Could you both please offer a definition of "uncivil"?
I've been reading this, and I think that you guys have a specific notion in mind of what an "uncivil" idea or position is.
Is it something that is categorically rude? Violating conversational norms?
Is it something that is repugnant morally?
Is it something we generally (in our society) don't approve of?
I'm just worried that right now you and MrMr are just talking past one another because he is operating with a specific notion of what "uncivil" means.
JM, I think that this applies to you most of all because I don't know what you want from SKFM or MrMr (re: uncivil ideas/positions), it doesn't seem obvious. I imagine that I'm just not connecting something that you are. Enlighten me please.
As always, despite not agreeing with @MrMister in his general convictions, I am continually impressed with his writing. Mad props man.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
+2
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Anyway the OP of this thread (not it's revival cuz this thread is old) includes an article that explores the purposes of snark and smarm and it is interesting. The article cites Harry Frankfurts 1986 essay 'On Bullshit' and it is this essay that best explains my position on the use of snark or uncivility or treating with contempt and such.
Bullshit is here not just merely dishonest argument but dishonest argument where engaging with the actual argument will be construed as uncivil or impolite. Essentially the bullshitter establishes an unfair playground and then claims you are being uncivil or whatever when you point out how unfair it is. The conversation or debate is not actually about the issue, the issue is irrelevant to the true purpose of winning and winning is already predetermined.
I asked earlier about what we should do about those who earnestly argue for reprehensible shit and I realize that they are not really the problem. Their ideas are reprehensible but they would act within the boundaries of honesty to some extent.
But the bullshitter has no reason to do so. They dishonestly argue for whatever solely to win and they are in control of what it means to win. In the case of civility they just out-civilize anyone else by focusing on tone and such and in general never conceding by implying that they have still won because they were just so much more civil.
@MrMister you talk about civility in seminars but how would you deal with Frankfurt's bullshitter?
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Anyway the OP of this thread (not it's revival cuz this thread is old) includes an article that explores the purposes of snark and smarm and it is interesting. The article cites Harry Frankfurts 1986 essay 'On Bullshit' and it is this essay that best explains my position on the use of snark or uncivility or treating with contempt and such.
Bullshit is here not just merely dishonest argument but dishonest argument where engaging with the actual argument will be construed as uncivil or impolite. Essentially the bullshitter establishes an unfair playground and then claims you are being uncivil or whatever when you point out how unfair it is. The conversation or debate is not actually about the issue, the issue is irrelevant to the true purpose of winning and winning is already predetermined.
I asked earlier about what we should do about those who earnestly argue for reprehensible shit and I realize that they are not really the problem. Their ideas are reprehensible but they would act within the boundaries of honesty to some extent.
But the bullshitter has no reason to do so. They dishonestly argue for whatever solely to win and they are in control of what it means to win. In the case of civility they just out-civilize anyone else by focusing on tone and such and in general never conceding by implying that they have still won because they were just so much more civil.
@MrMister you talk about civility in seminars but how would you deal with Frankfurt's bullshitter?
But the person you describe is more like the sea lion than a civil interlocutor.
+1
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Could you both please offer a definition of "uncivil"?
Who gets to determine what is uncivil, right?
Because I can imagine the reply to my last post is that the bullshitter is not being civil but the problem is that the bullshitter may have more power than me to determine what civil is. If I argue on his grounds he is the arbiter of civility which given his bullshittery means I automatically lose any argument.
I don't have much of a definition of civility since I think it just a set of pre-determined rules by parties on what is allowed in debate and what is not. Slinging your own poo at opponents could be civil if such were the way of your people. The important thing is that it is relative. And therefore as philosophers we cannot discount what is said outside of whatever boundaries of civility we have set up.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Anyway the OP of this thread (not it's revival cuz this thread is old) includes an article that explores the purposes of snark and smarm and it is interesting. The article cites Harry Frankfurts 1986 essay 'On Bullshit' and it is this essay that best explains my position on the use of snark or uncivility or treating with contempt and such.
Bullshit is here not just merely dishonest argument but dishonest argument where engaging with the actual argument will be construed as uncivil or impolite. Essentially the bullshitter establishes an unfair playground and then claims you are being uncivil or whatever when you point out how unfair it is. The conversation or debate is not actually about the issue, the issue is irrelevant to the true purpose of winning and winning is already predetermined.
I asked earlier about what we should do about those who earnestly argue for reprehensible shit and I realize that they are not really the problem. Their ideas are reprehensible but they would act within the boundaries of honesty to some extent.
But the bullshitter has no reason to do so. They dishonestly argue for whatever solely to win and they are in control of what it means to win. In the case of civility they just out-civilize anyone else by focusing on tone and such and in general never conceding by implying that they have still won because they were just so much more civil.
MrMister you talk about civility in seminars but how would you deal with Frankfurt's bullshitter?
But the person you describe is more like the sea lion than a civil interlocutor.
Indeed. But by what metric do you discount the bullshitter's account of civility and maintain your own?
Note: If you go with dishonesty/honesty you probably lose a fair amount of what you like about civil discourse though it is the most defensible option.
One can discuss an uncivil thing in a civil manner. That said, it's important to keep in mind that not every context is as formal and even as academic conferences. There is such a thing as an aggressive, adversarial debate, which may have major consequences.
Which tone do you think is more appropriate for an online discussion forum?
