Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
|
| |
|
| While this etiquette may make [[sysops]] sometimes more annoyed due to having to put up with more [[trolls]], no trolls will be harmed just for annoying any sysops, and this in the long run will make sysops far better life protectors! | | While this etiquette may make [[sysops]] sometimes more annoyed due to having to put up with more [[trolls]], no trolls will be harmed just for annoying any sysops, and this in the long run will make sysops far better life protectors! |
|
| |
| A mainstream theory is that etiquette is a form of minimal [[negative ethics]], i.e. exceptions to an ethical framework that make it acceptable to humans who otherwise would not be able to apply it fully, "situations where ethics doesn't count", e.g. where lies are acceptable, or a number of standard hypocrisies. Judith Martin is very clear about this: etiquette is hypocrisy. I would say that it is the limits of ethics, and does not embody it except insofar as it protects bodies by what it discourages the investigation of. The [[Rise of Martinets|Martinets]], then, are those who break all ethical rules by extending etiquette to beyond its breaking point, to the point where it is actually enforcing an 'unethic' - a set of excuses to risk and [[bodily harm|harm bodies]] for [[ideology|ideological]] purposes.
| |