the minority, i.e. the posters who had wrong bad opinions on our forums before they got shouted down and insulted into changing their wicked ways, by the majority enforcing its standard of behavior.
I wouldn't call people who got their minds changed about bigotry to be a bad thing. Sometimes it can be done with civility, unfortunately not everyone can be convinced like that - and that's ignoring the bigots who aren't interested in having polite conversations, they'll start off uncivil.
that's my point. You wouldn't call changing a bigot's mind a bad thing (I wouldn't either). But for you, if that's the result then being terrible is OK and it's fine for the majority to create a standard of behavior that excuses awfulness in service to the goal, and rejects awfulness that runs contrary to it.
But if you don't like the goal, then insults and sarcasm and name calling are bad and wrong and shouldn't be done, and civility should be enforced. You want to have it both ways but this means that, around here, you get to do things like:
1) insult and mock people who disagree with gay marriage, bolstered by the majority
2) demand that people who disagree with abortion stop calling you awful names, bolstered by the majority.
The way I'm reading your position, you don't want a standard of behavior enforced... you want to win the arguments you agree with however you can when the majority has your back, and disarm your opponents with civility rules whenever it's useful. That's how we get situations where insulting bigots is ok but conservatives insulting people is "trolling", and silencing acerbic or sarcastic conservatives is OK but conservatives objecting to the majority's mockery is 'tone policing' that can't be allowed.
I don't accept this as a positive arrangement, especially on these forums. I think it's better to adhere to a standard of behavior that promotes civility in all cases, even when it means I have fewer rhetorical weapons at my disposal.
This isn't an either/or situation. I'll adjust my tactics for my opponent. I'd love it for civility to be how every argument goes but that's not how reality works, or to convince everyone your opinion is right. I'll start off being civil i'll be pushed so far before I'm going to defend myself from being shouted down by bigots. By the way, liberals can be assholes too. Being an asshole is apolitical. Conservatives usually are called on tone policing arguments since they're the ones who typically engage in it. Tone policing isn't good for arguments, it's a distraction from bigger issues and preserves the status quo which benefits the privileged.
I wonder if there's a fundamental difference in attitudes here on these forums, between those of us who want to foster a community, and those of us who want to win some arguments.
Civility can shield harmful ideology. Also, PA has a wonderful community as is.
PA has a wonderful community! I feel like the silent clause is different for us though:
For me, it's "PA has a wonderful community, but we can make it better by not tolerating terribleness from anyone in our discussions and arguments"
For you I feel like it's something different.
Anyway, you kind of proved my point here by saying that it's only tone policing when a minority around here does it. When the majority enforces rules of behavior on these forums, it's not tone policing for you, and when they deviate from those rules, it's not hypocrisy. That's something I think you ought to consider.
Also, can I just challenge this assertion that you'd love for every argument to be civil, and that you only hit back after being pushed? That isn't what you described in your earlier posts - in those posts you said it was OK to be terrible to people in service to a goal, not only as a defense or a reaction in kind. Which one is more accurate as a standard you'd like to see on these forums?
Finally: it is definitely an either/or situation. You have on the one side "being uncivil is always bad" and on the other "no, being uncivil is good when I think it's good, and bad when I think it's bad".
Finally: it is definitely an either/or situation. You have on the one side "being uncivil is always bad" and on the other "no, being uncivil is good when I think it's good, and bad when I think it's bad".
Well, the former is tautologically true, based on prior posts. If we recognize that superficially polite but insulting speech is uncivil, or that superficially polite speech combined with harassment is uncivil, or that it is okay to use, say, profanity as long as nobody is insulted... then we've basically defined "uncivil" as "anything that is bad."
What remains is disagreement about what counts as civil or uncivil, which is going to be a nuanced discussion.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Finally: it is definitely an either/or situation. You have on the one side "being uncivil is always bad" and on the other "no, being uncivil is good when I think it's good, and bad when I think it's bad".
Well, the former is tautologically true, based on prior posts. If we recognize that superficially polite but insulting speech is uncivil, or that superficially polite speech combined with harassment is uncivil, or that it is okay to use, say, profanity as long as nobody is insulted... then we've basically defined "uncivil" as "anything that is bad."
What remains is disagreement about what counts as civil or uncivil, which is going to be a nuanced discussion.
In a way it kind of reminds me of unilateral disarmament, in which a traditionally-oppressed group is reluctant to surrender part of its toolbox to conform to a standard of civility set by those who traditionally oppressed them.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
PA has a wonderful community! I feel like the silent clause is different for us though:
For me, it's "PA has a wonderful community, but we can make it better by not tolerating terribleness from anyone in our discussions and arguments"
For you I feel like it's something different.
I can agree with that assessment.
Anyway, you kind of proved my point here by saying that it's only tone policing when a minority around here does it. When the majority enforces rules of behavior on these forums, it's not tone policing for you, and when they deviate from those rules, it's not hypocrisy. That's something I think you ought to consider.
My arguments aren't strictly about PA, it's for everywhere.
Also, can I just challenge this assertion that you'd love for every argument to be civil, and that you only hit back after being pushed? That isn't what you described in your earlier posts - in those posts you said it was OK to be terrible to people in service to a goal, not only as a defense or a reaction in kind.
By civil I mean people who are hiding behind civility for bigotry. That said, I won't automatically shout down bigots who do that, they need to escalate their comments until they can't be ignored before I act. Terrible people come in many forms, they can be polite, ignorant and hostile jerk-weasels who won't listen to reason. I'll act/react according to what method I feel will accomplish my goal.
Which one is more accurate as a standard you'd like to see on these forums?
Depends on the context, it's not an answer that has a simple yes or no response.
Finally: it is definitely an either/or situation. You have on the one side "being uncivil is always bad" and on the other "no, being uncivil is good when I think it's good, and bad when I think it's bad".
I wasn't using my arguments on that metric. I was talking about how arguments are in general, which isn't an either/or situation in the slightest.
I'm pretty skeptical of the "Your beliefs are so uncivil that we can't have civil discussions about them!" idea. I feel like its playing on two different definitions of civility which are not really compatible.
One definition of a civil discussion (the one that seems to be being advanced by SKFM, MisterMr, et al) is a discussion in which ideas are generally separated from individuals, and evaluated as much on their own merits. In this type of discussion, personal attacks against anyone are regarded as wrong and distracting, and the focus is on everyone working through and addressing their ideas. The goal of such an argument is not necessarily to 'win', or to root at wrong ideas. Instead, the primary goal is to compare your views to the views of others, and to hopefully walk away with new perspectives and new ideas to think about.
The other type of 'civil' discussion (which some here also seem to be arguing for) is one that enforces the social norms and popular opinions of the society. For example, if this type of discussion were had in the 50s, defending women's rights would be regarded as uncivil and would reasonably be grounds for insults or ostracization. This kind of 'civil' discussion tends to be less about gaining a new perspective, and more about reinforcing one's identity and righteousness. A side effect of this kind of discussion is that the further someone's views are from the majority view, the less likely they are to participate over time, which has a cyclical effect until only the true believers are left. This is a good thing for dogmatic members of the majority, but not particularly good for those who value a diversity of opinion.
I obviously prefer the first kind of discussion - but many people here seem to be arguing that they would prefer to see more of the second. That ostracizing incorrect ideas and forcing people to change their opinions or suffer consequences should be the primary focus This often comes in the form of people saying that they simply cannot tolerate 'bad' ideas (which translates to "whatever ideas are unpopular with the person talking.")
There is literally nothing in the conversation to suggest any of the things you have ascribed to the speaker. But by calling him an asshole, you shift the focus of the response from the bad thing he said to him being a bad person. This is problematic because 1) he may well be persuadable and 2) we probably all agree that he should stop holding this bad view. I literally used to make statements on these boards that trans people were not actually the gender that they identified as. This was my sincere belief. Through civil discussions on these boards, I came to change my view entirely. If people had all just called me an asshole, I would still think that trans people were wrong in their own gender identifications.
He called the person he was talking to a lying slut who had made up a horrific trauma, and by extension insisted that the person who raped her was innocent. That is cruel and nasty. Further, another benefit to calling him an asshole is that it enforces the behavioral norm of not being an asshole. The audience is reminded that acting like that will put them outside the bounds of civility, and (hopefully) will lead to them being ostracized.
As far as trans people, you've argued that civility is required, yes? Do you still not understand that you were being rude first? That it is extremely uncivil to tell someone that they're just plain wrong about who they are (despite coming to accept who they are having been a painful process probably resulting in the loss of many of their relationships) and you, knowing nothing about them, are right? To insist on calling them by something they find offensive? I would like you to consider why you placed the burden of civility on them and not yourself.
Neither the hypothetical speaker or I directed insults at anyone. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It would be rude to say "you, alleged date rape victim, just want to feel better about sleeping around" or "you, trans person, are wrong about your gender." But that is quite different from a statement of a view on a topic. If you cannot participate in such a discussion without taking offense at position statements then perhaps you should not participate in said discussion. If your approach was correct, then no one could ever express a view on a topic other than the people who are most impacted by it, which would serve to shut down all discussion, and thus, the chance for change.
Using uncivil language to shout down your opponents is a very dangerous precedent. There are many more people in the world who will shout down a minority than those who will shout down the member of the majority who says something perceived to be negative about the minority.
No, if my approach was correct, no one could ever express rude opinions on a topic without running the risk of being called rude, possibly in a less than perfectly polite manner. I never even suggested that proclaiming nasty things should be forbidden, that's your position. Remember? You're saying that civility is always required and I'm disagreeing. And by the way, don't put words in my mouth, either, it's rude.
