# Driving wedges, pseudo legalisms and small targets...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Focussing here on online discussion, not only this forum but on other online _social media_.

*Driving a wedge *is defined in this source as -

_If someone drives a wedge between two people who are close, they cause ill feelings between them in order to weaken their relationship_.

Referring to conversations about music, a person might drive a wedge between two people who generally like Beethoven's music, but one might like different works by him compared to the other two people. So although all three people like Beethoven, the person driving the wedge has claimed _victory_ by eg. saying two of them like his violin sonatas as against the other who may like everything else by him but not those works. _If you don't like his violin sonatas, you're not a real Beethoven fan_.

So it's another example of the old *divide and conquer tactics*, but on the surface you are maybe being pedantic and too selective. However the end aim and result is the same - you win, I lose.

The other thing one notices often online is a type of* need to provide evidence, as in a court of law*. It can be evidence from a book or journal, a video on youtube, or statistics (but these can say anything you want almost, eg. the old adage _there are lies, damned lies, and statistics_). So a type of* pseudo legalism *creeping into the virtual world, treating it as if it's a court of law in the real world?

What do people do in response to these things? Act like *small targets*. Not say anything potentially controversial or breaking unsaid taboos or unwritten rules. *Censorship by stealth *in other words, which is totally unjust, as how do you know rules that don't exist? That people can make up as they go along, make up their own rules? & get away with flaunting the actual rules under the cover of not breaking the rules but being ar*eholes all the same - in other words,_ only just_ not breaking them, by a hair's breadth. Which I see as more dishonest than having a type of integrity to actually break them.

*So what do you think of my ramblings? These issues are up for grabs on this thread *(but my advice is to try be general, not specific with goings on here or elsewhere on the net).

- Driving a wedge / divide and conquer
- Need for evidence / pseudo legalism
- Acting as a small target / self-censorship / muzzling certain opinions by stealth


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Instead of all this rant, you could have simply answered Poley's questions in the other thread. Wouldn't that have made things much easier?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Instead of all this rant, you could have simply answered Poley's questions in the other thread. Wouldn't that have made things much easier?


As I said, it's not only about TC, I made it general, including all social media. If you think this is a rant, you haven't seen one of my real rants! My opinions here I thought were quite measured and restrained. I did not target anyone. I opened it up for general discussion, tried not to force an agenda. I am not bitter about that thread, I said on that thread that I answered the OP as best as I could, that was my aim.

If you want to talk about that thread, best to PM me or anyone else concerned or take it to that thread, if it's still open. But I've put enough time in that, I've abandoned that.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Sid and my fellow members, To put it mildly, I have been somewhat stunned at the hostility and disdain with which some of our "brother" members have been addressing both yourself and Dr. Mike {with whom I rarely, if ever, politically agree}. When the "discussion" spills over into personal attacks on someone's intelligence and/or religion and beliefs, I think we should just take a step back and perhaps reflect about what we are in fact doing. To the poster who didn't seem to find anything wrong with the concept of running this Forum as if it were some type of tribunal or court of law, I would heartily urge him to reconsider his position; we shouldn't be here to bludgeon each other. Surely, enough of that is already occuring in the "real world" all around us. *Shalom. *


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Sid James said:


> What do people do in response to these things? Act like *small targets*.


As Dave Hester might say- _Yuuuuuup!_

Recommended reading: Thomas Wolfe's _Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers._


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*Samurai,* I have not read any of Dr. Mike's latest posts, he and I seem to_ inhabit _different threads these days. But I take your point, I know these issues can get heated and emotional. I have done these things in the past, played these kinds of games, but now realised it doesn't result in anything, or anything good. There are better ways to communicate online, definitely. These are tactics of the schoolyard (probably worse, as we're more mature than that, right?).

But the one I dislike the most is _censorship by stealth_, as I'm a firm believer of being able to speak one's mind as long as one obeys the forum rules. There are no unwritten rules of what can and cannot be said, that's what I'm saying, esp. to do with things as subjective as musical taste can be, and as personal as religion and politics. There are boundaries that are sometimes hard to define (hence some people taking advantage of this & coming to the edge of breaking rules, but not quite), but you can say that you don't agree with something, that your boundary has been crossed, as long as you just keep it factual, not judging. Using your _smartness _to come to the edge of the limits of the rules and doing things with virtual impunity as a result is not on, imo.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> ...
> Recommended reading: Thomas Wolfe's _Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers._


I think you are breaking some unwritten rules there. & using _evidence_ to prove your point. Watch out!!! :lol:


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I find it a great shame that you consider a desire for evidence a form of pseudo-legalism. If we're going to say discussion is fine until you ask me to substantiate my ideas, what's the point of a discussion in the first place?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I find it a great shame that you consider a desire for evidence a form of pseudo-legalism. If we're going to say discussion is fine until you ask me to substantiate my ideas, what's the point of a discussion in the first place?


I think it's fine as long as it's not done aggressively. Or in a reductionist way. I see it as more illustrating a point, not ramming it home with a ten tonne crayon.

I'm biased against substantiation, I just try to keep the conversations here natural as possible. I try to give people benefit of the doubt.

I'm sorry you have been banned. My ire on this thread was not meant for you, it's a reflection on the sad state of affairs on the internet in many places. I know people who have like blocked two or more dozen people on facebook, due to trouble and arguments. & often these kinds of things are the source of the arguments. Same on this site. But there is always the ignore function to block people who make me peeved off big time.

These things had been brewing in my head before, what happened just now triggered it off to get it down on the screen.

Just good to be aware of these things, I think, that's it, that's the agenda of this thread.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

What appears to happen is that rather than use dialectics, the forums tend to degenerate to mud slinging
This does tend to dissuade others from joining


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"- Driving a wedge / divide and conquer
- Need for evidence / pseudo legalism
- Acting as a small target / self-censorship / muzzling certain opinions by stealth"

I'm assuming that you are asking what to do as a _target_ of these forms of aggression (the last one is a combo).

My answer is to duck and weave. None of these punches should connect. If ever you feel a flush of anger at anything thrown at you on TC, you are letting a punch land that shouldn't have.

Enough whimsy, eh? Getting down to it, you've been here way long enough to know whose opinions you value; why get bugged by the others? TC is here for the purpose of discussing music, mostly classical - in a civilized manner. I freely admit to enjoying friendly repartee with the members, but if it gets nasty I make it a point to stay clean. It's easy, _Sid_, really.


----------