In general, on relatively friendly forums like this one, I'd say that keeping a non-aggressive tone with polite phrasing is preferable so long as everyone in the conversation is arguing in good faith. Occasionally, however, a poster may stop arguing in good faith, and historically one method of highlighting this is for opponents to respond with snark. Something of a peer-pressure based tactic used to kick the soap box out from under someone to remind them that they're not in a special position in the argument. It certainly gets used at inappropriate times, but it sometimes leads to someone shaping up and joining in the conversation more openly.
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
@MrMister you talk about civility in seminars but how would you deal with Frankfurt's bullshitter?
Sometimes it doesn't matter: arguments can be interesting even when they're offered by someone who's a miscreant along some axis, e.g. they don't sincerely believe the argument they're offering. But it's also true that sometimes the arguments are not interesting. And you can get someone offering an endless stream of bad, uninteresting arguments.
Right now, I think that apologetics by Christian philosophers fall into this category. These arguments are pretty bad, and worse yet bad in an uninteresting way. And the people offering them exhibit all sorts of methodological failings that verge on constructing an impossible playing field: they've never met a move too ad hoc to like, for instance. The way to deal with this sort of case is, I think, semi-benign neglect. There's no reason to read this stuff, because it's pretty bad, and no reason to hire people who do it, or invite them to give talks, etc. etc. None of this requires any sort of censorship, or even aggressive confrontation, or anything like that; it just involves allotting limited academic resources in the ways that, by group judgment, are going to be most productive. To the extent that the system works, the group will largely recognize the bullshit for what it is, and will direct its attention elsewhere as appropriate. Of course, it doesn't always work, but there's not much alternative. Right now I think it's mostly working in the case of apologetics, which are fringe to the discipline and largely supported by explicitly theological outside money (aka religious colleges, seminaries, and so on).
Of course, this all leaves open the possibility that someone will come up with a blazingly awesome argument for the existence of the Christian god one of these days; if they do, three cheers for them and let's hear it. But, until then, neglect.
+1
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Also, LoserforHire, I must say that at times like these I definitely miss the bro! button.
0
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Could you both please offer a definition of "uncivil"?
I've been reading this, and I think that you guys have a specific notion in mind of what an "uncivil" idea or position is.
Is it something that is categorically rude? Violating conversational norms?
Is it something that is repugnant morally?
Is it something we generally (in our society) don't approve of?
I'm just worried that right now you and MrMr are just talking past one another because he is operating with a specific notion of what "uncivil" means.
JM, I think that this applies to you most of all because I don't know what you want from SKFM or MrMr (re: uncivil ideas/positions), it doesn't seem obvious. I imagine that I'm just not connecting something that you are. Enlighten me please.
As always, despite not agreeing with @MrMister in his general convictions, I am continually impressed with his writing. Mad props man.
I would consider a civil idea an idea that is deserving of respect based on the definitions and the usage in skfms post. So an uncivil idea would ba an idea that is not deserving of respect.
But a better person to ask would be skfm as he was the person who put it out there in the first place, using a descriptor of conversations as a descriptor of concepts.
Edit
Better. A polite idea vs an impolite idea.
jmcdonald on
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Could you both please offer a definition of "uncivil"?
I've been reading this, and I think that you guys have a specific notion in mind of what an "uncivil" idea or position is.
Is it something that is categorically rude? Violating conversational norms?
Is it something that is repugnant morally?
Is it something we generally (in our society) don't approve of?
I'm just worried that right now you and MrMr are just talking past one another because he is operating with a specific notion of what "uncivil" means.
JM, I think that this applies to you most of all because I don't know what you want from SKFM or MrMr (re: uncivil ideas/positions), it doesn't seem obvious. I imagine that I'm just not connecting something that you are. Enlighten me please.
As always, despite not agreeing with @MrMister in his general convictions, I am continually impressed with his writing. Mad props man.
I would consider a civil idea an idea that is deserving of respect based on the definitions and the usage in skfms post. So an uncivil idea would ba an idea that is not deserving of respect.
But a better person to ask would be skfm as he was the person who put it out there in the first place, using a descriptor of conversations as a descriptor of concepts.
Edit
Better. A polite idea vs an impolite idea.
But my contention from the start has been that ideas are inert and that it is only the manner in which they are discussed that can be civil or uncivil (or if you prefer, polite or impolite). Any topic can be discussed in a civil manner. Any matter can be discussed in an uncivil manner.
The simplest distillation of my view is that all debates, regardless of the topic, should be conducted without insulting the other party, without raising one's voice or exclaiming from anger (a cool statement that you are angry is appropriate). This requires a certain ability to detach yourself in debate, but I think that is not inappropriate because the strength of your conviction is not relevant in a persuasive argument. Arguments work or fail on their own merits, divorced of feelings of outrage (a valid argument is valid no matter how mad you are, and becoming emotional does not make a weak argument stronger).
If someone does not respond to you in kind, or if someone refuses to take your counter arguments seriously so that the conversation can progress, then it is appropriate to tell the person that you feel they are not being civil and that you will not speak with them further if they do not comport themselves in a civil matter.
This theory only applies where the initial statement is made in good faith though. If someone is making neo nazi pronouncements on the street, you are not obliged to engage them or respond to them, IMO. But in an academic, friendly or formal setting, I think that my rules should hold.
0
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
Do you not agree that putting aside those strong feelings is going to be much easier for a person who doesn't have them? If yes, do you think people should keep that in mind when docking points for incivility?
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
Do you not agree that putting aside those strong feelings is going to be much easier for a person who doesn't have them? If yes, do you think people should keep that in mind when docking points for incivility?
I do not agree. I do not believe that anyone is controlled by their emotion to the point where they are compelled to make a rude response in discourse. You can always choose how to respond, and so an uncivil response is always blameworthy. Like I said before, you can always state how angry you are and why. But that that not excuse invective or rudeness.