Good heavens, if someone says that date rape is just a lie told by women who sleep around too much, that's the same thing as going up to every date rape survivor and telling them that they were never raped, they lied about it because they're too easy, and that the putative rapist is innocent. That is what that "view on the topic" means. A rape survivor is not going to be less offended if a misogynist dickhead not only denies her experiences, calls her a liar, and says the person who raped her was innocent, but also finds a way to do the same to most of her RAINN survivor group, several friends, and a few family members. And good God, man, you genuinely don't get that when someone says, "Please call me X, not Y", insisting on calling them Y is rude. Seriously, calling people what they want to be called is kind of basic common courtesy. Even without the continuing history of trauma and oppression of trans people.
Look, why don't you go ask some minority/oppressed folks if denying their experiences and insisting on using appellations they find demeaning are rude things to do.
In the abstract: even if you think a person is no more than the sum of the beliefs, you are still making a leap in going from labeling a belief ignorant to labeling a person ignorant. I can acquire a particular belief in a highly uncharacteristic way: that belief might then be ignorant even though I, overall, am no such thing. Or, even better, I might have acquired that belief by testimony without really thinking about it--someone who should know better told me, and I believed them. Listening to people who should know is a good way of learning things. It just didn't work out in this case. So I have a stupid belief, but for good reasons. My belief is stupid, but I'm not.
In the concrete: even if you disagree with the above, and think that there's no real difference in what you're saying, there's an obvious difference in how you're saying it. There's a difference in social significance between appearing to attack a person and appearing to attack their beliefs. One expresses more respect. To wit: as far as I can tell, there isn't a deep difference in meaning between (imagine as directed at a woman) "please stop" and "don't be such a cunt!" The formal semantics for each are gonna look pretty similar. But you're certainly going to get different reactions depending on which you choose, and for good reasons. One's fighting words. Same difference when you start calling people ignorant, idiots, or whatever.
WRT "the abstract": I completely agree with this. Which is why I've said multiple times now that I'd never form an opinion of someone from a single data point (extreme cases not withstanding). And even after I feel like I've discovered enough about a particular person, that opinion is constantly evolving.
WRT "the concrete": What you're really arguing is that there's a difference between telling a woman "you're opinion on this subject is cunty" and "you're a cunt". Both are going to elicit the same reaction, both are going to be equally hurtful, but the one allows you to act like you're above it all. "Why are you so mad? I didn't call you a cunt, it's just the things you believe are cunty. That's totally different."
What if they immediately follow up their cunty opinion with an awesome opinion? Are they cunty or awesome?
Why can't it be both?
These appeals to "civility" seem to present a position where a single descriptor applies for the hypothetical participants.
To put it another way: how would the forum feel if I called the politest poster a goose constantly? Somehow I think there would be some umbrage. So why should we not call a goose a goose (either overtly through direct insult, or covertly through rhetoric?)
Or perhaps this: some appear to have taken the position that we should assume those with goosish beliefs are not geese - despite having no evidence to the contrary. Should we also take the position that those without goosish beliefs are geese - despite having no evidence to the contrary?
EDIT
How many times does Paul Ryan have to take food out of a starving family's mouth before I can call him an asshole (despite him being really nice to his wife and kids)?
I'm not the one saying you don't engage uncivil views. You are.
I think you can often engage uncivil views. And be uncivil yourself. But not always. It depends on the situation.
I'm just pointing out that your ideas on what is civil and uncivil are incoherent.
As for gay marriage, I highly doubt it was merely polite debate that changed things. I think it was a mix of polite debate, confrontation, incivility, legal challenge, and media exposure. The usual full gamut of human discourse.
@syndalis it is ridiculous to claim that saying to a gay person, 'Gays are going to hell' doesn't mean 'You are going to hell', and therefore is 'civil'.
And with that, I think I'm done. All this politely phrased sophistry has made me much more annoyed than just someone being directly rude.
If you aren't actually done, then I would appreciate it if you could expand on the incoherency that you see. I am saying that no position or idea is inherently uncivil. It is only styles of behavior that can be uncivil, and all topics can be discussed in a civil manner. This seems entirely consistent to me. A system where some ideas are inherently uncivil and others are not is much more complex and harder to apply, due to the extreme subjectivity at the core of it.
I've been thinking about this a lot today. In the context of a PA discussion, I think civility is simply separating a person's identity from their views. I can disagree with what someone on here says, and I can even be snarky about it, but at the end of the day we're still bros. I have had very heated arguments on here but still PM the guy at the end to say "look it wasn't personal, and I actually really enjoyed that discussion".
I think the difference here, SKFM, is relative impartialism. You've mentioned in other threads that you don't feel or understand empathy. There becomes a point in a discussion where your civility seems forced, and even goading, to the point where it seems like you are trying to provoke a reaction, and then seem surprised when that reaction occurs. In these situations, your lack of empathy can be frustrating to others. Does that make sense? We all imbue our comments here with elements of our personality, but you don't. I don't really have any view of what you are like as a person because you don't engage with anyone on a personal level - and I think many of us feel the same and therefore see you as the forum's disagreement-machine.
Like, you say stuff, but it doesn't feel like you care about what you're discussing. And a lot of people here care about what we discuss. I think that there is the disconnect. I see a lot of very emotive words here but I don't necessarily find them uncivil because I know that person and don't take it personally because I empathise with their position.
This post made very little sense and I wrote it on my phone so can't really edit, sorry
I have never said I do not feel or understand empathy. That is an accusation that has been levied against me by certain posters here, but it is categorically false. I am not emotive because I do not get worked up about a discussion I am having on the Internet on a board dedicated to the discussion of topics. I did not get worked up when I was on a debate team and do not get worked up over positions used against me in negotiation at work. I do get worked up over personal insults and rudeness, but instead of engaging in kind, I point out their rudeness and ask them to stop on threat of ending the conversation because I do not need to endure such behavior during a leisure activity.
I don't think that there's any one thing that a particular type of person will always be offended by. The suggestion that they would seems pretty reductive to the experience and individuality of the individuals.
Someone brought up transphobia a little upthread, but my reaction to transphobia has not generally been to hate the person or want them out of my life. If someone says I'm not a woman, to me that is more of a jumping off point for a discussion - what does gender mean to that person and why do they think the way they do? Maybe talking to me will teach them a thing or two, maybe not, but at worst I'll honestly share my views and they'll honestly share theirs. Now, there are other things they could do that would annoy me; maybe they refuse to respect my wishes on how I want to be treated, harass me, try to keep me from employment, or any number of other bad things. These things I would not look on so generously. But if someone just has their own opinion about gender and says it respectfully, I won't have any issue having a civil discussion with them.
Some trans people feel differently, and that's fine. I stopped reading the trans thread in SE++ because the last couple of times I looked in on it,people were raging at some transphobic things some random celebrity or person of interest had said, and talking about what an asshole the person was. I'm sure some find that kind of venting helpful, but it drives me away, not because I agree with the transphobic comments, but because I see no point in attacking people who aren't here to defend their ideas. It felt like anger for anger's sake, and when you paint anyone who disagrees with an idea as a villain, the idea starts to feel more like a religious affiliation than a belief arrived at through thought and consideration.
Broadly, I think that policing of opinions does not inherently makes an environment more appealing to minorities or other vulnerable groups. Minorities are also individuals, and they have a wide variety of opinions on speech and thought. Some are offended by people stating their disagreement, and some are not. Using civility to police acceptable opinions only works in favor of people who want to police opinions, some of whom are latino trans-women and some of whom are white republican males. I've heard arguments that ostracizing those who hold certain views can create 'safe' spaces, but when I look at a community and see people constantly on the attack, the last thing I feel is safe - even if I broadly agree with the politics of the attackers.
In the abstract: even if you think a person is no more than the sum of the beliefs, you are still making a leap in going from labeling a belief ignorant to labeling a person ignorant. I can acquire a particular belief in a highly uncharacteristic way: that belief might then be ignorant even though I, overall, am no such thing. Or, even better, I might have acquired that belief by testimony without really thinking about it--someone who should know better told me, and I believed them. Listening to people who should know is a good way of learning things. It just didn't work out in this case. So I have a stupid belief, but for good reasons. My belief is stupid, but I'm not.
In the concrete: even if you disagree with the above, and think that there's no real difference in what you're saying, there's an obvious difference in how you're saying it. There's a difference in social significance between appearing to attack a person and appearing to attack their beliefs. One expresses more respect. To wit: as far as I can tell, there isn't a deep difference in meaning between (imagine as directed at a woman) "please stop" and "don't be such a cunt!" The formal semantics for each are gonna look pretty similar. But you're certainly going to get different reactions depending on which you choose, and for good reasons. One's fighting words. Same difference when you start calling people ignorant, idiots, or whatever.
WRT "the abstract": I completely agree with this. Which is why I've said multiple times now that I'd never form an opinion of someone from a single data point (extreme cases not withstanding). And even after I feel like I've discovered enough about a particular person, that opinion is constantly evolving.
WRT "the concrete": What you're really arguing is that there's a difference between telling a woman "you're opinion on this subject is cunty" and "you're a cunt". Both are going to elicit the same reaction, both are going to be equally hurtful, but the one allows you to act like you're above it all. "Why are you so mad? I didn't call you a cunt, it's just the things you believe are cunty. That's totally different."
What if they immediately follow up their cunty opinion with an awesome opinion? Are they cunty or awesome?
Why can't it be both?
These appeals to "civility" seem to present a position where a single descriptor applies for the hypothetical participants.
To put it another way: how would the forum feel if I called the politest poster a goose constantly? Somehow I think there would be some umbrage. So why should we not call a goose a goose (either overtly through direct insult, or covertly through rhetoric?)
Or perhaps this: some appear to have taken the position that we should assume those with goosish beliefs are not geese - despite having no evidence to the contrary. Should we also take the position that those without goosish beliefs are geese - despite having no evidence to the contrary?
EDIT
How many times does Paul Ryan have to take food out of a starving family's mouth before I can call him an asshole (despite him being really nice to his wife and kids)?
I'm not the one saying you don't engage uncivil views. You are.
I think you can often engage uncivil views. And be uncivil yourself. But not always. It depends on the situation.
