Desperately seeking civil discussion and debate

[minsue]

It's amazing how quickly a political thread devolves into personal attacks. What is it about the internet that sucks the humanity out of a debate, discussion, or argument? People will type things that they would never (I hope) say to someone in person if having the same discussion, myself included. It's the reason I started trying to avoid the political threads. I hate being attacked and hate it even more when I catch myself doing it.

Is it that we forget we're still conversing with another person when online? Is that what makes it so easy to skip straight to name calling and other personal attacks?

Is it that we're so busy wanting to get that good dig in, that perfect clever retort, that we just skim the other posts rather than actually reading them before replying?

Is there any hope? I refuse to believe that it's impossible to discuss, debate, and exchange ideas while still having a level of respect for all participants, even those we disagree with.

Any suggestions?

 

[rgraham666]

Like you said. min, never forget there's a human being at the other end.

Unfortunately people often do forget that. It's why I use the word 'we' instead of 'you' when I'm debating. No separation into 'us' and 'them'.

 

[Dar~]

While perusing other boards, I have often been the one at the dark side of the Attack. The one getting attacked merely for having an opinion. I too wonder why it is that people seem to want to belittle each other. Maybe it is because we were all the little kid who always thought up the come back a minute too late. I don't know, bu tI don't want to be that way either.

 

[cloudy]

Thanks, Min.

I know I've been guilty of it in the past......hell, we probably all have been. I've made a very determined effort for the last few weeks to either stay out of discussions like that, or to say what I have to say, and then leave it alone. I don't know why I've been surprised over and over again when normally civil and seemingly kind people hurt others over something that can't be changed, and that no one's going to change their minds about.

The worst part to me is seeing someone who is normally kind and reasoned getting hurt because of the unwarranted personal attacks. It's undeserved at the least, and spiteful as hell at it's worst.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

No! No, no no no no!

I'm not listening. You're a stinkiehead. No you.

I don't get what you're saying. Debate is plenty mature and civil here.

Seriously, it is a good goal to strive for, the recognition of the other, but one must remember that there is a place for coarseness as well. If someone is stepping over the line and is hurting another in debate, is being a bigot or an asshole, I think it is the other discussants place to point it out. If a person is cheating the debate with rhetorical word games rather than making a point or striving for a consensus, I think it needs to be pointed out. Sometimes these pointings out can seem like attacks (You sir are an asshole and you have yet to make a point), but I think they are of a separate camp of attacks that prevent personal attacks, neccessary attacks if you will.

But overall yes, debates where we treated everyone like a human, novel concept, won't catch on.

 

[bisexplicit]

I think alot of the problem is the fact that misunderstandings can occur so easily when all you have is the words to go on - no tone of voice, no body language.
Sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek, and other such things can easily cause hurt feelings when not meant to.
But, some people do mean to. And I think they just feel protected by their aninominity.

 

[cantdog]

Screw civil debate. Who needs it. People ignore civil debate every bit as well as any other kind.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I love you, Minsue.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Screw civil debate. Who needs it. People ignore civil debate every bit as well as any other kind.

we're all too busy planning what we're going to say next anyway.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oh, and I have seen civil debate change hearts and minds. Many times. In fact, I have myself made decisions that cost me considerable time, money, and personal difficulties based on civil discourse that persuaded me that I had been wrong in some of my assumptions.

Reasoned civil discourse works. The key is to have it with reasoned, civil people.

 

[minsue]

Like you said. min, never forget there's a human being at the other end.

Unfortunately people often do forget that. It's why I use the word 'we' instead of 'you' when I'm debating. No separation into 'us' and 'them'.

That's the trap I often find myself falling into. Maybe we all need a banner across the top of the screen that says

THEM IS US.

 

[minsue]

I love you, Minsue.

Of course you do.

 

[minsue]

Screw civil debate. Who needs it. People ignore civil debate every bit as well as any other kind.

I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Reasoned civil discourse works. The key is to have it with reasoned, civil people.

Yeah, that's always the part. I like to think I'm decently reasoned and civil when with reasoned and civil people even when I don't agree with the opinion. But more and more when someone's unrepentantly being an ass, I've developed stages. Stage 1: Inform person of their assholic nature, caution them against continuing them. Stage 2: Yell at them that they're being an asshole, storm off in disgust. Come back, try one final plea for sanity, empathy, or kindness. Stage 3: Surrender to the Fates, person demoted to Happy Fun Ball standing.

 

[minsue]

Stage 3: Surrender to the Fates, person demoted to Happy Fun Ball standing.

I can deal with the Happy Fun Balls. It's seeing it from those I respected and expected more from that always throws me off and tends to involve a great deal of dismay on my end.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I can deal with the Happy Fun Balls.

And you claim to be a lesbian?


Civilly,
~lucky

 

[minsue]

And you claim to be a lesbian?


Civilly,
~lucky

What? You don't name your Ben Wa balls?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

What? You don't name your Ben Wa balls?