0
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
Do you not agree that putting aside those strong feelings is going to be much easier for a person who doesn't have them? If yes, do you think people should keep that in mind when docking points for incivility?
I do not agree. I do not believe that anyone is controlled by their emotion to the point where they are compelled to make a rude response in discourse. You can always choose how to respond, and so an uncivil response is always blameworthy. Like I said before, you can always state how angry you are and why. But that that not excuse invective or rudeness.
That's not what I asked, though. I asked if you agreed that it is easier for someone to be civil if they do not care about a topic. That does not mean it's impossible for someone to be civil if they do care about a topic, just that it may be harder for them.
Being completely unwilling to excuse incivility (which I don't think you are) or, perhaps more importantly, seeing civility in and of itself as a positive, seems liable to create favorable conditions for those who do not care.
Could you both please offer a definition of "uncivil"?
I've been reading this, and I think that you guys have a specific notion in mind of what an "uncivil" idea or position is.
Is it something that is categorically rude? Violating conversational norms?
Is it something that is repugnant morally?
Is it something we generally (in our society) don't approve of?
I'm just worried that right now you and MrMr are just talking past one another because he is operating with a specific notion of what "uncivil" means.
JM, I think that this applies to you most of all because I don't know what you want from SKFM or MrMr (re: uncivil ideas/positions), it doesn't seem obvious. I imagine that I'm just not connecting something that you are. Enlighten me please.
As always, despite not agreeing with @MrMister in his general convictions, I am continually impressed with his writing. Mad props man.
I would consider a civil idea an idea that is deserving of respect based on the definitions and the usage in skfms post. So an uncivil idea would ba an idea that is not deserving of respect.
But a better person to ask would be skfm as he was the person who put it out there in the first place, using a descriptor of conversations as a descriptor of concepts.
Edit
Better. A polite idea vs an impolite idea.
But my contention from the start has been that ideas are inert and that it is only the manner in which they are discussed that can be civil or uncivil (or if you prefer, polite or impolite). Any topic can be discussed in a civil manner. Any matter can be discussed in an uncivil manner.
The simplest distillation of my view is that all debates, regardless of the topic, should be conducted without insulting the other party, without raising one's voice or exclaiming from anger (a cool statement that you are angry is appropriate). This requires a certain ability to detach yourself in debate, but I think that is not inappropriate because the strength of your conviction is not relevant in a persuasive argument. Arguments work or fail on their own merits, divorced of feelings of outrage (a valid argument is valid no matter how mad you are, and becoming emotional does not make a weak argument stronger).
If someone does not respond to you in kind, or if someone refuses to take your counter arguments seriously so that the conversation can progress, then it is appropriate to tell the person that you feel they are not being civil and that you will not speak with them further if they do not comport themselves in a civil matter.
This theory only applies where the initial statement is made in good faith though. If someone is making neo nazi pronouncements on the street, you are not obliged to engage them or respond to them, IMO. But in an academic, friendly or formal setting, I think that my rules should hold.
I completely disagree with this statement. Arguments and discussions, even civil ones are not made in a vacuum. Especially if there is an audience. People can be moved by passion. People with weak arguments have been making their positions stronger through emotional expression since since people started having discussions period.
Saying that a removal of passion is the best way to have a civil discussion is only valid in very specific contexts. And also very very hard to do. Hell, most people wouldn't be having a discussion in the first place if the didn't really care about the subject.
I really don't think you need to have Commander Data arguing with himself to keep things from getting out of hand or to have a decent discourse. There is a lot of lee way depending on most circumstances to make empassioned pleas without it turning to verbal or physical blows.
now there are many ways to object to the argument. however, as I believe is typical in philosophy (@mrmister might agree), these generally involve unpleasant conceptual tradeoffs (is it reasonable to posit a definition of slavery that includes, say, conscription, and therefore damns practically every Western liberal democracy for keeping slavery laws on their books?). and furthermore, you know, many (ahem) applied philosophers are rather impatient with wrangling about deontological political ethics.
But there is an easy out! Just bite the bullet. Say: okay, fine, slavery is perfectly legit, let's put our hands together for Nozick's brilliant demonstration of the equivalence between taxation and slavery - and then hop over to considering how the state may optimally tax enslave you, subject to ethical bases that (by definition) don't actually prohibit the principle of slavery but imply an ethics where there is oddly little of it (and more importantly, provide a framework that allows you to talk about the things you actually want to talk about, e.g., ethical issues in public finance). Very workable. QED, you have an argument for the legitimacy of slavery, e.g., as an edge case to a (very common) framework that predominantly considers equity, and efficiency, but not necessarily consent.
Generally, I'd say that the most effective expressions I've seen from emotion in argument still come from a place of honesty and respect. Saying "I am angry about this" while keeping a calm tone is a much more effective way to express emotion in an argument than "Fuck you", or using some kind of snark, and people tend to react to it better.
I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "Angry people just can't be expected to contain their anger" argument in a civil discussion forum. It seems to privilege outrage over debate, and the format of most online fora is one where you're allowed to choose your words fairly carefully. If a post is making you angry to the point where you feel you can't express yourself without barbs, it's probably a good time to walk away and perhaps try to write the post later.
+5
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
That the general consensus is that the sealion comic is the interpretation that is equivalent to "some times privileged bigots are correct" is a little surprising to me.
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
That the general consensus is that the sealion comic is the interpretation that is equivalent to "some times privileged bigots are correct" is a little surprising to me.