I'm just pointing out that your ideas on what is civil and uncivil are incoherent.
As for gay marriage, I highly doubt it was merely polite debate that changed things. I think it was a mix of polite debate, confrontation, incivility, legal challenge, and media exposure. The usual full gamut of human discourse.
@syndalis it is ridiculous to claim that saying to a gay person, 'Gays are going to hell' doesn't mean 'You are going to hell', and therefore is 'civil'.
And with that, I think I'm done. All this politely phrased sophistry has made me much more annoyed than just someone being directly rude.
If you aren't actually done, then I would appreciate it if you could expand on the incoherency that you see. I am saying that no position or idea is inherently uncivil. It is only styles of behavior that can be uncivil, and all topics can be discussed in a civil manner. This seems entirely consistent to me. A system where some ideas are inherently uncivil and others are not is much more complex and harder to apply, due to the extreme subjectivity at the core of it.
I've been thinking about this a lot today. In the context of a PA discussion, I think civility is simply separating a person's identity from their views. I can disagree with what someone on here says, and I can even be snarky about it, but at the end of the day we're still bros. I have had very heated arguments on here but still PM the guy at the end to say "look it wasn't personal, and I actually really enjoyed that discussion".
I think the difference here, SKFM, is relative impartialism. You've mentioned in other threads that you don't feel or understand empathy. There becomes a point in a discussion where your civility seems forced, and even goading, to the point where it seems like you are trying to provoke a reaction, and then seem surprised when that reaction occurs. In these situations, your lack of empathy can be frustrating to others. Does that make sense? We all imbue our comments here with elements of our personality, but you don't. I don't really have any view of what you are like as a person because you don't engage with anyone on a personal level - and I think many of us feel the same and therefore see you as the forum's disagreement-machine.
Like, you say stuff, but it doesn't feel like you care about what you're discussing. And a lot of people here care about what we discuss. I think that there is the disconnect. I see a lot of very emotive words here but I don't necessarily find them uncivil because I know that person and don't take it personally because I empathise with their position.
This post made very little sense and I wrote it on my phone so can't really edit, sorry
I have never said I do not feel or understand empathy. That is an accusation that has been levied against me by certain posters here, but it is categorically false. I am not emotive because I do not get worked up about a discussion I am having on the Internet on a board dedicated to the discussion of topics. I did not get worked up when I was on a debate team and do not get worked up over positions used against me in negotiation at work. I do get worked up over personal insults and rudeness, but instead of engaging in kind, I point out their rudeness and ask them to stop on threat of ending the conversation because I do not need to endure such behavior during a leisure activity.
Ok here's another question. Do you, SKFM, become emotionally engaged when discussing slavery, racism, sexism, etc, or do you maintain an emotional detachment from the subject?
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty skeptical of the "Your beliefs are so uncivil that we can't have civil discussions about them!" idea. I feel like its playing on two different definitions of civility which are not really compatible.
One definition of a civil discussion (the one that seems to be being advanced by SKFM, MisterMr, et al) is a discussion in which ideas are generally separated from individuals, and evaluated as much on their own merits. In this type of discussion, personal attacks against anyone are regarded as wrong and distracting, and the focus is on everyone working through and addressing their ideas. The goal of such an argument is not necessarily to 'win', or to root at wrong ideas. Instead, the primary goal is to compare your views to the views of others, and to hopefully walk away with new perspectives and new ideas to think about.
The other type of 'civil' discussion (which some here also seem to be arguing for) is one that enforces the social norms and popular opinions of the society. For example, if this type of discussion were had in the 50s, defending women's rights would be regarded as uncivil and would reasonably be grounds for insults or ostracization. This kind of 'civil' discussion tends to be less about gaining a new perspective, and more about reinforcing one's identity and righteousness. A side effect of this kind of discussion is that the further someone's views are from the majority view, the less likely they are to participate over time, which has a cyclical effect until only the true believers are left. This is a good thing for dogmatic members of the majority, but not particularly good for those who value a diversity of opinion.
I obviously prefer the first kind of discussion - but many people here seem to be arguing that they would prefer to see more of the second. That ostracizing incorrect ideas and forcing people to change their opinions or suffer consequences should be the primary focus This often comes in the form of people saying that they simply cannot tolerate 'bad' ideas (which translates to "whatever ideas are unpopular with the person talking.")
Actually I think the argument is that the first kind of discussion is more an ideal than a reality most of the time. I love this forum but even it is, broadly and minimal, is conscious of social norms. It's just that we all agree with those norms in general. And there are moderators. There is an actual civility police on these forums. ("Civility Police" is a good name for a band or tumblr.)
I think the notion of civility is inherently political. The notion that it is good to listen to everyone on an equal footing presupposes the notion that everyone is equal. There was a defence of your first notion of civility on the basis that it helped balance power inequality. That not only requires the acceptance of the political notion that power inequality exists but also that it is a bad thing. (Why not exploit it?) And what counts as insult or not is heavily dependent on political and social norms.
Recognizing that, and recognizing that your own notions of civility are influenced by society, means we can't seriously argue that our notion of civility is a-political and therefore absolute. So a "civility=good, uncivility=bad" stance is impossible to take, what was once seen as civil can become uncivil and what was uncivil can become civil.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Some trans people feel differently, and that's fine. I stopped reading the trans thread in SE++ because the last couple of times I looked in on it,people were raging at some transphobic things some random celebrity or person of interest had said, and talking about what an asshole the person was. I'm sure some find that kind of venting helpful, but it drives me away, not because I agree with the transphobic comments, but because I see no point in attacking people who aren't here to defend their ideas. It felt like anger for anger's sake, and when you paint anyone who disagrees with an idea as a villain, the idea starts to feel more like a religious affiliation than a belief arrived at through thought and consideration.
While I think there is sometimes too much malice assumed and too much anger wrongly directed I think there is value in having forums where people can express their anger. I imagine it can be cathartic when you feel ignored. And furthermore I think such places can possibly support admirable goals. If you are having a polite and civil argument about a personal topic it could be nice to have a place where you can out frustrations and feelings without affecting the polite and civil discussion. It's SE++, not Debate & Discourse.
And one of the benefits is that it shows there is actual anger. It shows that it's not always just a theoretical debate.
In the abstract: even if you think a person is no more than the sum of the beliefs, you are still making a leap in going from labeling a belief ignorant to labeling a person ignorant. I can acquire a particular belief in a highly uncharacteristic way: that belief might then be ignorant even though I, overall, am no such thing. Or, even better, I might have acquired that belief by testimony without really thinking about it--someone who should know better told me, and I believed them. Listening to people who should know is a good way of learning things. It just didn't work out in this case. So I have a stupid belief, but for good reasons. My belief is stupid, but I'm not.
In the concrete: even if you disagree with the above, and think that there's no real difference in what you're saying, there's an obvious difference in how you're saying it. There's a difference in social significance between appearing to attack a person and appearing to attack their beliefs. One expresses more respect. To wit: as far as I can tell, there isn't a deep difference in meaning between (imagine as directed at a woman) "please stop" and "don't be such a cunt!" The formal semantics for each are gonna look pretty similar. But you're certainly going to get different reactions depending on which you choose, and for good reasons. One's fighting words. Same difference when you start calling people ignorant, idiots, or whatever.
WRT "the abstract": I completely agree with this. Which is why I've said multiple times now that I'd never form an opinion of someone from a single data point (extreme cases not withstanding). And even after I feel like I've discovered enough about a particular person, that opinion is constantly evolving.
WRT "the concrete": What you're really arguing is that there's a difference between telling a woman "you're opinion on this subject is cunty" and "you're a cunt". Both are going to elicit the same reaction, both are going to be equally hurtful, but the one allows you to act like you're above it all. "Why are you so mad? I didn't call you a cunt, it's just the things you believe are cunty. That's totally different."
What if they immediately follow up their cunty opinion with an awesome opinion? Are they cunty or awesome?
Why can't it be both?
These appeals to "civility" seem to present a position where a single descriptor applies for the hypothetical participants.
To put it another way: how would the forum feel if I called the politest poster a goose constantly? Somehow I think there would be some umbrage. So why should we not call a goose a goose (either overtly through direct insult, or covertly through rhetoric?)
Or perhaps this: some appear to have taken the position that we should assume those with goosish beliefs are not geese - despite having no evidence to the contrary. Should we also take the position that those without goosish beliefs are geese - despite having no evidence to the contrary?
EDIT
How many times does Paul Ryan have to take food out of a starving family's mouth before I can call him an asshole (despite him being really nice to his wife and kids)?
I'm not the one saying you don't engage uncivil views. You are.
I think you can often engage uncivil views. And be uncivil yourself. But not always. It depends on the situation.
I'm just pointing out that your ideas on what is civil and uncivil are incoherent.
As for gay marriage, I highly doubt it was merely polite debate that changed things. I think it was a mix of polite debate, confrontation, incivility, legal challenge, and media exposure. The usual full gamut of human discourse.
@syndalis it is ridiculous to claim that saying to a gay person, 'Gays are going to hell' doesn't mean 'You are going to hell', and therefore is 'civil'.
And with that, I think I'm done. All this politely phrased sophistry has made me much more annoyed than just someone being directly rude.
If you aren't actually done, then I would appreciate it if you could expand on the incoherency that you see. I am saying that no position or idea is inherently uncivil. It is only styles of behavior that can be uncivil, and all topics can be discussed in a civil manner. This seems entirely consistent to me. A system where some ideas are inherently uncivil and others are not is much more complex and harder to apply, due to the extreme subjectivity at the core of it.
I've been thinking about this a lot today. In the context of a PA discussion, I think civility is simply separating a person's identity from their views. I can disagree with what someone on here says, and I can even be snarky about it, but at the end of the day we're still bros. I have had very heated arguments on here but still PM the guy at the end to say "look it wasn't personal, and I actually really enjoyed that discussion".
