Jon Ribbens <jon+use...@unequivocal.eu> writes: > On 2017-11-08, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > I also think Jon had cause to bristle somewhat at the characterisation. > > I don't think Jon was attacked by Steve's remark, but I do sympathise > > with the instinct to feel a criticism as an attack. > > Steve called me arrogant, that's an attack
To say that someone is being arrogant simply is not an attack, and I really want you to see that. It's also not true that he called you arrogant. > Arrogance is simply not a concept that applies to ideas, it is > a concept that applies to people. Arrogance, like generosity or cleverness or foolishness, is a concept that applies to *behaviour*. Someone can commit an act that is arrogant, or generous or clever or foolish, and we can call the *idea that informed that act* as arrogant or generous or clever or foolish. > If you call an idea arrogant you are necessarily stating that the > person espousing the idea is guilty of arrogance - that's what the > word means. Yes: it describes the behaviour. It does not imply characterisation of the person. To describe the idea as arrogant, or generous or clever or foolish, is *not* to say that the person holding that idea is arrogant. That would be as unwarranted as calling Bill Gates generous merely because he sometimes gives a small portion of his wealth to charity. Yet we would not hesitate to say that the giving of funds to malaria research is a generous idea. Similarly, to say that someone expressed an arrogant idea is indeed to say their bewhaviour was arrogant, and that necessarily accuses the person of arrogant behaviour. That does not characterise the person as arrogant and it is not an attack on the person. > Chris also called the idea "ridiculous", which is also fairly rude, It is not rude to describe an idea as ridiculous. It is deeply *respectful* to people to show when ideas are ridiculous. If the idea *is* correctly described as ridiculous, we want the *person* to stop holding the ridiculous idea. The idea is not the person, and rudeness to the idea is often *compassion and respect* for the person. (Whether the idea is correctly described that way is a separate matter, of course; that is why discussion is required, preferably with the participation of the person holding the idea.) > The idea is clearly not ridiculous. Great! That should be a good discussion to have. No-one needs to identify with an idea about how software behaves, in order to participate in that discussion; no-one is attacked by merely calling the idea ridiculous. > You have also, in the past, pretty much straight-up called me a liar. > That is also, obviously, insulting - yet again, not that you had any > justification for it at all. I hope that we can do the necessary work of seeking factual basis for claims talk about facts, without calling each other liars. I also hope that we can receive challenges on our claims, without being perceived as under attack. -- \ “If you continue running Windows, your system may become | `\ unstable.” —Microsoft, Windows 95 bluescreen error message | _o__) | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
