The End of Civility?

[Guest]

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

You're so silly.

Someone doesn't always have to emerge victor from a thread discussion, yannow.

 

[sr71plt]

You're so silly.

Someone doesn't always have to emerge victor from a thread discussion, yannow.

Yeah, but Someone is a wuss.

 

[rgraham666]

You're so silly.

Someone doesn't always have to emerge victor from a thread discussion, yannow.

What? Arguing on threads isn't about winning?

Christ, I've been doing it wrong.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

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.



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?

Granting the presumption of good will is an objective standard - violations are clear and unambiguous.

The other things you cite are subjective on both sides. They are often "I know it when I see it," and while obvious at the extremes, become more problematic as you move away from the extremes. In addition, there are people who define "mock and belittle" as merely disagreeing with them, and given the subjectivity involved any attempt to deny it becomes an unresolveable he-said/she-said. So if that is the standard you set - "no mocking or belittling" - you can see where you're going to have problems. A standard of granting the presumption of good will doesn't have those problems.

BTW, it should be clear that I'm talking big picture, societal, political philosophy type issues now, not proper standards for a voluntary social community like this one where the goal is more than to just avoid killing each other over our differences.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah, but Someone is a wuss.

Damned if you do-- he says you're a bully. Damned if you don't-- he says you're a wuss.

Damn, what a whiner!

 

[Guest]

Yeah, but Someone is a wuss.

Hey!

Them's fighting words! My civil rights have been trampled upon! I've been insulted!

Well, not really. I dunno.

I would like another drink.

Is Someone buying?

(My ankle hurts - I need to drink into pain-free status.)

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hey!

Them's fighting words! My civil rights have been trampled upon! I've been insulted!

Well, not really. I dunno.

I would like another drink.

Is Someone buying?

(My ankle hurts - I need to drink into pain-free status.)

Hows about you put your ankle up. No, higher than that.

A little higher, here, I'll hold it for you....

Perfect!

 

[Guest]

Hows about you put your ankle up. No, higher than that.

A little higher, here, I'll hold it for you....

Perfect!

Laughing -

(I'm gonna drop my laptop!)

 

[Stella_Omega]

Laughing -

(I'm gonna drop my laptop!)

No, no dropies-- put it down safe and Ill hold your other leg up too...

 

[BlackShanglan]

Granting the presumption of good will is an objective standard - violations are clear and unambiguous.

The other things you cite are subjective on both sides. They are often "I know it when I see it," and while obvious at the extremes, become more problematic as you move away from the extremes. In addition, there are people who define "mock and belittle" as merely disagreeing with them, and given the subjectivity involved any attempt to deny it becomes an unresolveable he-said/she-said. So if that is the standard you set - "no mocking or belittling" - you can see where you're going to have problems. A standard of granting the presumption of good will doesn't have those problems.

BTW, it should be clear that I'm talking big picture, societal, political philosophy type issues now, not proper standards for a voluntary social community like this one where the goal is more than to just avoid killing each other over our differences.

Nearly everything you've discussed can be determined objectively. Mocking and belittling are easily measured by a few simple rules. Are representations of the opposing position accurate? Is the language free of emotionally loaded terms? Are examples representative of what the opposing side is actually suggesting?

The gray areas near the middle aren't the things that clearly demonstrate a failure of good will in the debate itself. They also aren't the things that tend to inflame participants and lead to their assumption that you lack good will. Anyone who steps back for a moment and asks, "What would seem persuasive, friendly language of good will to an audience not interested in contentious bickering?" can easily identify the language needed.

As for the last - the bigger the picture, the more vital true civility is. The less one knows the other people involved in the debate, the more important serious work on civility is in order to demonstrate that an assumption of good will is appropriate. That's why diplomats spend so much time on apparently minor details of protocol. It's a way of demonstrating, in very difficult situations, that some good will is present.

 

[SlickTony]

Neat summation, Gauche.

Shang! It's been ages. Great to see you back.

 

[Guest]

No, no dropies-- put it down safe and Ill hold your other leg up too...

I certainly appreciate the civil tone this thread has taken.

 

[DeeZire]

Many of my zingers are published in the efforts of others, especially my humorous anecdotes. I also sell humorous original quotes to crypto-quote puzzle makers. My latest effort is drawing political cartoons.