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
Do you not agree that putting aside those strong feelings is going to be much easier for a person who doesn't have them? If yes, do you think people should keep that in mind when docking points for incivility?
I do not agree. I do not believe that anyone is controlled by their emotion to the point where they are compelled to make a rude response in discourse. You can always choose how to respond, and so an uncivil response is always blameworthy. Like I said before, you can always state how angry you are and why. But that that not excuse invective or rudeness.
That's not what I asked, though. I asked if you agreed that it is easier for someone to be civil if they do not care about a topic. That does not mean it's impossible for someone to be civil if they do care about a topic, just that it may be harder for them.
Being completely unwilling to excuse incivility (which I don't think you are) or, perhaps more importantly, seeing civility in and of itself as a positive, seems liable to create favorable conditions for those who do not care.
I am not unwilling to excuse incivility because the presentation of an argument does not impact its truth or falsity, but I will not continue a conversation with someone who persists in being rude.
I really do think that everyone can be civil on every topic though. No one is compelled by emotion to say anything. Cooler heads are always capable of prevailing.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Generally, I'd say that the most effective expressions I've seen from emotion in argument still come from a place of honesty and respect. Saying "I am angry about this" while keeping a calm tone is a much more effective way to express emotion in an argument than "Fuck you", or using some kind of snark, and people tend to react to it better.
I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "Angry people just can't be expected to contain their anger" argument in a civil discussion forum. It seems to privilege outrage over debate, and the format of most online fora is one where you're allowed to choose your words fairly carefully. If a post is making you angry to the point where you feel you can't express yourself without barbs, it's probably a good time to walk away and perhaps try to write the post later.
Cpt - this is exactly the point that I was trying to make before. Anger exists. It is valid. It can be expressed. It is no reason to be uncivil.
0
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
Do you not agree that putting aside those strong feelings is going to be much easier for a person who doesn't have them? If yes, do you think people should keep that in mind when docking points for incivility?
I do not agree. I do not believe that anyone is controlled by their emotion to the point where they are compelled to make a rude response in discourse. You can always choose how to respond, and so an uncivil response is always blameworthy. Like I said before, you can always state how angry you are and why. But that that not excuse invective or rudeness.
That's not what I asked, though. I asked if you agreed that it is easier for someone to be civil if they do not care about a topic. That does not mean it's impossible for someone to be civil if they do care about a topic, just that it may be harder for them.
Being completely unwilling to excuse incivility (which I don't think you are) or, perhaps more importantly, seeing civility in and of itself as a positive, seems liable to create favorable conditions for those who do not care.
I am not unwilling to excuse incivility because the presentation of an argument does not impact its truth or falsity, but I will not continue a conversation with someone who persists in being rude.
I really do think that everyone can be civil on every topic though. No one is compelled by emotion to say anything. Cooler heads are always capable of prevailing.
You still haven't answered my question: do you agree that it is easier for someone who does not care about a topic to be civil?
This is different from the question you are answering, which is: do you think someone who cares about a topic sometimes cannot be civil?
I don't really even care about the answer at this point, I just want to know if you are aware that you aren't actually answering the question.
it strikes me as a cartoon that assumes you will assign the roles of oppressor and oppressed in the metaphor correctly
I agreed, but I am actually unsure whether it's intentionally absurd, and thus its consistency and message are irrelevant or just very poorly constructed so fails to entirely support whatever its actual intended message may be.
Needless to say that it is being used instructively is a fact I find bemusing.
it strikes me as a cartoon that assumes you will assign the roles of oppressor and oppressed in the metaphor correctly
I agreed, but I am actually unsure whether it's intentionally absurd, and thus its consistency and message are irrelevant or just very poorly constructed so fails to entirely support whatever its actual intended message may be.
Needless to say that it is being used instructively is a fact I find bemusing.
Generally, I'd say that the most effective expressions I've seen from emotion in argument still come from a place of honesty and respect. Saying "I am angry about this" while keeping a calm tone is a much more effective way to express emotion in an argument than "Fuck you", or using some kind of snark, and people tend to react to it better.
I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "Angry people just can't be expected to contain their anger" argument in a civil discussion forum. It seems to privilege outrage over debate, and the format of most online fora is one where you're allowed to choose your words fairly carefully. If a post is making you angry to the point where you feel you can't express yourself without barbs, it's probably a good time to walk away and perhaps try to write the post later.
Cpt - this is exactly the point that I was trying to make before. Anger exists. It is valid. It can be expressed. It is no reason to be uncivil.
Ok, I'll buy that. I agree then. It looked more like a statement of "Reasonable people will not be swayed by your anger!" Whereas I find, commonly its the exact opposite.
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
it strikes me as a cartoon that assumes you will assign the roles of oppressor and oppressed in the metaphor correctly
I agreed, but I am actually unsure whether it's intentionally absurd, and thus its consistency and message are irrelevant or just very poorly constructed so fails to entirely support whatever its actual intended message may be.
Needless to say that it is being used instructively is a fact I find bemusing.
I don't actually agree with all of it, for the simple reason that I don't think convincing lay people who disagree with you via appeal to reason or common values is the primary purpose of political speech, neither in the de facto status quo nor as an ideal
nonetheless it is a critique that should worry other people!
it strikes me as a cartoon that assumes you will assign the roles of oppressor and oppressed in the metaphor correctly
I agreed, but I am actually unsure whether it's intentionally absurd, and thus its consistency and message are irrelevant or just very poorly constructed so fails to entirely support whatever its actual intended message may be.
Needless to say that it is being used instructively is a fact I find bemusing.
The point is that [certain types of people] will act in a [certain way] if criticized.