I think the difference here, SKFM, is relative impartialism. You've mentioned in other threads that you don't feel or understand empathy. There becomes a point in a discussion where your civility seems forced, and even goading, to the point where it seems like you are trying to provoke a reaction, and then seem surprised when that reaction occurs. In these situations, your lack of empathy can be frustrating to others. Does that make sense? We all imbue our comments here with elements of our personality, but you don't. I don't really have any view of what you are like as a person because you don't engage with anyone on a personal level - and I think many of us feel the same and therefore see you as the forum's disagreement-machine.
Like, you say stuff, but it doesn't feel like you care about what you're discussing. And a lot of people here care about what we discuss. I think that there is the disconnect. I see a lot of very emotive words here but I don't necessarily find them uncivil because I know that person and don't take it personally because I empathise with their position.
This post made very little sense and I wrote it on my phone so can't really edit, sorry
I have never said I do not feel or understand empathy. That is an accusation that has been levied against me by certain posters here, but it is categorically false. I am not emotive because I do not get worked up about a discussion I am having on the Internet on a board dedicated to the discussion of topics. I did not get worked up when I was on a debate team and do not get worked up over positions used against me in negotiation at work. I do get worked up over personal insults and rudeness, but instead of engaging in kind, I point out their rudeness and ask them to stop on threat of ending the conversation because I do not need to endure such behavior during a leisure activity.
Reading my post back it seems I painted you as some kind of unfeeling robot. It was not my intention to portray you that way and I'm sorry.
Regarding empathy, you've commented on it, and your separation from it, before - I think in the Ferguson thread? And i was referring to that post. But it's long gone now so I can't really elaborate without reading it again.
Spaffy on
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Neither the hypothetical speaker or I directed insults at anyone. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It would be rude to say "you, alleged date rape victim, just want to feel better about sleeping around" or "you, trans person, are wrong about your gender." But that is quite different from a statement of a view on a topic.
This seems to hinge on the idea that something is only an insult when you're singling out an individual. Which is silly.
I would say that the distinction is between something directed at you as an individual and a policy statement intended to be discussed. I think it is absolutely the case that, for example, there can be a discussion of the merits of gay marriage involving gay and straight people which is not about the relationships of any of the people involved in the discussion. As I have said before, civility can require a certain degree of detachment. I do not think this is a problem though. It is just a necessary characteristic of abstract or policy level discussions.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There is literally nothing in the conversation to suggest any of the things you have ascribed to the speaker. But by calling him an asshole, you shift the focus of the response from the bad thing he said to him being a bad person. This is problematic because 1) he may well be persuadable and 2) we probably all agree that he should stop holding this bad view. I literally used to make statements on these boards that trans people were not actually the gender that they identified as. This was my sincere belief. Through civil discussions on these boards, I came to change my view entirely. If people had all just called me an asshole, I would still think that trans people were wrong in their own gender identifications.
He called the person he was talking to a lying slut who had made up a horrific trauma, and by extension insisted that the person who raped her was innocent. That is cruel and nasty. Further, another benefit to calling him an asshole is that it enforces the behavioral norm of not being an asshole. The audience is reminded that acting like that will put them outside the bounds of civility, and (hopefully) will lead to them being ostracized.
As far as trans people, you've argued that civility is required, yes? Do you still not understand that you were being rude first? That it is extremely uncivil to tell someone that they're just plain wrong about who they are (despite coming to accept who they are having been a painful process probably resulting in the loss of many of their relationships) and you, knowing nothing about them, are right? To insist on calling them by something they find offensive? I would like you to consider why you placed the burden of civility on them and not yourself.
Neither the hypothetical speaker or I directed insults at anyone. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It would be rude to say "you, alleged date rape victim, just want to feel better about sleeping around" or "you, trans person, are wrong about your gender." But that is quite different from a statement of a view on a topic. If you cannot participate in such a discussion without taking offense at position statements then perhaps you should not participate in said discussion. If your approach was correct, then no one could ever express a view on a topic other than the people who are most impacted by it, which would serve to shut down all discussion, and thus, the chance for change.
Using uncivil language to shout down your opponents is a very dangerous precedent. There are many more people in the world who will shout down a minority than those who will shout down the member of the majority who says something perceived to be negative about the minority.
No, if my approach was correct, no one could ever express rude opinions on a topic without running the risk of being called rude, possibly in a less than perfectly polite manner. I never even suggested that proclaiming nasty things should be forbidden, that's your position. Remember? You're saying that civility is always required and I'm disagreeing. And by the way, don't put words in my mouth, either, it's rude.
Good heavens, if someone says that date rape is just a lie told by women who sleep around too much, that's the same thing as going up to every date rape survivor and telling them that they were never raped, they lied about it because they're too easy, and that the putative rapist is innocent. That is what that "view on the topic" means. A rape survivor is not going to be less offended if a misogynist dickhead not only denies her experiences, calls her a liar, and says the person who raped her was innocent, but also finds a way to do the same to most of her RAINN survivor group, several friends, and a few family members. And good God, man, you genuinely don't get that when someone says, "Please call me X, not Y", insisting on calling them Y is rude. Seriously, calling people what they want to be called is kind of basic common courtesy. Even without the continuing history of trauma and oppression of trans people.
Look, why don't you go ask some minority/oppressed folks if denying their experiences and insisting on using appellations they find demeaning are rude things to do.
You are the only person that is talking about personally targeted statements. Surely, there is a difference between discussing the idea of whether trans people are really their birth or self identified gender and calling someone who identifies as a man a woman. In fact, you can have the former discussion while adhering to the correct pronouns in addressing others in the conversation, and I would argue that civility requires doing so. But I would also argue that it is uncivil for a trans person to come into a conversation on gender identification and say "fuck you for not thinking I am really a man." If you cannot discuss a topic in the abstract, then you should not attempt to participate in such discussions. Failing to adhere to such guidelines is how you get a useless echo chamber like the se++ trans thread, vs the threads we have had here which have included useful oppositional discussions, and which lead me to completely change my view on the topic.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In the abstract: even if you think a person is no more than the sum of the beliefs, you are still making a leap in going from labeling a belief ignorant to labeling a person ignorant. I can acquire a particular belief in a highly uncharacteristic way: that belief might then be ignorant even though I, overall, am no such thing. Or, even better, I might have acquired that belief by testimony without really thinking about it--someone who should know better told me, and I believed them. Listening to people who should know is a good way of learning things. It just didn't work out in this case. So I have a stupid belief, but for good reasons. My belief is stupid, but I'm not.
In the concrete: even if you disagree with the above, and think that there's no real difference in what you're saying, there's an obvious difference in how you're saying it. There's a difference in social significance between appearing to attack a person and appearing to attack their beliefs. One expresses more respect. To wit: as far as I can tell, there isn't a deep difference in meaning between (imagine as directed at a woman) "please stop" and "don't be such a cunt!" The formal semantics for each are gonna look pretty similar. But you're certainly going to get different reactions depending on which you choose, and for good reasons. One's fighting words. Same difference when you start calling people ignorant, idiots, or whatever.
WRT "the abstract": I completely agree with this. Which is why I've said multiple times now that I'd never form an opinion of someone from a single data point (extreme cases not withstanding). And even after I feel like I've discovered enough about a particular person, that opinion is constantly evolving.
WRT "the concrete": What you're really arguing is that there's a difference between telling a woman "you're opinion on this subject is cunty" and "you're a cunt". Both are going to elicit the same reaction, both are going to be equally hurtful, but the one allows you to act like you're above it all. "Why are you so mad? I didn't call you a cunt, it's just the things you believe are cunty. That's totally different."
What if they immediately follow up their cunty opinion with an awesome opinion? Are they cunty or awesome?
Why can't it be both?
These appeals to "civility" seem to present a position where a single descriptor applies for the hypothetical participants.
To put it another way: how would the forum feel if I called the politest poster a goose constantly? Somehow I think there would be some umbrage. So why should we not call a goose a goose (either overtly through direct insult, or covertly through rhetoric?)
Or perhaps this: some appear to have taken the position that we should assume those with goosish beliefs are not geese - despite having no evidence to the contrary. Should we also take the position that those without goosish beliefs are geese - despite having no evidence to the contrary?
EDIT
How many times does Paul Ryan have to take food out of a starving family's mouth before I can call him an asshole (despite him being really nice to his wife and kids)?
I'm not the one saying you don't engage uncivil views. You are.
I think you can often engage uncivil views. And be uncivil yourself. But not always. It depends on the situation.
I'm just pointing out that your ideas on what is civil and uncivil are incoherent.
As for gay marriage, I highly doubt it was merely polite debate that changed things. I think it was a mix of polite debate, confrontation, incivility, legal challenge, and media exposure. The usual full gamut of human discourse.
@syndalis it is ridiculous to claim that saying to a gay person, 'Gays are going to hell' doesn't mean 'You are going to hell', and therefore is 'civil'.
And with that, I think I'm done. All this politely phrased sophistry has made me much more annoyed than just someone being directly rude.
If you aren't actually done, then I would appreciate it if you could expand on the incoherency that you see. I am saying that no position or idea is inherently uncivil. It is only styles of behavior that can be uncivil, and all topics can be discussed in a civil manner. This seems entirely consistent to me. A system where some ideas are inherently uncivil and others are not is much more complex and harder to apply, due to the extreme subjectivity at the core of it.
I've been thinking about this a lot today. In the context of a PA discussion, I think civility is simply separating a person's identity from their views. I can disagree with what someone on here says, and I can even be snarky about it, but at the end of the day we're still bros. I have had very heated arguments on here but still PM the guy at the end to say "look it wasn't personal, and I actually really enjoyed that discussion".
