A theoretical underpinning of the U.S. legal system is that adversarial process is valued for its role in arriving at truth. The weighing and evaluating of differing perspectives by strident opponents helps a fact finder to identify strengths and weaknesses in opposing views. This is a fundamental tenet of our legal tradition. The principle is equally apt for equity analysis.
In reading the posts of persons offended by "rudeness" and general incivility, it is useful to consider the experience lws cites with regard to the intelligent dissenter who left in frustration upon enduring repeated hostilities - possibly from the very same posters who now profess faithfulness to civility and social pleasantries, as I suspect, based on a similar experience to the previous dissenter, the one who endured incivilities and "rudeness" before leaving in frustration. In the light of knowledge of the previous dissenter's experience it is clear that what is really being sought by the tickertypes, herbert blairs, mark johnsons, et al is a kind of "cyber smoking room" to which members may retire, unfettered by diversity of thought but, instead enveloped in the warm embrace of a simple, hand-holding mantra. They want the kind of place where they won't be challenged, won't be faced with the unpleasantries of dissent or of a differing sentiment, alternative idea, challenging thought. An environment that evokes smoke-filled rooms of non-diverse members in more closeted, uglier eras.
Tickertype reminisces of how it used to be - "until the (most recent 10K was published and) the last CC occurred." A boys club prevailed then; one with a narrow but "oh so comfortable" and reassuring uniformity of opinion about the coming halcyon days of $100 stock and all that comes with it. When someone with a position counter to the club threatens to upset the accepted view, it is clear what to do: oppose the "rebel" with a stepford zeal, condescend but, if that doesnt work, call his/her view stupid, if that doesn't work, call him/her stupid and if that doesn't work, fall back on morality and agree how barbaric, how offensive, how uncouth of the rebel not to be able to take a "hint."
It is indisputable that personal attacks - however direct or veiled - are unconstructive. Human nature suggests that once begun, a continuing downward spiral becomes difficult to avoid. It is also indisputable that this thread must make room for diverse, even opposing, positions and perspectives. As certain is the value of the adversarial system to the pursuit of truth in questions concerning human liberty and justice, the tolerance of opposing opinion can help not hurt the readers' investment prospects,however anxiety provoking it is in matters involving dreams and imagined riches. |