If the original statement had been something like "Ugh, gamers, amirite" and the sea lion was instead a guy with a "vidya gaemz" t-shirt doing the pestering on that topic instead, the message would certainly have been more clear. But also probably too on the nose?
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I don't actually agree with all of it, for the simple reason that I don't think convincing lay people who disagree with you via appeal to reason or common values is the primary purpose of political speech, neither in the de facto status quo nor as an ideal
nonetheless it is a critique that should worry other people!
you are also, to be fair, less-than-average concerned with public sentiment & support for ideas.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
Do you not agree that putting aside those strong feelings is going to be much easier for a person who doesn't have them? If yes, do you think people should keep that in mind when docking points for incivility?
I do not agree. I do not believe that anyone is controlled by their emotion to the point where they are compelled to make a rude response in discourse. You can always choose how to respond, and so an uncivil response is always blameworthy. Like I said before, you can always state how angry you are and why. But that that not excuse invective or rudeness.
That's not what I asked, though. I asked if you agreed that it is easier for someone to be civil if they do not care about a topic. That does not mean it's impossible for someone to be civil if they do care about a topic, just that it may be harder for them.
Being completely unwilling to excuse incivility (which I don't think you are) or, perhaps more importantly, seeing civility in and of itself as a positive, seems liable to create favorable conditions for those who do not care.
I am not unwilling to excuse incivility because the presentation of an argument does not impact its truth or falsity, but I will not continue a conversation with someone who persists in being rude.
I really do think that everyone can be civil on every topic though. No one is compelled by emotion to say anything. Cooler heads are always capable of prevailing.
You still haven't answered my question: do you agree that it is easier for someone who does not care about a topic to be civil?
This is different from the question you are answering, which is: do you think someone who cares about a topic sometimes cannot be civil?
I don't really even care about the answer at this point, I just want to know if you are aware that you aren't actually answering the question.
I understand. Apologies. I think it is very speaker dependent and some people may have a harder time depending on how invested they are in a given issue. I think that evidences a lack of self control though, and it should not actually be harder to be civil on topics you feel strongly about and topics you do not care about, at least in a setting like this forum where you have time to compose a response. I would say that arguing with a man who is yelling racist epithets on the street is quite different though.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't actually agree with all of it, for the simple reason that I don't think convincing lay people who disagree with you via appeal to reason or common values is the primary purpose of political speech, neither in the de facto status quo nor as an ideal
nonetheless it is a critique that should worry other people!
Query whether much of political speech is actually civil.
I don't actually agree with all of it, for the simple reason that I don't think convincing lay people who disagree with you via appeal to reason or common values is the primary purpose of political speech, neither in the de facto status quo nor as an ideal
nonetheless it is a critique that should worry other people!
Query whether much of political speech is actually civil.
Query whether civility is an intrinsic part of appealing to reason or common values, especially in the context of mobilizing the faithful - a large part of fundraising, which is itself a large part of political engagement as a whole
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
Do you not agree that putting aside those strong feelings is going to be much easier for a person who doesn't have them? If yes, do you think people should keep that in mind when docking points for incivility?
I think it will be impossible for someone who doesn't have them.
Which might mean that the person who has no feelings (which I'm not sure is something anyone actually has), is neither civil nor uncivil. They are neither setting aside strong feelings nor giving vent to them.
Also, if someone is truly disinterested, I'm not sure that they would even care enough to participate.
Essentially I don't think that there is this problem, because either it's not something that people actually feel, or those people wont be involved in those discussions anyway.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I don't actually agree with all of it, for the simple reason that I don't think convincing lay people who disagree with you via appeal to reason or common values is the primary purpose of political speech, neither in the de facto status quo nor as an ideal
nonetheless it is a critique that should worry other people!
Query whether much of political speech is actually civil.
Query whether civility is an intrinsic part of appealing to reason or common values, especially in the context of mobilizing the faithful - a large part of fundraising, which is itself a large part of political engagement as a whole
That speech is effective or purpose driven does not preclude that speech being in bad faith. I would assert that the entire modern American political discourse consists primarily of bad faith discussions. It is a serious problem.
jmcdonald and Julius
Could you both please offer a definition of "uncivil"?
I've been reading this, and I think that you guys have a specific notion in mind of what an "uncivil" idea or position is.
Is it something that is categorically rude? Violating conversational norms?
Is it something that is repugnant morally?
Is it something we generally (in our society) don't approve of?
I'm just worried that right now you and MrMr are just talking past one another because he is operating with a specific notion of what "uncivil" means.
JM, I think that this applies to you most of all because I don't know what you want from SKFM or MrMr (re: uncivil ideas/positions), it doesn't seem obvious. I imagine that I'm just not connecting something that you are. Enlighten me please.
As always, despite not agreeing with MrMister in his general convictions, I am continually impressed with his writing. Mad props man.
I would consider a civil idea an idea that is deserving of respect based on the definitions and the usage in skfms post. So an uncivil idea would ba an idea that is not deserving of respect.
But a better person to ask would be skfm as he was the person who put it out there in the first place, using a descriptor of conversations as a descriptor of concepts.
Edit
Better. A polite idea vs an impolite idea.
Okay, but this is something that MrMr addresses in his first post when he talks about appropriate and inappropriate. His stipulation being that there is nothing categorically inappropriate to engage with. No position, no idea, ever. However, there are contexts in which particular ideas or topics are inappropriate. But that isn't a fact about the idea qua idea, but rather a fact about the idea contextualized.