I think the difference here, SKFM, is relative impartialism. You've mentioned in other threads that you don't feel or understand empathy. There becomes a point in a discussion where your civility seems forced, and even goading, to the point where it seems like you are trying to provoke a reaction, and then seem surprised when that reaction occurs. In these situations, your lack of empathy can be frustrating to others. Does that make sense? We all imbue our comments here with elements of our personality, but you don't. I don't really have any view of what you are like as a person because you don't engage with anyone on a personal level - and I think many of us feel the same and therefore see you as the forum's disagreement-machine.
Like, you say stuff, but it doesn't feel like you care about what you're discussing. And a lot of people here care about what we discuss. I think that there is the disconnect. I see a lot of very emotive words here but I don't necessarily find them uncivil because I know that person and don't take it personally because I empathise with their position.
This post made very little sense and I wrote it on my phone so can't really edit, sorry
I have never said I do not feel or understand empathy. That is an accusation that has been levied against me by certain posters here, but it is categorically false. I am not emotive because I do not get worked up about a discussion I am having on the Internet on a board dedicated to the discussion of topics. I did not get worked up when I was on a debate team and do not get worked up over positions used against me in negotiation at work. I do get worked up over personal insults and rudeness, but instead of engaging in kind, I point out their rudeness and ask them to stop on threat of ending the conversation because I do not need to endure such behavior during a leisure activity.
Ok here's another question. Do you, SKFM, become emotionally engaged when discussing slavery, racism, sexism, etc, or do you maintain an emotional detachment from the subject?
I maintain detachment, as with all in topic conversations here.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Neither the hypothetical speaker or I directed insults at anyone. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It would be rude to say "you, alleged date rape victim, just want to feel better about sleeping around" or "you, trans person, are wrong about your gender." But that is quite different from a statement of a view on a topic.
This seems to hinge on the idea that something is only an insult when you're singling out an individual. Which is silly.
I would say that the distinction is between something directed at you as an individual and a policy statement intended to be discussed. I think it is absolutely the case that, for example, there can be a discussion of the merits of gay marriage involving gay and straight people which is not about the relationships of any of the people involved in the discussion. As I have said before, civility can require a certain degree of detachment. I do not think this is a problem though. It is just a necessary characteristic of abstract or policy level discussions.
Right but in the original example it basically was "claims of date-rape are falsely made by women to excuse their sleeping around" which is not really a policy statement so much. "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because it says so in the bible" is a different sentiment from "I think gay people are sinners and inferior" and I would argue that the original example fell way more towards the latter.
So defend that. Flat out admit that the original example was insulting to an entire group of people or don't but please don't pretend that it's either personal attack or policy statement. Just because you didn't single out anyone doesn't mean you are not insulting people.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
(As an aside to the audience, this is an example of using civility tactically, as I noted earlier. Spool has described incivility as always wrong, now I am demonstrating that he is being uncivil in response to a perfectly polite series of posts because he doesn't like them. For example, note that I am stating that his argument is wrong and leads to bad results, but I've made no claim that I know what he's thinking better than he does. Logically, his rudeness is irrelevant to our arguments, but right after insisting on civility in all cases, it makes him look bad.)
I would add, as a side note, that I see this aside as actually quite rude--talking about someone in a negative way, in front of them, to a separate group of people, is in no way an example of 'using civility tactically' (or using it at all). It's a conversational 'tactic' that is sufficiently insulting that it can undercut a discussion even when, as here, it is couched in suitably neutral surface language. I think that a commitment to open and productive discussions involves not just polite phrasing, but also a commitment to avoid 'dirty tricks.'
(As an aside to the audience, this is an example of using civility tactically, as I noted earlier. Spool has described incivility as always wrong, now I am demonstrating that he is being uncivil in response to a perfectly polite series of posts because he doesn't like them. For example, note that I am stating that his argument is wrong and leads to bad results, but I've made no claim that I know what he's thinking better than he does. Logically, his rudeness is irrelevant to our arguments, but right after insisting on civility in all cases, it makes him look bad.)
I would add, as a side note, that I see this aside as actually quite rude--talking about someone in a negative way, in front of them, to a separate group of people, is in no way an example of 'using civility tactically' (or using it at all). It's a conversational 'tactic' that is sufficiently insulting that it can undercut a discussion even when, as here, it is couched in suitably neutral surface language. I think that a commitment to open and productive discussions involves not just polite phrasing, but also a commitment to avoid 'dirty tricks.'
That's part of why I started out my response to that by characterizing the whole post as very meta. I think the rudeness was entirely intentional.
That belief is bolstered by his general argument that incivility is sometimes an acceptable tactic, and lack of clarification regarding his opinion of using that tactic on these forums.
The audience is reminded that acting like that will put them outside the bounds of civility, and (hopefully) will lead to them being ostracized.
Is this tactic part of how you approach discussions on these forums?
Not generally, but as I stated earlier, I try to be respectful of the rules of this place, as it doesn't belong to me. Also, if someone starts talking about how everyone who claims that they were raped is making it up, the mods will come down on them like a ton of bricks anyway. I did not say that incivility was always justified. And yes, I am saying that sometimes shunning serves a purpose. People are rude in response to rudeness, and it's not just a random pointless thing, it serves a purpose. The ethical questions are why the ostracism is happening, and how severe the effects are. If Militant Atheist Dave moves to a small town in rural Alabama, and goes on and on forever about how Christianity is a lie and the Bible is just fiction, etc. etc. and then nobody in town wants to be his friend...well, yeah, too bad for Dave. On the other hand, if he gets hit by a truck and everyone just watches him die in the street, that's not acceptable. And if it's instead 1955 and and we're talking about Civil Rights Leader John, the town shunning him for demanding equal treatment and an end to oppression is also not okay. Am I not being clear?
(As an aside to the audience, this is an example of using civility tactically, as I noted earlier. Spool has described incivility as always wrong, now I am demonstrating that he is being uncivil in response to a perfectly polite series of posts because he doesn't like them. For example, note that I am stating that his argument is wrong and leads to bad results, but I've made no claim that I know what he's thinking better than he does. Logically, his rudeness is irrelevant to our arguments, but right after insisting on civility in all cases, it makes him look bad.)
I would add, as a side note, that I see this aside as actually quite rude--talking about someone in a negative way, in front of them, to a separate group of people, is in no way an example of 'using civility tactically' (or using it at all). It's a conversational 'tactic' that is sufficiently insulting that it can undercut a discussion even when, as here, it is couched in suitably neutral surface language. I think that a commitment to open and productive discussions involves not just polite phrasing, but also a commitment to avoid 'dirty tricks.'
The aside was uncivil. I was angry after I was told that I was lying to cover being secretly cruel when I was not. But you're right. Okay, Spool, I was rude to you, and I'm sorry.
Morat242 on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Neither the hypothetical speaker or I directed insults at anyone. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It would be rude to say "you, alleged date rape victim, just want to feel better about sleeping around" or "you, trans person, are wrong about your gender." But that is quite different from a statement of a view on a topic.
This seems to hinge on the idea that something is only an insult when you're singling out an individual. Which is silly.
I would say that the distinction is between something directed at you as an individual and a policy statement intended to be discussed. I think it is absolutely the case that, for example, there can be a discussion of the merits of gay marriage involving gay and straight people which is not about the relationships of any of the people involved in the discussion. As I have said before, civility can require a certain degree of detachment. I do not think this is a problem though. It is just a necessary characteristic of abstract or policy level discussions.
Right but in the original example it basically was "claims of date-rape are falsely made by women to excuse their sleeping around" which is not really a policy statement so much. "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because it says so in the bible" is a different sentiment from "I think gay people are sinners and inferior" and I would argue that the original example fell way more towards the latter.
So defend that. Flat out admit that the original example was insulting to an entire group of people or don't but please don't pretend that it's either personal attack or policy statement. Just because you didn't single out anyone doesn't mean you are not insulting people.
I disagree really strongly. I think that an insult requires intent which was not present here. I think that this is a policy statement (as are both statements on gay marriage) and that if person A makes the statement and person B says they find it offensive then person A can say "I am sorry you found that statement offensive. That was not my intent, although I believe the statement I made to be true." Following such a reply, it is on person B to either put aside her feelings and discuss the statement or to exit the conversation.
Note that in this very thread someone made a post stating that I do not understand or feel empathy and, despite it being a direct statement about me as an individual, I could tell that the intent was not to insult me and I responded in a civil manner, which response evoked an apology.
Neither the hypothetical speaker or I directed insults at anyone. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It would be rude to say "you, alleged date rape victim, just want to feel better about sleeping around" or "you, trans person, are wrong about your gender." But that is quite different from a statement of a view on a topic.
This seems to hinge on the idea that something is only an insult when you're singling out an individual. Which is silly.
I would say that the distinction is between something directed at you as an individual and a policy statement intended to be discussed. I think it is absolutely the case that, for example, there can be a discussion of the merits of gay marriage involving gay and straight people which is not about the relationships of any of the people involved in the discussion. As I have said before, civility can require a certain degree of detachment. I do not think this is a problem though. It is just a necessary characteristic of abstract or policy level discussions.
Right but in the original example it basically was "claims of date-rape are falsely made by women to excuse their sleeping around" which is not really a policy statement so much. "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because it says so in the bible" is a different sentiment from "I think gay people are sinners and inferior" and I would argue that the original example fell way more towards the latter.
So defend that. Flat out admit that the original example was insulting to an entire group of people or don't but please don't pretend that it's either personal attack or policy statement. Just because you didn't single out anyone doesn't mean you are not insulting people.
I disagree really strongly. I think that an insult requires intent which was not present here. I think that this is a policy statement (as are both statements on gay marriage) and that if person A makes the statement and person B says they find it offensive then person A can say "I am sorry you found that statement offensive. That was not my intent, although I believe the statement I made to be true." Following such a reply, it is on person B to either put aside her feelings and discuss the statement or to exit the conversation.
Note that in this very thread someone made a post stating that I do not understand or feel empathy and, despite it being a direct statement about me as an individual, I could tell that the intent was not to insult me and I responded in a civil manner, which response evoked an apology.