This is quoted for the benefit of everyone who has JBJ on ignore. I think it helps to cast light on his motives, and illustrates the point that, for writers, observing the clever use of language is a perfectly valid reason to put up with annoying opinions.

***

On piling on: I think it's possible to perceive a unanimous opinion as piling on. For example, when someone says women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and every single post that follows argues that point, that's not piling on, it's just the community reacting to an offense idea. I certainly don't want to imply acceptance of an asinine idea by remaining silent.

I wonder if the concept of piling on would fall into that category of 'PC-ness' that is different for different people? For me, piling on would be bullying some clueless newbie who just asked the 'how long does it take' question. For people who don't know any better, civility would indicate a more measured response. But for the lunatic rantings that actually do advocate harm to others, such as suggesting that putting children to work in sweatshops is good for them, I would think a unanimous response would be expected, regardless of whether or not it would be considered as piling on.

 

[sr71plt]

Hey!

Them's fighting words! My civil rights have been trampled upon! I've been insulted!

Well, not really. I dunno.

I would like another drink.

Is Someone buying?

(My ankle hurts - I need to drink into pain-free status.)

Unless you have "Someone" as an alt, you shouldn't need to fight.

And I guess Stella just didn't "get it."

 

[Guest]

Unless you have "Someone" as an alt, you shouldn't need to fight.

And I guess Stella just didn't "get it."

Nahh.

The only alt I have is the one TxRad and I have together. Well, I do have another for stories of a different sort than I usually post, but I don't post on forums with it. That's just creepy.

I'm too busy. I'd never be able to manage which alt I posted under.

Rum?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Unless you have "Someone" as an alt, you shouldn't need to fight.

And I guess Stella just didn't "get it."

I got sarahh's legs up over my shoulders-- I'm good.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shang! It's been ages. Great to see you back.

Tony! Always a pleasure. It's good to be back.

 

[Guest]

I got sarahh's legs up over my shoulders-- I'm good.

Yes, she is.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, she is.

And this is, no lie, the real reason I come back to AH everyday;
for Sarahh and Shang and Slick, and RRichard and Doc and gauche and subjoe and dampy, and Dino, and Cloudy, and theFool and Salvor and Elsol and TK and Bel and Imp, Charley, and so many other people.

These people are why I'm here.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Amen to that, Stella. It's why I'm back.

 

[Guest]

And this is, no lie, the real reason I come back to AH everyday;
for Sarahh and Shang and Slick, and RRichard and Doc and gauche and subjoe and dampy, and Dino, and Cloudy, and theFool and Salvor and Elsol and TK and Bel and Imp, Charley, and so many other people.

These people are why I'm here.

With all our cliquish-ness?

Love you too, sexy one.

Chicago - March - 2009?

We really missed you last year.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEE ZIRE

My popularity here crashed and burned when I expressed a contrary opinion about a grammar issue. I didnt form my opinion from a turd I shit, I took it from acknowledged masters of writing. But that didnt matter, the USUAL SUSPECTS have their dogma, and contrary opinions are treated roughly even if they have merit.

So I concluded that the USUAL SUSPECTS are ignorant dweebs, and nothing since then has changed my opinion. They dont want civil debate, they want mindless conformity.

True, here and in the newspaper pieces I write, I like to see what gets people going. I recently wrote a tongue in cheek piece about a retired columnist friend of mine. His mug is on some propaganda the library printed to encourage literacy. My bud is holding an open book and grinning at the camera. In my article I said that the guy on the library poster had to be a model who looked like my friend, because I knew for a fact he was illiterate and if he came upon a book lying in the road, he'd run from it quicker than he'd run from a snake.

People went nuts!

 

[Stella_Omega]

With all our cliquish-ness?

Love you too, sexy one.

Chicago - March - 2009?

We really missed you last year.

Thus far I'm even more broke than I was last year... wasn't sure it was possible...

 

[Guest]

Thus far I'm even more broke than I was last year... wasn't sure it was possible...

Actually?

So are we.



(There are people who'll need roommates.)

 

[Liar]

These people are why I'm here.

Ditto.

One of the reasons I come here is because this is one of the few places where you can vehemently clash with a person in one thread, wish him a happy birthday in a second, and join in in a proverbial group grope in a third.

It's not perfect, and it leads to some charring, but the decorum here, made up of those very people, is mostly pretty damn awesome.