You might say though that "polite" != "appropriate" however, I think that you will have a hard time making this case. Politeness seems to me to be nothing more than the set of rules about what is appropriate in particular contexts. Holding a door open is polite when someone is following you, rude when someone is trying to heat up/cool down a room. Context determines what particular rule is in effect.
If in fact context determines it, then it is not the case that something is impolite because of what it is. It might only be impolite because of the circumstances that exist. Now, it seems like your only refuge here is to say that all circumstances which are naturally possible are such that some topic is impolite. That doesn't score you everything, but does secure your practical goal.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't actually agree with all of it, for the simple reason that I don't think convincing lay people who disagree with you via appeal to reason or common values is the primary purpose of political speech, neither in the de facto status quo nor as an ideal
nonetheless it is a critique that should worry other people!
Query whether much of political speech is actually civil.
Query whether civility is an intrinsic part of appealing to reason or common values, especially in the context of mobilizing the faithful - a large part of fundraising, which is itself a large part of political engagement as a whole
That speech is effective or purpose driven does not preclude that speech being in bad faith. I would assert that the entire modern American political discourse consists primarily of bad faith discussions. It is a serious problem.
hmm. I wrote two replies and then deleted them. Let me clarify: what would constitute a good faith discourse of, e.g., the PPACA? What elements would you like to see raised?
0
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
Do you not agree that putting aside those strong feelings is going to be much easier for a person who doesn't have them? If yes, do you think people should keep that in mind when docking points for incivility?
I think it will be impossible for someone who doesn't have them.
Which might mean that the person who has no feelings (which I'm not sure is something anyone actually has), is neither civil nor uncivil. They are neither setting aside strong feelings nor giving vent to them.
Also, if someone is truly disinterested, I'm not sure that they would even care enough to participate.
Essentially I don't think that there is this problem, because either it's not something that people actually feel, or those people wont be involved in those discussions anyway.
"As a white man, I don't think sexism and racism are quite the issues some people make them out to be."
Also, I would have thought that not having to do a thing as a prerequisite to engage in a discussion would be, like, categorically easier than having to do a thing.
Edit: Before it gets pointed out that the hypothetical white man there presumably does have strong feelings on the subject for whatever reason, can I propose that there are, I dare even add often, situations wherein he will feel less strongly about it than the person who has lived with sexism and/or racism.
That standard seems to massively favor a party that doesn't care about a topic.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
Do you not agree that putting aside those strong feelings is going to be much easier for a person who doesn't have them? If yes, do you think people should keep that in mind when docking points for incivility?
I think it will be impossible for someone who doesn't have them.
Which might mean that the person who has no feelings (which I'm not sure is something anyone actually has), is neither civil nor uncivil. They are neither setting aside strong feelings nor giving vent to them.
Also, if someone is truly disinterested, I'm not sure that they would even care enough to participate.
Essentially I don't think that there is this problem, because either it's not something that people actually feel, or those people wont be involved in those discussions anyway.
"As a white man, I don't think sexism and racism are quite the issues some people make them out to be."
Also, I would have thought that not having to do a thing as a prerequisite to engage in a discussion would be, like, categorically easier than having to do a thing.
Edit: Before it gets pointed out that the hypothetical white man there presumably does have strong feelings on the subject for whatever reason, can I propose that there are, I dare even add often, situations wherein he will feel less strongly about it than the person who has lived with sexism and/or racism.
You can't set aside something that you don't have.
It's why I proposed that someone who just lacks any feelings at all on a subject is neither behaving civilly nor un-civilly.
In fact, I don't think that they will want to be part of the conversation at all.
Again, I think that there are not such people. Everyone feels something about anything. True ambivalence seems to me to just not be something human beings do. Even if they did, I doubt that someone who truly achieved such a thing would care enough to get involved in the talk in the first place.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posts
Could you both please offer a definition of "uncivil"?
I've been reading this, and I think that you guys have a specific notion in mind of what an "uncivil" idea or position is.
Is it something that is categorically rude? Violating conversational norms?
Is it something that is repugnant morally?
Is it something we generally (in our society) don't approve of?
I'm just worried that right now you and MrMr are just talking past one another because he is operating with a specific notion of what "uncivil" means.
JM, I think that this applies to you most of all because I don't know what you want from SKFM or MrMr (re: uncivil ideas/positions), it doesn't seem obvious. I imagine that I'm just not connecting something that you are. Enlighten me please.
As always, despite not agreeing with @MrMister in his general convictions, I am continually impressed with his writing. Mad props man.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Bullshit is here not just merely dishonest argument but dishonest argument where engaging with the actual argument will be construed as uncivil or impolite. Essentially the bullshitter establishes an unfair playground and then claims you are being uncivil or whatever when you point out how unfair it is. The conversation or debate is not actually about the issue, the issue is irrelevant to the true purpose of winning and winning is already predetermined.
I asked earlier about what we should do about those who earnestly argue for reprehensible shit and I realize that they are not really the problem. Their ideas are reprehensible but they would act within the boundaries of honesty to some extent.
But the bullshitter has no reason to do so. They dishonestly argue for whatever solely to win and they are in control of what it means to win. In the case of civility they just out-civilize anyone else by focusing on tone and such and in general never conceding by implying that they have still won because they were just so much more civil.
@MrMister you talk about civility in seminars but how would you deal with Frankfurt's bullshitter?
But the person you describe is more like the sea lion than a civil interlocutor.
Who gets to determine what is uncivil, right?
Because I can imagine the reply to my last post is that the bullshitter is not being civil but the problem is that the bullshitter may have more power than me to determine what civil is. If I argue on his grounds he is the arbiter of civility which given his bullshittery means I automatically lose any argument.
