denied, that aren’t made members of a family.
The world changes, the businesses and business rules have changed. Money does better than fear these days. For a long time owning a politician has been a better route than scaring him, laundering your money through the local merchant gets more loyalty than fear of reprisal and the Walmarts of the world don’t pay the vig.
Or so your internal conversation would have us believe 😉
“Or so your internal conversation would have us believe ;)”
Am too. Am not.
The depiction in this thread of the average mob guy as living a life of violent criminality is pretty unrealistic.
How is that unrealistic? The average mafia don might not himself be personally engaging in violence, but where do you get the idea that the average mafia criminal is living a life of anything but violent criminality?
And ironically, what they’ve done is outsource their “legitimate” enterprises to locals (eg, the bookies) and collect tribute/ protection money from them, to the point were the only business the mafia is left with is violence and the threat of violence.
In the meantime, talking about family betrayal…. Ouch.