This, uh
This here sets a pretty toxic standard for discourse in my opinion.
First, A gets to say something offensive to B, and when called on it, A gets to:
-Offer up a complete non-apology "I'm sorry you were offended,"
-Shift the blame to B for being offended instead of himself for doing the offending, and
-Double-down on the initial statement to show that even though it was offensive to B, he stands by exactly what was said
Then B gets the option to:
-Choke down not only the initial offense, but the faux apology and the reinforcement of the original offensive statement;
-Disengage and surrender the conversation and the space to the offensive speaker; or
-Fail to meet his standard of "civility" and invite a host of tone-policing complaints
It sounds like a perfect environment for trolling, since the troll gets to declare victory on anyone who takes the bait.
(Also, a policy statement can be plenty inflammatory all on its own. "I think we should return to southern chattel slavery" is a policy statement but if you seriously expect that to spark an entirely detached, emotionless discussion you are kidding yourself. Maybe in a classroom or the debate team where the subject is wholly subservient to the debate itself, but a thread like that started here wouldn't last long enough to type "may I play devil's advocate?")
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Also, space: the theme I'm picking up from your posts on this topic is essentially: "Hey it's easy for me to put aside my emotions and just talk about [thing that probably doesn't affect me very much if at all], so why can't everybody else put aside their emotions and just talk about [thing that affects them every day in systematic ways]?"
Neither the hypothetical speaker or I directed insults at anyone. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It would be rude to say "you, alleged date rape victim, just want to feel better about sleeping around" or "you, trans person, are wrong about your gender." But that is quite different from a statement of a view on a topic.
This seems to hinge on the idea that something is only an insult when you're singling out an individual. Which is silly.
I would say that the distinction is between something directed at you as an individual and a policy statement intended to be discussed. I think it is absolutely the case that, for example, there can be a discussion of the merits of gay marriage involving gay and straight people which is not about the relationships of any of the people involved in the discussion. As I have said before, civility can require a certain degree of detachment. I do not think this is a problem though. It is just a necessary characteristic of abstract or policy level discussions.
Right but in the original example it basically was "claims of date-rape are falsely made by women to excuse their sleeping around" which is not really a policy statement so much. "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because it says so in the bible" is a different sentiment from "I think gay people are sinners and inferior" and I would argue that the original example fell way more towards the latter.
So defend that. Flat out admit that the original example was insulting to an entire group of people or don't but please don't pretend that it's either personal attack or policy statement. Just because you didn't single out anyone doesn't mean you are not insulting people.
I disagree really strongly. I think that an insult requires intent which was not present here. I think that this is a policy statement (as are both statements on gay marriage) and that if person A makes the statement and person B says they find it offensive then person A can say "I am sorry you found that statement offensive. That was not my intent, although I believe the statement I made to be true." Following such a reply, it is on person B to either put aside her feelings and discuss the statement or to exit the conversation.
Note that in this very thread someone made a post stating that I do not understand or feel empathy and, despite it being a direct statement about me as an individual, I could tell that the intent was not to insult me and I responded in a civil manner, which response evoked an apology.
This, uh
This here sets a pretty toxic standard for discourse in my opinion.
First, A gets to say something offensive to B, and when called on it, A gets to:
-Offer up a complete non-apology "I'm sorry you were offended,"
-Shift the blame to B for being offended instead of himself for doing the offending, and
-Double-down on the initial statement to show that even though it was offensive to B, he stands by exactly what was said
Then B gets the option to:
-Choke down not only the initial offense, but the faux apology and the reinforcement of the original offensive statement;
-Disengage and surrender the conversation and the space to the offensive speaker; or
-Fail to meet his standard of "civility" and invite a host of tone-policing complaints
It sounds like a perfect environment for trolling, since the troll gets to declare victory on anyone who takes the bait.
(Also, a policy statement can be plenty inflammatory all on its own. "I think we should return to southern chattel slavery" is a policy statement but if you seriously expect that to spark an entirely detached, emotionless discussion you are kidding yourself. Maybe in a classroom or the debate team where the subject is wholly subservient to the debate itself, but a thread like that started here wouldn't last long enough to type "may I play devil's advocate?")
Speaker A does not need to apologize any further than he has. He did not have any malicious intent. There is nothing else to apologize for. The fact of Speaker B's offense does not preclude Speaker A from holding or advancing his view. In fact, he had no reason not to. No counter argument has been offered.
You left out the option where Speaker B recognizes that she is engaged in discourse on the topic and that she should approach the topic as such and formulate responses to persuade the speaker.
I don't know that I agree we could not have a discussion on slavery like that here and if we could not, then that is unfortunate. It is an interesting topic.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Also, space: the theme I'm picking up from your posts on this topic is essentially: "Hey it's easy for me to put aside my emotions and just talk about [thing that probably doesn't affect me very much if at all], so why can't everybody else put aside their emotions and just talk about [thing that affects them every day in systematic ways]?"
This was discussed earlier in the thread. Suffice to say that my position is that not all people should engage in discussions on all topics. If you cannot take on at least enough detachment to step back and discuss the issue as an issue without yelling, name calling, etc. (and remember, cool statements of anger are wholly appropriate) then perhaps that is not a topic you should discuss.
Neither the hypothetical speaker or I directed insults at anyone. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It would be rude to say "you, alleged date rape victim, just want to feel better about sleeping around" or "you, trans person, are wrong about your gender." But that is quite different from a statement of a view on a topic.
This seems to hinge on the idea that something is only an insult when you're singling out an individual. Which is silly.
I would say that the distinction is between something directed at you as an individual and a policy statement intended to be discussed. I think it is absolutely the case that, for example, there can be a discussion of the merits of gay marriage involving gay and straight people which is not about the relationships of any of the people involved in the discussion. As I have said before, civility can require a certain degree of detachment. I do not think this is a problem though. It is just a necessary characteristic of abstract or policy level discussions.
Right but in the original example it basically was "claims of date-rape are falsely made by women to excuse their sleeping around" which is not really a policy statement so much. "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because it says so in the bible" is a different sentiment from "I think gay people are sinners and inferior" and I would argue that the original example fell way more towards the latter.
So defend that. Flat out admit that the original example was insulting to an entire group of people or don't but please don't pretend that it's either personal attack or policy statement. Just because you didn't single out anyone doesn't mean you are not insulting people.
I disagree really strongly. I think that an insult requires intent which was not present here. I think that this is a policy statement (as are both statements on gay marriage) and that if person A makes the statement and person B says they find it offensive then person A can say "I am sorry you found that statement offensive. That was not my intent, although I believe the statement I made to be true." Following such a reply, it is on person B to either put aside her feelings and discuss the statement or to exit the conversation.
Note that in this very thread someone made a post stating that I do not understand or feel empathy and, despite it being a direct statement about me as an individual, I could tell that the intent was not to insult me and I responded in a civil manner, which response evoked an apology.
This, uh
This here sets a pretty toxic standard for discourse in my opinion.
First, A gets to say something offensive to B, and when called on it, A gets to:
-Offer up a complete non-apology "I'm sorry you were offended,"
-Shift the blame to B for being offended instead of himself for doing the offending, and
-Double-down on the initial statement to show that even though it was offensive to B, he stands by exactly what was said
Then B gets the option to:
-Choke down not only the initial offense, but the faux apology and the reinforcement of the original offensive statement;
-Disengage and surrender the conversation and the space to the offensive speaker; or
-Fail to meet his standard of "civility" and invite a host of tone-policing complaints
It sounds like a perfect environment for trolling, since the troll gets to declare victory on anyone who takes the bait.
(Also, a policy statement can be plenty inflammatory all on its own. "I think we should return to southern chattel slavery" is a policy statement but if you seriously expect that to spark an entirely detached, emotionless discussion you are kidding yourself. Maybe in a classroom or the debate team where the subject is wholly subservient to the debate itself, but a thread like that started here wouldn't last long enough to type "may I play devil's advocate?")
Speaker A does not need to apologize any further than he has. He did not have any malicious intent. There is nothing else to apologize for. The fact of Speaker B's offense does not preclude Speaker A from holding or advancing his view. In fact, he had no reason not to. No counter argument has been offered.
You left out the option where Speaker B recognizes that she is engaged in discourse on the topic and that she should approach the topic as such and formulate responses to persuade the speaker.
I don't know that I agree we could not have a discussion on slavery like that here and if we could not, then that is unfortunate. It is an interesting topic.
Malicious intent is not a prerequisite for causing (emotional) harm. Carelessness and thoughtlessness do the job just as well. "Gay people are inferior" is absolutely an inherently inflammatory statement and you can't reasonably expect that everyone offended by it should just shrug it off and accept a non-apology like, "I'm sorry you were offended, but it's true."
As per the bolded, you assume that B's intention is actually to persuade A. This is not necessarily the case; as per the examples given I'd argue that someone claiming "gay people are sinners and inferior" is never going to be persuaded through logical discourse, since his views are obviously rooted in religious dogma.
And the slavery discussion might well be worthwhile, however there is an element of practicality at work: Such a thread would quickly devolve into a shitshow purely by nature of its inflammatory title. Policy statements can be sufficiently inflammatory by themselves that the mods here would rightfully shut down discussion to head off the inevitable clusterfuck.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Also, space: the theme I'm picking up from your posts on this topic is essentially: "Hey it's easy for me to put aside my emotions and just talk about [thing that probably doesn't affect me very much if at all], so why can't everybody else put aside their emotions and just talk about [thing that affects them every day in systematic ways]?"
This was discussed earlier in the thread. Suffice to say that my position is that not all people should engage in discussions on all topics. If you cannot take on at least enough detachment to step back and discuss the issue as an issue without yelling, name calling, etc. (and remember, cool statements of anger are wholly appropriate) then perhaps that is not a topic you should discuss.