Sure I do. Maybe I'm just a little more creative.

~lucky

 

[minsue]

Sure I do. Maybe I'm just a little more creative.

~lucky

I'm sure you are, sweets. You're a little more everything and I adore that about you.

Now quit hijacking my thread before I'm forced to get uncivil on your ass.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yeah, that's always the part. I like to think I'm decently reasoned and civil when with reasoned and civil people even when I don't agree with the opinion. But more and more when someone's unrepentantly being an ass, I've developed stages. Stage 1: Inform person of their assholic nature, caution them against continuing them. Stage 2: Yell at them that they're being an asshole, storm off in disgust. Come back, try one final plea for sanity, empathy, or kindness. Stage 3: Surrender to the Fates, person demoted to Happy Fun Ball standing.

I've stopped trying to explain to people that they are being unpleasant. I first stopped doing this (please don't laugh, it's true) because Miss Manners says that one is not to criticize the manners of others. Eventually, as with so many of her guidelines, I realized that it was practical: it never works. No one, on being told "You're acting quite rude," has ever to my knowledge stopped and said "My goodness, you're right! I'd best stop this moment." Usually they instead get defensive and more confirmed in their ways.

Occasionally it helps to explain, as gently as possible, that their behavior is painful. This is a little awkward, of course, because the reaction may sometimes be "yes, I know, and fuck you, weakling." That's the risk one must be prepared to take. Now and then, however, it can bring out someone's better side. I only do this if it's someone with whom my relationship is close enough that I think my feelings might be of some concern. Otherwise, I assume from the speaker's actions that they are not.

But yes. It's always harder coming from someone one respects. It's much easier to write off anonymous Internet idiots then a person you've liked and thought highly of.

Such is human nature. At times, it does let one down.

Shanglan

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'm (almost) always up for a good argument, and consider insult a valid rhetorical device. Indeed, there are times when an insult is really the most humane way of dismissing someone from an argument that is obviously beyond their powers of reason.

Seriously, I'm torn in this. Civility is overrated. Civility from the press got us into Iraq without a legitimate debate. If someone stoops to lying, misquoting, tautology and the like, why is it wrong to point it out and insult them as the charlatans they are? Calling a pig with lipstick a swine is accurate, regardless of how it's dressed up.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm (almost) always up for a good argument, and consider insult a valid rhetorical device. Indeed, there are times when an insult is really the most humane way of dismissing someone from an argument that is obviously beyond their powers of reason.

Seriously, I'm torn in this. Civility is overrated. Civility from the press got us into Iraq without a legitimate debate. If someone stoops to lying, misquoting, tautology and the like, why is it wrong to point it out and insult them as the charlatans they are? Calling a pig with lipstick a swine is accurate, regardless of how it's dressed up.

Rather than addressing what might be right or wrong about it, I'll stick to what's effective. When you insult someone, you damage your own ethos. You make it obvious that you are angry and strongly biased toward the opposition. That may play well with your side, but then you don't need to persuade them to agree with you. They already do. The people you have to convince are those who don't agree with you. If you insult them or their principles openly, the rest of your argument will not be heard. They will turn the page, change the channel, or walk away. Or, if they are equally fond of civil behavior, they'll engage in a screaming match with you. I don't find that those tend to accomplish much.

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

Rather than addressing what might be right or wrong about it, I'll stick to what's effective. When you insult someone, you damage your own ethos. You make it obvious that you are angry and strongly biased toward the opposition. That may play well with your side, but then you don't need to persuade them to agree with you. They already do. The people you have to convince are those who don't agree with you. If you insult them or their principles openly, the rest of your argument will not be heard. They will turn the page, change the channel, or walk away. Or, if they are equally fond of civil behavior, they'll engage in a screaming match with you. I don't find that those tend to accomplish much.

Shanglan

Exactly. It was arguing politics on this board that finally taught me that. It was Colly and Sher that taught me how much more effective it is to let your arguments, backed up with whatever relevant facts you have, stand on their own and it was a number of others who taught me how little there is to gain by simply screaming at and insulting those who disagree with you. I must admit, it took a good long while for it all to sink in. I do love that evil rush one gets from that perfect cutting retort, but it doesn't do a damned bit of good and generally harms yourself, others, and your stance in the arguement far more than it's worth.

 

[Dar~]

I am a bit shocked that civil conversation turns to vile outbursts of self- propagating rage. The thread I know we are talking about specifically, I was fairly shocked by some reaactios from usually rational persons. In general, I usually end up leaving politcally flamable threads for this exact reason.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

For me, it's knowing when to quit. The few times I've gotten really riled have all been times that I was still trying to prove a point to someone that had merely regurgitated the same immovable viewpoint three or more times. I also think it depends on the issue and the length of the discussion. I'll never forget a thread I began about something very controversial, and watching the many faces it took on over the course of 250+ pages. Sometimes a discussion simply runs aground and to prolong it past the point of new information or open minds is just asking for disaster.

~lucky