I don't have much of a definition of civility since I think it just a set of pre-determined rules by parties on what is allowed in debate and what is not. Slinging your own poo at opponents could be civil if such were the way of your people. The important thing is that it is relative. And therefore as philosophers we cannot discount what is said outside of whatever boundaries of civility we have set up.
Indeed. But by what metric do you discount the bullshitter's account of civility and maintain your own?
Note: If you go with dishonesty/honesty you probably lose a fair amount of what you like about civil discourse though it is the most defensible option.
In general, on relatively friendly forums like this one, I'd say that keeping a non-aggressive tone with polite phrasing is preferable so long as everyone in the conversation is arguing in good faith. Occasionally, however, a poster may stop arguing in good faith, and historically one method of highlighting this is for opponents to respond with snark. Something of a peer-pressure based tactic used to kick the soap box out from under someone to remind them that they're not in a special position in the argument. It certainly gets used at inappropriate times, but it sometimes leads to someone shaping up and joining in the conversation more openly.
Sometimes it doesn't matter: arguments can be interesting even when they're offered by someone who's a miscreant along some axis, e.g. they don't sincerely believe the argument they're offering. But it's also true that sometimes the arguments are not interesting. And you can get someone offering an endless stream of bad, uninteresting arguments.
Right now, I think that apologetics by Christian philosophers fall into this category. These arguments are pretty bad, and worse yet bad in an uninteresting way. And the people offering them exhibit all sorts of methodological failings that verge on constructing an impossible playing field: they've never met a move too ad hoc to like, for instance. The way to deal with this sort of case is, I think, semi-benign neglect. There's no reason to read this stuff, because it's pretty bad, and no reason to hire people who do it, or invite them to give talks, etc. etc. None of this requires any sort of censorship, or even aggressive confrontation, or anything like that; it just involves allotting limited academic resources in the ways that, by group judgment, are going to be most productive. To the extent that the system works, the group will largely recognize the bullshit for what it is, and will direct its attention elsewhere as appropriate. Of course, it doesn't always work, but there's not much alternative. Right now I think it's mostly working in the case of apologetics, which are fringe to the discipline and largely supported by explicitly theological outside money (aka religious colleges, seminaries, and so on).
Of course, this all leaves open the possibility that someone will come up with a blazingly awesome argument for the existence of the Christian god one of these days; if they do, three cheers for them and let's hear it. But, until then, neglect.
I would consider a civil idea an idea that is deserving of respect based on the definitions and the usage in skfms post. So an uncivil idea would ba an idea that is not deserving of respect.
But a better person to ask would be skfm as he was the person who put it out there in the first place, using a descriptor of conversations as a descriptor of concepts.
Edit
Better. A polite idea vs an impolite idea.
But my contention from the start has been that ideas are inert and that it is only the manner in which they are discussed that can be civil or uncivil (or if you prefer, polite or impolite). Any topic can be discussed in a civil manner. Any matter can be discussed in an uncivil manner.
The simplest distillation of my view is that all debates, regardless of the topic, should be conducted without insulting the other party, without raising one's voice or exclaiming from anger (a cool statement that you are angry is appropriate). This requires a certain ability to detach yourself in debate, but I think that is not inappropriate because the strength of your conviction is not relevant in a persuasive argument. Arguments work or fail on their own merits, divorced of feelings of outrage (a valid argument is valid no matter how mad you are, and becoming emotional does not make a weak argument stronger).
If someone does not respond to you in kind, or if someone refuses to take your counter arguments seriously so that the conversation can progress, then it is appropriate to tell the person that you feel they are not being civil and that you will not speak with them further if they do not comport themselves in a civil matter.
This theory only applies where the initial statement is made in good faith though. If someone is making neo nazi pronouncements on the street, you are not obliged to engage them or respond to them, IMO. But in an academic, friendly or formal setting, I think that my rules should hold.
I don't agree. I just think that in the name of civil discourse, one should put aside strong feelings, at least in formulating responses.
I do not agree. I do not believe that anyone is controlled by their emotion to the point where they are compelled to make a rude response in discourse. You can always choose how to respond, and so an uncivil response is always blameworthy. Like I said before, you can always state how angry you are and why. But that that not excuse invective or rudeness.
Being completely unwilling to excuse incivility (which I don't think you are) or, perhaps more importantly, seeing civility in and of itself as a positive, seems liable to create favorable conditions for those who do not care.
I completely disagree with this statement. Arguments and discussions, even civil ones are not made in a vacuum. Especially if there is an audience. People can be moved by passion. People with weak arguments have been making their positions stronger through emotional expression since since people started having discussions period.
Saying that a removal of passion is the best way to have a civil discussion is only valid in very specific contexts. And also very very hard to do. Hell, most people wouldn't be having a discussion in the first place if the didn't really care about the subject.
I really don't think you need to have Commander Data arguing with himself to keep things from getting out of hand or to have a decent discourse. There is a lot of lee way depending on most circumstances to make empassioned pleas without it turning to verbal or physical blows.
it is very easy. I'll demonstrate by making one
take Nozick - he wrote Anarchy State Utopia. there's a famous argument from the thesis that challenges the reader to define the boundary between free self-ownership under democracy and slavery, proceeding from fairly conventional intuitions as to what constitutes enslavement vs mere legitimate nonconsensual non-harm-related coercion, if such a thing exists
now there are many ways to object to the argument. however, as I believe is typical in philosophy (@mrmister might agree), these generally involve unpleasant conceptual tradeoffs (is it reasonable to posit a definition of slavery that includes, say, conscription, and therefore damns practically every Western liberal democracy for keeping slavery laws on their books?). and furthermore, you know, many (ahem) applied philosophers are rather impatient with wrangling about deontological political ethics.
