EditHint: I plan to copy this back from the adjunct to here. Objections?

http://grault.net/adjunct/index.cgi?FistsWork

-------------------

[Reconstruction]

Physical discussions are usually more civilized than web-based discussions because there is the risk of a knuckle sandwich if you grow too rude. Some of the horrible things people say on the web would certainly result in a bruise or two in the real world. And some people I encounter on the web certainly deserve it.

''Right now, I'll bet those people are thinking '''exactly''' the same thing about you.''

Not to be too subtle, or anything, but we should all be aware that personal insults are the exact moral equivalent of disagreeing with a person's political or social viewpoint, and therefore both are equally punishable by beating. I know from experience that there are people on the web who would love to see me beaten, whose rage is almost incoherent, because . . . I disagree with their philosophy. Sometimes a little distance is a good thing. 

* I disagree with 'exact moral equivalent'. I think there is a relation, but not identity. 

* ''That's true, some get physical over having the "wrong opinion" and that is an upside of the web. But the downside is that rudeness itself is not really punishable.''

* They are not equivalent in my opinion. Calling people names is a bigger "sin" in my book than having odd political or social viewpoints. People have a right to have unpopular political and social opinions. Calling others names crosses a line such that one is "asking for it". -BlackHat 

I disagree with much more than that. Certainly it's possible to disagree in such a way that you are being insulting, but it should be possible to examine the differences between two viewpoints in order to understand the distinctions between them and what the underpinning philosophy is for each viewpoint until you get the point where you can both politely beg to differ or agree to disagree, or perhaps one or both of the participants change their viewpoint in whole or in part. 

''One should be allowed to attack ideas with fervor. However, when it turns to personal insults ("only an idiot would have that opinion"), then a new dimension is entered. ''

[When someone says that to me, I declare victory. It means my opponent has run out of ammunition. At that point, further debate is futile.] 

Anger is not necessarily proof of being wrong. It may be due to frustration over the communications process itself, not necessarily the facts of the issue. (Related: WhatStrongEmotionsShow)

-----

Remember, there is no problem so subtle, so entrenched, nor so expansive that it can't be solved by the application of sufficient violence. 

''I hope that was meant as sarcasm.''

----

Imagine thirty C2 WikiZens in the same room with the GrammarVandal. Phun!

{Thirty of the people in the room would be wondering who of the other thirty he/she was! A clue, look for some one straightening pictures on the wall or behaving strangely like the character "Monk" in the TV series of the same name.}

But there is no shortage of fastidious people on this wiki. They'd probably fight over the proper way to measure if a picture was strait....straight? 

GV would be the one trying a Tonya Harding approach to straightening ''his/her'' way.

-----

'''No Slow Dogs'''

There are rarely dogs in China that cross the road slowly. In the USA, one often encounters care-free dogs leisurely crossing the road, barely bothered by a honk. You won't find that in China, not because they eat dogs, but because the Chinese don't stop for them. There is no legal penalty or social expectation of protecting dim dogs from themselves. (Note that this is a potentially dated observation about China. Attitudes towards dogs may be changing as a growing middle class discovers the "joy of pets".)

-----

Fists are not always fair, but their imperfect impact is often better than no fists (no risk of retaliation for rudeness). A corrupt police force is often better than no police force.

''Really?''

It probably depends on the degree of corruption. A ''very'' corrupt police force could be worse than no police force, while a lightly-corrupt police force is probably better than none.
-------
CategoryCommunication