So to bring this back around to the reason you bumped this thread, a victim's public responses to the people harassing her:
A person targeted by a coordinated campaign of harassment, death and rape threats, intimidation, slander, etc both online and off, directed at her and also her family, should be expected to only respond "coolly" to all of that?
That if she couldn't keep herself from calling her harassers names, she should just remain silent? You know that's a win condition for the harassers?
She has no hope of "persuading" them of anything, this is the farthest thing from an academic discussion as it's possible to get. So why should we hold her emotional responses against her?
(Just to note that I agree with the bolded as an acceptable standard of civility for discussions on a forum, but take issue with them being applied to all situations everywhere in every medium, where the purpose of the speech is highly relevant.)
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
+1
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
(As an aside to the audience, this is an example of using civility tactically, as I noted earlier. Spool has described incivility as always wrong, now I am demonstrating that he is being uncivil in response to a perfectly polite series of posts because he doesn't like them. For example, note that I am stating that his argument is wrong and leads to bad results, but I've made no claim that I know what he's thinking better than he does. Logically, his rudeness is irrelevant to our arguments, but right after insisting on civility in all cases, it makes him look bad.)
I would add, as a side note, that I see this aside as actually quite rude--talking about someone in a negative way, in front of them, to a separate group of people, is in no way an example of 'using civility tactically' (or using it at all). It's a conversational 'tactic' that is sufficiently insulting that it can undercut a discussion even when, as here, it is couched in suitably neutral surface language. I think that a commitment to open and productive discussions involves not just polite phrasing, but also a commitment to avoid 'dirty tricks.'
The aside was uncivil. I was angry after I was told that I was lying to cover being secretly cruel when I was not. But you're right. Okay, Spool, I was rude to you, and I'm sorry.
That's fair enough--'psychologizing' people, by which I mean analyzing their motives rather than their arguments, is another conversational tactic that is typically rude.
More generally: adversarial arguments often involve transfers of prestige; 'beating' someone involves gaining face, 'losing' to someone involves losing it. It's very natural to want prestige, and to be uncomfortable at the prospect of losing it. Some of the conversational tactics coming up here--psychologizing, slighting, grandstanding, and etc.--are effective ways of approaching conversation as a competition whose goal it is to acquire that prestige. But reflection on them reveals that they acquire it by theft rather than honest toil; they are, at bottom, ways of rhetorically bullying. They are the verbal form of pantsing someone in the cafeteria.
Maybe some people really need to get pantsed. But the natural social drive for prestige is very intense--which makes sense, as our prestige translates into access to all sorts of resources. And we are also prone to self-flattering rationalizations. So, I think we should be extremely skeptical of ourselves when we are tempted to give ourselves permission to engage in this sort of verbal pushing-around. Can we really be so sure that we're doing it for righteous reasons, and not just because we are naturally pursuing our own advantage and then glossing it in a rosier light than it deserves?
On this front, I am by no means an angelic creature, free of sin. I have rhetorically 'gone for the throat' and tried to utterly destroy people before, such that their humiliation might contribute to the general perception of my comparative wisdom. Looking at my own behavior, I am disturbed; I try to do better but don't know, on the balance, how well I am doing. Perhaps I am just projecting, and this is not a problem for other people. But this is a worry I have about rhetorical 'dirty tricks.' They enable self-interested bullying.
Also, space: the theme I'm picking up from your posts on this topic is essentially: "Hey it's easy for me to put aside my emotions and just talk about [thing that probably doesn't affect me very much if at all], so why can't everybody else put aside their emotions and just talk about [thing that affects them every day in systematic ways]?"
This was discussed earlier in the thread. Suffice to say that my position is that not all people should engage in discussions on all topics. If you cannot take on at least enough detachment to step back and discuss the issue as an issue without yelling, name calling, etc. (and remember, cool statements of anger are wholly appropriate) then perhaps that is not a topic you should discuss.
I know that you probably don't mean it in this way, but it seems like this statement is saying: "If you can't be civil, then you should shut up." This seems to me as the way that civility is used as a weapon to silence someone who is being oppressed, either personally or systemically.
A lot of crimes are under-reported. I don't think there's any way for a rape victim or a victim of a home invasion to discuss talking about what personally happened to them without extremes of emotion. While some people certainly become numb and detached, victim-blaming is usually in a context to prevent the victims from speaking out about the wrong that happened to them. This is exactly the time when someone should speak up, despite their inability to discuss the subject in an emotionless and detached manner. The context matters, of course, and I'm sure some people are talking about "when discussing on the PA forums" rather than "when talking about rape victims", but it's something to think about (and maybe clarify when you are posting something... it would only be polite, after all ).
It also occurs to me that civility is often considered a product of education (either socialization to the particular values of a culture or institutional knowledge learned through school). Is civility yet another way for those who are educated to oppress minorities (note: Not necessarily racial minorities... a double digit percentage of adults in America are currently functionally illiterate, for example) who are often under-educated (either through having less socialization to the surrounding culture or not "having enough book learning" as it were)? "Those uneducated (insert group) just don't know how to speak properly, and therefore I can ignore their plight" or something similar. It's a thought that disturbs me, especially with the educational disparities between various racial groups in the US. It also disturbs me because I consider myself well-educated (I spent 10 years after high school getting various degrees), and it makes me think "How many arguments with good points have I personally discounted simply because the speaker of those arguments was inarticulate or what I would consider not within my bounds of civility?"
Hahnsoo1 on
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Neither the hypothetical speaker or I directed insults at anyone. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It would be rude to say "you, alleged date rape victim, just want to feel better about sleeping around" or "you, trans person, are wrong about your gender." But that is quite different from a statement of a view on a topic.
This seems to hinge on the idea that something is only an insult when you're singling out an individual. Which is silly.
I would say that the distinction is between something directed at you as an individual and a policy statement intended to be discussed. I think it is absolutely the case that, for example, there can be a discussion of the merits of gay marriage involving gay and straight people which is not about the relationships of any of the people involved in the discussion. As I have said before, civility can require a certain degree of detachment. I do not think this is a problem though. It is just a necessary characteristic of abstract or policy level discussions.
Right but in the original example it basically was "claims of date-rape are falsely made by women to excuse their sleeping around" which is not really a policy statement so much. "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because it says so in the bible" is a different sentiment from "I think gay people are sinners and inferior" and I would argue that the original example fell way more towards the latter.
So defend that. Flat out admit that the original example was insulting to an entire group of people or don't but please don't pretend that it's either personal attack or policy statement. Just because you didn't single out anyone doesn't mean you are not insulting people.
I disagree really strongly. I think that an insult requires intent which was not present here. I think that this is a policy statement (as are both statements on gay marriage) and that if person A makes the statement and person B says they find it offensive then person A can say "I am sorry you found that statement offensive. That was not my intent, although I believe the statement I made to be true." Following such a reply, it is on person B to either put aside her feelings and discuss the statement or to exit the conversation.
Note that in this very thread someone made a post stating that I do not understand or feel empathy and, despite it being a direct statement about me as an individual, I could tell that the intent was not to insult me and I responded in a civil manner, which response evoked an apology.
This, uh
This here sets a pretty toxic standard for discourse in my opinion.
First, A gets to say something offensive to B, and when called on it, A gets to:
-Offer up a complete non-apology "I'm sorry you were offended,"
-Shift the blame to B for being offended instead of himself for doing the offending, and
-Double-down on the initial statement to show that even though it was offensive to B, he stands by exactly what was said
Then B gets the option to:
-Choke down not only the initial offense, but the faux apology and the reinforcement of the original offensive statement;
-Disengage and surrender the conversation and the space to the offensive speaker; or
-Fail to meet his standard of "civility" and invite a host of tone-policing complaints
It sounds like a perfect environment for trolling, since the troll gets to declare victory on anyone who takes the bait.
(Also, a policy statement can be plenty inflammatory all on its own. "I think we should return to southern chattel slavery" is a policy statement but if you seriously expect that to spark an entirely detached, emotionless discussion you are kidding yourself. Maybe in a classroom or the debate team where the subject is wholly subservient to the debate itself, but a thread like that started here wouldn't last long enough to type "may I play devil's advocate?")
Speaker A does not need to apologize any further than he has. He did not have any malicious intent. There is nothing else to apologize for. The fact of Speaker B's offense does not preclude Speaker A from holding or advancing his view. In fact, he had no reason not to. No counter argument has been offered.
You left out the option where Speaker B recognizes that she is engaged in discourse on the topic and that she should approach the topic as such and formulate responses to persuade the speaker.
I don't know that I agree we could not have a discussion on slavery like that here and if we could not, then that is unfortunate. It is an interesting topic.
Malicious intent is not a prerequisite for causing (emotional) harm. Carelessness and thoughtlessness do the job just as well. "Gay people are inferior" is absolutely an inherently inflammatory statement and you can't reasonably expect that everyone offended by it should just shrug it off and accept a non-apology like, "I'm sorry you were offended, but it's true."
As per the bolded, you assume that B's intention is actually to persuade A. This is not necessarily the case; as per the examples given I'd argue that someone claiming "gay people are sinners and inferior" is never going to be persuaded through logical discourse, since his views are obviously rooted in religious dogma.
And the slavery discussion might well be worthwhile, however there is an element of practicality at work: Such a thread would quickly devolve into a shitshow purely by nature of its inflammatory title. Policy statements can be sufficiently inflammatory by themselves that the mods here would rightfully shut down discussion to head off the inevitable clusterfuck.
Malicious intent is nor required for harm, no, but if I am engaging in a permitted activity and you happen to be harmed, that does not mean that I must demur to you. It all depends on context, but in the context of a discussion on these boards, I am very comfortable saying that Speaker A has done no wrong and that if Speaker B is uncivil then she is categorically in the wrong.
If your intent is not to persuade, then why talk to the person you so staunchly disagree with at all? It may provide emotional relief to yell at him and call him names, but it doesn't really accomplish anything, and that is not the reaction of an adult.