But there is an easy out! Just bite the bullet. Say: okay, fine, slavery is perfectly legit, let's put our hands together for Nozick's brilliant demonstration of the equivalence between taxation and slavery - and then hop over to considering how the state may optimally tax enslave you, subject to ethical bases that (by definition) don't actually prohibit the principle of slavery but imply an ethics where there is oddly little of it (and more importantly, provide a framework that allows you to talk about the things you actually want to talk about, e.g., ethical issues in public finance). Very workable. QED, you have an argument for the legitimacy of slavery, e.g., as an edge case to a (very common) framework that predominantly considers equity, and efficiency, but not necessarily consent.
I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "Angry people just can't be expected to contain their anger" argument in a civil discussion forum. It seems to privilege outrage over debate, and the format of most online fora is one where you're allowed to choose your words fairly carefully. If a post is making you angry to the point where you feel you can't express yourself without barbs, it's probably a good time to walk away and perhaps try to write the post later.
everyone is grinding their own axes with that one
I am not unwilling to excuse incivility because the presentation of an argument does not impact its truth or falsity, but I will not continue a conversation with someone who persists in being rude.
I really do think that everyone can be civil on every topic though. No one is compelled by emotion to say anything. Cooler heads are always capable of prevailing.
Cpt - this is exactly the point that I was trying to make before. Anger exists. It is valid. It can be expressed. It is no reason to be uncivil.
This is different from the question you are answering, which is: do you think someone who cares about a topic sometimes cannot be civil?
I don't really even care about the answer at this point, I just want to know if you are aware that you aren't actually answering the question.
I agreed, but I am actually unsure whether it's intentionally absurd, and thus its consistency and message are irrelevant or just very poorly constructed so fails to entirely support whatever its actual intended message may be.
Needless to say that it is being used instructively is a fact I find bemusing.
you may like more deboer
Ok, I'll buy that. I agree then. It looked more like a statement of "Reasonable people will not be swayed by your anger!" Whereas I find, commonly its the exact opposite.
this is excellent
nonetheless it is a critique that should worry other people!
The point is that [certain types of people] will act in a [certain way] if criticized.
If the original statement had been something like "Ugh, gamers, amirite" and the sea lion was instead a guy with a "vidya gaemz" t-shirt doing the pestering on that topic instead, the message would certainly have been more clear. But also probably too on the nose?
you are also, to be fair, less-than-average concerned with public sentiment & support for ideas.
I understand. Apologies. I think it is very speaker dependent and some people may have a harder time depending on how invested they are in a given issue. I think that evidences a lack of self control though, and it should not actually be harder to be civil on topics you feel strongly about and topics you do not care about, at least in a setting like this forum where you have time to compose a response. I would say that arguing with a man who is yelling racist epithets on the street is quite different though.
Query whether much of political speech is actually civil.
Query whether civility is an intrinsic part of appealing to reason or common values, especially in the context of mobilizing the faithful - a large part of fundraising, which is itself a large part of political engagement as a whole
I think it will be impossible for someone who doesn't have them.
Which might mean that the person who has no feelings (which I'm not sure is something anyone actually has), is neither civil nor uncivil. They are neither setting aside strong feelings nor giving vent to them.
Also, if someone is truly disinterested, I'm not sure that they would even care enough to participate.
Essentially I don't think that there is this problem, because either it's not something that people actually feel, or those people wont be involved in those discussions anyway.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
That speech is effective or purpose driven does not preclude that speech being in bad faith. I would assert that the entire modern American political discourse consists primarily of bad faith discussions. It is a serious problem.
Okay, but this is something that MrMr addresses in his first post when he talks about appropriate and inappropriate. His stipulation being that there is nothing categorically inappropriate to engage with. No position, no idea, ever. However, there are contexts in which particular ideas or topics are inappropriate. But that isn't a fact about the idea qua idea, but rather a fact about the idea contextualized.
You might say though that "polite" != "appropriate" however, I think that you will have a hard time making this case. Politeness seems to me to be nothing more than the set of rules about what is appropriate in particular contexts. Holding a door open is polite when someone is following you, rude when someone is trying to heat up/cool down a room. Context determines what particular rule is in effect.
If in fact context determines it, then it is not the case that something is impolite because of what it is. It might only be impolite because of the circumstances that exist. Now, it seems like your only refuge here is to say that all circumstances which are naturally possible are such that some topic is impolite. That doesn't score you everything, but does secure your practical goal.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
hmm. I wrote two replies and then deleted them. Let me clarify: what would constitute a good faith discourse of, e.g., the PPACA? What elements would you like to see raised?
Also, I would have thought that not having to do a thing as a prerequisite to engage in a discussion would be, like, categorically easier than having to do a thing.
Edit: Before it gets pointed out that the hypothetical white man there presumably does have strong feelings on the subject for whatever reason, can I propose that there are, I dare even add often, situations wherein he will feel less strongly about it than the person who has lived with sexism and/or racism.
You can't set aside something that you don't have.
It's why I proposed that someone who just lacks any feelings at all on a subject is neither behaving civilly nor un-civilly.
In fact, I don't think that they will want to be part of the conversation at all.
Again, I think that there are not such people. Everyone feels something about anything. True ambivalence seems to me to just not be something human beings do. Even if they did, I doubt that someone who truly achieved such a thing would care enough to get involved in the talk in the first place.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche