The End of Civility?

[Safe_Bet]

Roxanne, I'm sure, is long familiar with my objections to the approach she espouses, so I shan't go on at length (well, more than usual - I'll aim for less).

The problem, in a nutshell: No one listens.

If you speak in such a way as to offend those of the opposing viewpoint (haranguing, belittling, piling in loaded language, engaging in sarcastic lampoons and straw-man beating), no one who doesn't already agree with you listens for any purpose other than yelling back.

It seems to me, then, that it would be best to confess, before embarking on such tactics, that one cannot claim that one's motive is to learn, instruct, or persuade. It can only be to belittle. That's an awfully low goal for someone who is genuinely passionate about an idea, and it's antithetical to successfully spreading that idea. The more important the idea is, the more ashamed one ought to be of driving people away from it with that sort of behavior.

I don't know you dear sir, but that was wonderful. Thank you.

Anyone who wants to post to a political thread should have to read that out loud to everyone present before they are allowed!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, I'm sure, is long familiar with my objections to the approach she espouses, so I shan't go on at length (well, more than usual - I'll aim for less).

The problem, in a nutshell: No one listens.

If you speak in such a way as to offend those of the opposing viewpoint (haranguing, belittling, piling in loaded language, engaging in sarcastic lampoons and straw-man beating), no one who doesn't already agree with you listens for any purpose other than yelling back.

It seems to me, then, that it would be best to confess, before embarking on such tactics, that one cannot claim that one's motive is to learn, instruct, or persuade. It can only be to belittle. That's an awfully low goal for someone who is genuinely passionate about an idea, and it's antithetical to successfully spreading that idea. The more important the idea is, the more ashamed one ought to be of driving people away from it with that sort of behavior.

Well sure, but now you're talking about effective communications and legitimate rhetorical techniques, not civility per se, according to the definition I've cited. I suppose that definition describes a floor below which one may not descend. The thing is, except at the extremes there's a measure of subjectivity and ambiguity with the things you mention.

I will certainly agree that brow-beating and belittling are unambiguously objectionable, and should be condemned. I'll add to those talking to another about a third party in unflattering terms and "piling on" - those are nothing but bullying whose only intent is to silence.

But sarcasm can be gentle and humorous or vicious and mean; straw men can be tongue-in-cheek or dishonest; hyperbole and colorful language can be entertaining or mocking. Going to the extreme with an exanple is a legitimate logical technique for determining the truth or falseness of a proposition. It also depends on who's involved. Pure and I for example are big-league brawlers who can go at each other hammer-and-tongs and not hurt each other's feelings. For either of us to unleash our full armory at someone who is more sensitive and less comfortable in a contentious environment would be mean and boorish.

 

[sr71plt]

You often confuse 'friends affirming each other's friendship' for 'cliquishness.'

Not when they are "affirming" their friendship by piling on (e.g., not being civil to) a third party. Laugh Out Loud.

think you are particularly adept at "blinders on" about that.

 

[rgraham666]

Shrugs. I don't know why people are surprised at the lack of civility. The internet has never been a particularly civil place. It's the anonymity of the internet. You can be an asshole without getting a biff up the snout.

Plus the current U.S. election and the culture war being fought behind its mask is adding a higher tension than usual.

A fair portion of the current U.S. population, what I've taken to calling 'Frontier America' knows its culture is dying. And it is fighting a bitter war of words against this. Wars are not places for civil behavior, at least as we here in The West currently imagine warfare.

The fact that this war is regarded as a 'war against evil' on both sides takes yet another limitation away. Very few people are willing to compromise with evil.

My $0.02.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Well sure, but now you're talking about effective communications and legitimate rhetorical techniques, not civility per se, according to the definition I've cited.

Yes. That's why I took issue with your definition. I think it's a poor one. The limits it sets don't seem to me to be sufficient either for civility or for useful political discourse - in the absence, I suppose, of a mutal agreement of indiosyncratic rules of play, such as you imply between you and Pure. People who know each other do grant each other some liberties; civil people don't assume those liberties with random strangers or the general population, or indeed with friends who haven't granted them.

Going to the extreme with an exanple is a legitimate logical technique for determining the truth or falseness of a proposition.

For anything more complex than the simplest enthymeme, I can't remember ever seeing this used in a way that would hold up under any serious examination of its warrants. It occupies the same rhetorical space as analogies: potentially of some use, but only if very carefully scrutinized to identify all of the myriad places in which the comparison inevitably fails to hold true.

I don't know you dear sir ...

Just a random donkey.

 

[rgraham666]

Donkey, my butt. The finest thoroughbred.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Not when they are "affirming" their friendship by piling on (e.g., not being civil to) a third party. Laugh Out Loud.

think you are particularly adept at "blinders on" about that.

Any time I see you make this 'piling on' complaint about a conversational group, it means that some of its members have expressed disagreement (or even worse, disinterest), at one time or another, with your opinions, on one topic or another.

Forever afterwards, those friends are a 'clique', and their conversations are expressions of incivility.

 

[gauchecritic]

Forever afterwards, those friends are a 'clique', and their conversations are expressions of incivility.

you've given the game away now.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Donkey, my butt. The finest thoroughbred.

I'm not that good. I've struggled for several minutes to create some sort of verb out of "donkey," but I just can't do it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

you've given the game away now.

Don't ask her to apologize.

 

[gauchecritic]

Don't ask her to apologize.

If I thought apologising would do any good I'd probably spell it with a zee.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If I thought apologising would do any good I'd probably spell it with a zee.

And even refer to it as a zee and not a zed?

You prince amongst men. Drop 'round the back of the stables for your kiss.

 

[Stella_Omega]

you've given the game away now.

Why should I let you have all the fun?

Anyway, I'd apologise-- with an ess-- if I could. Up close and personal.

But you say your wife won't let me.

 

[Guest]

Not when they are "affirming" their friendship by piling on (e.g., not being civil to) a third party. Laugh Out Loud.

think you are particularly adept at "blinders on" about that.

You do say this often, sr, and since I know it's directed partially at me, it bothers me.

If more than one person disagrees with another's opinion, should each successive person quote the initial poster, talk only with them, to express that disagreement? We can't discuss it in forum? It's not allowed?

It's not permissible to chuckle at a ridiculous poster's response?

I must disagree with you. It's the internet, in an unmoderated porn forum. It's really permissible for posters to have an opinion and to express it in any damn way they choose.

And of course it's a close knit cliquish group - we've been friends for years. Kind of like hanging out at the same bar every night.

And some of these people, I must confess, truly drink to excess.

(Can't wait to do it again in March.)

 

[sr71plt]

Any time I see you make this 'piling on' complaint about a conversational group, it means that some of its members have expressed disagreement (or even worse, disinterest), at one time or another, with your opinions, on one topic or another.

Forever afterwards, those friends are a 'clique', and their conversations are expressions of incivility.

Ah, noooo. Sometimes I'm pointing out that you and your friends are gangbanging another poster as well.

You're being Egyptian again--as in De Nile.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ah, noooo. Sometimes I'm pointing out that you and your friends are gangbanging another poster as well.

I'm counting those instances as well.

It's as if-- since you've been so unjustly attacked, all negative opinions are unjust attacks. If several people share that negative opinion, then its truly unjust.

You're going to side with the underdog, by god-- whomever you percieve to be the underdog, and you define that by being "not one of those gangbangers"

 

[sr71plt]

You do say this often, sr, and since I know it's directed partially at me, it bothers me.

Ummm, no. Not for some time. Haven't sensed that with you for some time.

But cliquishness and attached meanness and lack of civility goes with the territory of discussion boards like this--even if the cliques here find that inconvenient to admit and observe.

As far as history: When I first began checking in on lurk in 2006, this was a real backbiting piranha pit--hazing anyone new who showed up.

When I started posting in 2007, it was just a piranha pit--and I posted to the piranhas.

It actually seems only a piranha pit in spots and on occasion now--but that's probably because I've become part of it.

No, clique rules reign here--back up cyber friends no matter what, and do no better than run silent when someone is being sliced up unfairly--especially if they aren't in your clique.

Oh, yes, and claim to put them on ignore but run around and make snide comments about them anyway.

It's normal for the Internet, yes. It's just a bit too smug to claim this board is any different.

But, also, since you dwell on this "won't permit disagreement" bit--show me where I am intolerant to differences of opinion on the board.

Nasty personal attacks, yes. But expressions of differences of opinion on substance. I think you're blowing smoke on that one.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It actually seems only a piranha pit in spots and on occasion now--but that's probably because I've become part of it.

That's certainly helped us to identify and localize the spots, yes.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yes. That's why I took issue with your definition. I think it's a poor one. The limits it sets don't seem to me to be sufficient either for civility or for useful political discourse - in the absence, I suppose, of a mutal agreement of indiosyncratic rules of play, such as you imply between you and Pure. People who know each other do grant each other some liberties; civil people don't assume those liberties with random strangers or the general population, or indeed with friends who haven't granted them.

Well, I think the definition is a good one but it may have a more narrow application than necessary for establishing standards for pleasant and productive discourse. Here's what I mean: Refusing to grant opponents the presumption of good will is the norm in places where violence is the accepted way to resolve political disputes. Or I should say, in the absence of this habit violence becomes not just the first resort - it's the only resort. I mean, if I and my opponent insist that that the other is motivated by a desire for harm to be visited on some subset of innocent people - ie, bad will; ie, that the other is evil - what is left but violence? That is what defines the opposite of "civility," right?

Obviously this standard pretty serious business then, and its importance is not to be diminished. It's a necessary prerequisite for political discourse, but I'll acknowledge that it's a bare minimum and a starting point, not an end point.

That said, it's violated all the time in political discourse on this site and elsewhere. Given the above you can see why I feel strongly about this.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm counting those instances as well.

It's as if-- since you've been so unjustly attacked, all negative opinions are unjust attacks. If several people share that negative opinion, then its truly unjust.

You're going to side with the underdog, by god-- whomever you percieve to be the underdog, and you define that by being "not one of those gangbangers"

Yep, it's natural to define anything you don't want to face as something not legitimate.

Being civil about it, though. I expect someone less civil to flip in momentarily.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I mean, if I and my opponent insist that that the other is motivated by a desire for harm to be visited on some subset of innocent people - ie, bad will; ie, that the other is evil - what is left but violence? That is what defines the opposite of "civility," right?

No, that would define the opposite of "peace" or "non-violence." Civility sets a higher standard than merely not attacking people. Abiding by the law would be sufficient for the former.

Obviously this standard pretty serious business then, and its importance is not to be diminished. It's a necessary prerequisite for political discourse, but I'll acknowledge that it's a bare minimum and a starting point, not an end point.

That said, it's violated all the time in political discourse on this site and elsewhere. Given the above you can see why I feel strongly about this.

Oh, yes. I think it's important; I just think it fails to go far enough. In fact, I think that a great deal of the failure to presume goodwill comes from a lack of higher standards of civility. When one mocks, belittles, or lampoons one's opponent, one generally isn't demonstrating goodwill to him or her. It's not surprising that these small displays of ill will escalate into larger ones, particularly when the topic is already one on which passions run high.

Why would someone assume that an opponent wanted the best for all of mankind when he or she seemed, in the course of the debate, to want only to be unpleasant to people of different opinions?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yep, it's natural to define anything you don't want to face as something not legitimate.

Being civil about it, though. I expect someone less civil to flip in momentarily.

Yes, I'm saddened that such an intelligent woman and dear friend-- and she is still both of those things-- has become so incivil.

I met her at a different time in her life, I guess.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If more than one person disagrees with another's opinion, should each successive person quote the initial poster, talk only with them, to express that disagreement? We can't discuss it in forum? It's not allowed?

It's not permissible to chuckle at a ridiculous poster's response?

Yes, yes, no and no. On the second (each successive person quote the initial poster), in your second person singular response to the initial poster you can cite what others have said, but you can only address the initial poster. On the last, you can chuckle about it, but only when addressing the target of your chuckling.

Yeah I know - that's a pretty hard line. Does it seem too extreme? Here's the problem: The line between good natured joshing and outright bullying whose real purpose is to silence is razor thin, and worse, is subjective. There are some intentional bullies on this site, and I know you wouldn't want to be one of them even unintentionally, so the best policy is to just say no to what you're describing.

 

[Guest]

<snip>

But, also, since you dwell on this "won't permit disagreement" bit--show me where I am intolerant to differences of opinion on the board.

Nasty personal attacks, yes. But expressions of differences of opinion on substance. I think you're blowing smoke on that one.

Mayhap.

We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[sr71plt]

Mayhap.

We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

Sure, that's fine. (Proving my contention, of course).