"Mac" makes a comment in the previous post about how much of a jerk I am:

...to a great extent, the people who are on the receiving end of Rand's barbs are those that cast the first stone. Whether or not Rand's being rude to those people who are rude first is immaterial since this is Rand's blog. If those that wish to insult Rand cannot bear being insulted back, they shouldn't post in the first place.

While I'm sure there are exceptions, what with me being human and all, that is in fact my philosophy. I attempt to operate on the Internet (as I attempt to in life) on a tit-for-tat basis. I've never been a Christian, and so never feel any moral need to turn the other cheek (though I often do anyway). I just think that it's the best philosophy of operation. As Axelrod describes it, it has the features of being nice, forgiving, provocable, and clear, which should be the basis for any interaction that provides maximum benefit to all parties.

So, if someone posts nonsense (something that I consider an insult to my blog, and to the intelligence of my other readers), and I call it that, am I being a "jerk"? I report, you decide.

[Update in the afternoon]

Sorry 'bout that. I clumsily worded the opening sentence above. "...about how much of a jerk I am" refers to the post (and is sarcastic), not to Mac's comment.

Minor point...

IIRC from my catechism days, the verses in question refer to putting the attacker into a socially unpleasant dilemma.

If the right cheek gets struck, it is typically a back-handed slap -- the method used by a social superior against a social inferior -- by the attacker's right hand. If the defender then offers the left check, the attacker has to choose between an open-handed slap, thereby establishing social parity and undercutting the point of the previous slap; or a back-handed slap with the left (unclean) hand. Or, the attacker could decline, again undercutting the initial slap.

OTOH, if one slaps with a fish...

"Mac" makes a comment in the previous post about how much of a jerk I am:

I don't find you to be a jerk at all. Your robust returns to those who start the scrap are simply returned salvos. Just wanted to clarify, 'cause that opening sentence really makes me look bad. (sniff sniff)

Perhaps it's intended so the quotee won't get a swelled head from be 'officially' recognized. ;-)

Way 2 go bro!

Hey, that's right, I have national exposure! Thanks Rand.

Stable system vs. unstable system.

I know that "tit for tat" always seems to work best in those games and simulations that are along the mutually assured destruction or prisoner's dilemma lines. However, I've often thought that in the context of long-term personal relationships, such a policy isn't a great idea. If you are with somebody long enough--say a husband or wife--they are almost certainly going to eventually do something to you--or you to them--that hurts. If the hurt person responds by hurting back, and then that person hurts back in turn, you basically descend into mutual hatred. This is an unstable system, just waiting for the first hurt to destroy the relationship. On the other hand, if there is some degree of forgiveness--even though I am hurt, I will not hurt in return--the relationship operates on a much more stable basis. This doesn't really account for the situation where one person keeps repeatedly hurting the other without ever stopping, but the you-got-me-so-I'll-get-you mentality doesn't lead to strong friendships and marriages.

you-got-me-so-I'll-get-you mentality doesn't lead to strong friendships and marriages.

Agreed, but fortunately, this blog is not a marriage...

It does work pretty well for a public forum.

Jeff M:

If you read Robert Axelrod's book "The Evolution of Cooperation," he notes that tit-for-tat requires certain circumstances to be stable.

One is that neither side is allowed to communicate. (Remember, this was in the context of the Cold War, and often was studied before things like summits and the Hotline became enudring features.)

Along these lines, both sides need to see a pay-off in cooperating, and that the payoff is greater than whatever might be obtained in NOT cooperating.

So, in the context of a husband and wife, the whole situation doesn't apply (much as Prisoner's Dilemma wouldn't apply).

In the context of a public forum, it's trickier. If you presume that everyone comes here w/ a common goal of discourse, then, again, Axelrod might not apply. The problem, as we've seen with "anonymous" and often with Swiderski, discourse was NOT the objective. Raging at Rand, or denouncing Republicans, or simply hijacking threads was the aim.

Under such circumstances, it goes back to the Axelrod assumptions of failures to communicate---and tit-for-tat becomes much more appropriate.

Hope this helps?

It's the internet. If you can't insult people from the comfort of your home/office then what's the point?

So let me get this straight: Rand makes an inflammatory statement, I respond, and I'm the one who's starting shit? Wow, that's convenient.