Club Troppo has a fairly loosely defined but firmly enforced policy of civility. For my part this policy arises from my experiences at second-generation communities Slashdot.org and Kuro5hin.org, and from Ken and Nick I believe desire to keep out trouble-making elements.
As a nerd, I follow the latest essays in that world, where Paul Graham of nerdy essayist fame has recently gotten into a bit of a tiff about his post You Weren’t Meant To Have A Boss. I felt personally that Mr Graham over-egged his case, as well he might, given that he funds startups11. DH1: This argument places me at the ad hominem level, ‘DH1′, as you’ll see later on. [↩]. A lot of other people felt the same way; and in general his essays tend to spark strong feelings amongst nerds.
As a very useful side-effect of the latest kerfuffle, Graham has produced a brief guide on How to Disagree. In it he establishes a hierarchy of disagreement, running from name-calling at the bottom end through the refuting central points at the top. In spirit it is like the most excellent Anthony Weston book, A Rulebook for Arguments, which I can recommend to anybody who wants a slightly larger and more complete statement of how to argue cogently22. Aside: Especially for folk in law or those in the arts. It’s probably wishful thinking to imagine that a few hundred copies could be distributed to MPs. [↩].
While I think Graham may have mixed together matters of civility and argumentative quality, it’s still a very useful little guide for when these things get out of hand. Let’s see if it goes as far as Godwin’s Law.
There are two obvious omissions in Graham’s disagreement hierarchy:
DH(-1): This is so obviously going to be rubbish that I can’t be bothered reading it.
DH7: This is so obviously rubbish that I can’t be bothered wasting my time on refuting it.
The web is turning writing into a conversation… Paul Graham.
Sorry, but the time has come for us all to start reaching for our revolvers when folks threaten “a conversation.” There are too many Robert Mannes in this country as it is.
DH: John Greenfield
No, JG is DH -27.
Fyodor,
As a gentleman known for his taste and discernment, I’m sure that JG would be mortified that you have outed him as a Grateful Dead fan. Jolly poor form, old son.
Indeed my dear. Being more a Flock of Seagulls man, myself.
You misheard, Mr G. You may hear “Flock of Seagulls”, but that’s not what people are saying to you.
Are we up to DH11 yet?
I think we should add DH:SA for ‘smartarses’ :)
John Greenfield is the poor man’s Keith Windschuttle
I’ll take that as a compliment from an Ayn Rand blow-up doll (with strap on)!! :)
Yes, you’d best take it, as it’s undoubtedly the only compliment you will get, but “strap-on”? Clearly, buggers can’t be choosers.
Not DH:SA, Jacques, there’s gotta exist somewhere an inverse disagreement hierarchy, 1/DH, 1/(2DH), and so on. It’s in *that* direction monkey noises and lolcats become involved, and it’s over through that rabbit hole that JC winds up repeating wrongness to himself infinitely recursively.
There’s a pun with “fountainhead” somewhere there, but it’s been a long day. Choose your own sledges, readers.
Y’all might have noticed that while John Greenfly often threatens to reach for his gun, he never actually draws it.
Perhaps it’s now finally dawned on him that everyone will only start laughing again at what he actually pulls out.