Also, space: the theme I'm picking up from your posts on this topic is essentially: "Hey it's easy for me to put aside my emotions and just talk about [thing that probably doesn't affect me very much if at all], so why can't everybody else put aside their emotions and just talk about [thing that affects them every day in systematic ways]?"
This was discussed earlier in the thread. Suffice to say that my position is that not all people should engage in discussions on all topics. If you cannot take on at least enough detachment to step back and discuss the issue as an issue without yelling, name calling, etc. (and remember, cool statements of anger are wholly appropriate) then perhaps that is not a topic you should discuss.
So to bring this back around to the reason you bumped this thread, a victim's public responses to the people harassing her:
A person targeted by a coordinated campaign of harassment, death and rape threats, intimidation, slander, etc both online and off, directed at her and also her family, should be expected to only respond "coolly" to all of that?
That if she couldn't keep herself from calling her harassers names, she should just remain silent? You know that's a win condition for the harassers?
She has no hope of "persuading" them of anything, this is the farthest thing from an academic discussion as it's possible to get. So why should we hold her emotional responses against her?
(Just to note that I agree with the bolded as an acceptable standard of civility for discussions on a forum, but take issue with them being applied to all situations everywhere in every medium, where the purpose of the speech is highly relevant.)
They win if she calls them names too. Any reaction is a win condition for them. Better to not play the game, imo.
She was absolutely in persuasion mode when she made those tweets though. She was literally presenting evidence exposing them to be conspirators against her. She was trying to persuade the audience. I think that just posting the logs without the added color would have been the stronger statement.
Malicious intent is nor required for harm, no, but if I am engaging in a permitted activity and you happen to be harmed, that does not mean that I must demur to you.
Under certain circumstances if you don't you'll be seen as uncivil.
It all depends on context, but in the context of a discussion on these boards, I am very comfortable saying that Speaker A has done no wrong and that if Speaker B is uncivil then she is categorically in the wrong.
That depends on what you mean by "uncivil," many people would consider ignoring a person offended by racism, homophobia and sexism uncivil. Civility isn't limited to being polite, it's reacting sympathetically.
If your intent is not to persuade, then why talk to the person you so staunchly disagree with at all? It may provide emotional relief to yell at him and call him names, but it doesn't really accomplish anything, and that is not the reaction of an adult.
Adults can swear and be snarky, and remain adults. It depends on what the person is trying to accomplish, if the offender is that deluded that they're beyond redemption by arguing their opponent has nothing to lose by confronting them.
They win if she calls them names too. Any reaction is a win condition for them. Better to not play the game, imo.
Not playing the game isn't an option for victims. There is no escape hatch to run to.
She was absolutely in persuasion mode when she made those tweets though. She was literally presenting evidence exposing them to be conspirators against her. She was trying to persuade the audience. I think that just posting the logs without the added color would have been the stronger statement.
Her opinion establishes context and her thought of the matter, which is very important since she's a victim at the center of the conflict. That's vital to persuade her audience.
Malicious intent is nor required for harm, no, but if I am engaging in a permitted activity and you happen to be harmed, that does not mean that I must demur to you. It all depends on context, but in the context of a discussion on these boards, I am very comfortable saying that Speaker A has done no wrong and that if Speaker B is uncivil then she is categorically in the wrong.
How are you defining "a permitted activity?" If Speaker A created a thread on these forums that said, "Gay people are sinners and inferior and here is why" then I have no doubt that thread would be locked and the poster infracted or banned since it violates the Don't Be A Dick rule. Framing it as "Just a policy statement" or "Well I wasn't talking about these particular gay people, only gay people in general" or "Well I'm sorry you took offense, but it's true" is not going to be an acceptable defense against that hammer. By its very nature it is an inflammatory statement, and moderation to head off the inevitable flame war is rightly placed.
Esteemed moderators, please correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption.
If your intent is not to persuade, then why talk to the person you so staunchly disagree with at all? It may provide emotional relief to yell at him and call him names, but it doesn't really accomplish anything, and that is not the reaction of an adult.
Because by addressing them directly you are attempting to persuade on-lookers? Reinforce the beliefs of supporters? Put social pressure on your opponent or his supporters to rethink their hurtful arguments? Call for a little empathy? Motivate the base to action? Refuse to back down or be cowed by an oppressor? There are a lot of reasons to speak other than "convince the other guy."
Also, space: the theme I'm picking up from your posts on this topic is essentially: "Hey it's easy for me to put aside my emotions and just talk about [thing that probably doesn't affect me very much if at all], so why can't everybody else put aside their emotions and just talk about [thing that affects them every day in systematic ways]?"
This was discussed earlier in the thread. Suffice to say that my position is that not all people should engage in discussions on all topics. If you cannot take on at least enough detachment to step back and discuss the issue as an issue without yelling, name calling, etc. (and remember, cool statements of anger are wholly appropriate) then perhaps that is not a topic you should discuss.
So to bring this back around to the reason you bumped this thread, a victim's public responses to the people harassing her:
A person targeted by a coordinated campaign of harassment, death and rape threats, intimidation, slander, etc both online and off, directed at her and also her family, should be expected to only respond "coolly" to all of that?
That if she couldn't keep herself from calling her harassers names, she should just remain silent? You know that's a win condition for the harassers?
She has no hope of "persuading" them of anything, this is the farthest thing from an academic discussion as it's possible to get. So why should we hold her emotional responses against her?
(Just to note that I agree with the bolded as an acceptable standard of civility for discussions on a forum, but take issue with them being applied to all situations everywhere in every medium, where the purpose of the speech is highly relevant.)
They win if she calls them names too. Any reaction is a win condition for them. Better to not play the game, imo.
She was absolutely in persuasion mode when she made those tweets though. She was literally presenting evidence exposing them to be conspirators against her. She was trying to persuade the audience. I think that just posting the logs without the added color would have been the stronger statement.
As above, my read on the situation was that she was not only convincing third parties that her attackers were being shitlords, but making a defiant statement directly to them that she would not be intimidated, she would not go quietly into the night, she would not take their abuse and meekly present cold dry evidence against them. She would fight back with but a fraction of the vitriol shown her, not just for herself but for the other victims of that unforgivable harassment.
And I think that's a perfectly acceptable message to send, and anybody watching from the sidelines who tut-tuts about the tone she used is not an ally she really needs in the first place.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Also, space: Over the course of many topics on these boards you have continually shown a frankly herculean degree of patience and restraint and I sincerely commend you for it.
But it kind of feels like you want everyone else to hold to the same standard all the time (and in all places) and I don't really think that's a reasonable expectation.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Malicious intent is nor required for harm, no, but if I am engaging in a permitted activity and you happen to be harmed, that does not mean that I must demur to you. It all depends on context, but in the context of a discussion on these boards, I am very comfortable saying that Speaker A has done no wrong and that if Speaker B is uncivil then she is categorically in the wrong.
How are you defining "a permitted activity?" If Speaker A created a thread on these forums that said, "Gay people are sinners and inferior and here is why" then I have no doubt that thread would be locked and the poster infracted or banned since it violates the Don't Be A Dick rule. Framing it as "Just a policy statement" or "Well I wasn't talking about these particular gay people, only gay people in general" or "Well I'm sorry you took offense, but it's true" is not going to be an acceptable defense against that hammer. By its very nature it is an inflammatory statement, and moderation to head off the inevitable flame war is rightly placed.
Esteemed moderators, please correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption.
If your intent is not to persuade, then why talk to the person you so staunchly disagree with at all? It may provide emotional relief to yell at him and call him names, but it doesn't really accomplish anything, and that is not the reaction of an adult.
Because by addressing them directly you are attempting to persuade on-lookers? Reinforce the beliefs of supporters? Put social pressure on your opponent or his supporters to rethink their hurtful arguments? Call for a little empathy? Motivate the base to action? Refuse to back down or be cowed by an oppressor? There are a lot of reasons to speak other than "convince the other guy."
Also, space: the theme I'm picking up from your posts on this topic is essentially: "Hey it's easy for me to put aside my emotions and just talk about [thing that probably doesn't affect me very much if at all], so why can't everybody else put aside their emotions and just talk about [thing that affects them every day in systematic ways]?"
This was discussed earlier in the thread. Suffice to say that my position is that not all people should engage in discussions on all topics. If you cannot take on at least enough detachment to step back and discuss the issue as an issue without yelling, name calling, etc. (and remember, cool statements of anger are wholly appropriate) then perhaps that is not a topic you should discuss.
So to bring this back around to the reason you bumped this thread, a victim's public responses to the people harassing her:
A person targeted by a coordinated campaign of harassment, death and rape threats, intimidation, slander, etc both online and off, directed at her and also her family, should be expected to only respond "coolly" to all of that?
That if she couldn't keep herself from calling her harassers names, she should just remain silent? You know that's a win condition for the harassers?
She has no hope of "persuading" them of anything, this is the farthest thing from an academic discussion as it's possible to get. So why should we hold her emotional responses against her?
(Just to note that I agree with the bolded as an acceptable standard of civility for discussions on a forum, but take issue with them being applied to all situations everywhere in every medium, where the purpose of the speech is highly relevant.)
They win if she calls them names too. Any reaction is a win condition for them. Better to not play the game, imo.
She was absolutely in persuasion mode when she made those tweets though. She was literally presenting evidence exposing them to be conspirators against her. She was trying to persuade the audience. I think that just posting the logs without the added color would have been the stronger statement.
As above, my read on the situation was that she was not only convincing third parties that her attackers were being shitlords, but making a defiant statement directly to them that she would not be intimidated, she would not go quietly into the night, she would not take their abuse and meekly present cold dry evidence against them. She would fight back with but a fraction of the vitriol shown her, not just for herself but for the other victims of that unforgivable harassment.
And I think that's a perfectly acceptable message to send, and anybody watching from the sidelines who tut-tuts about the tone she used is not an ally she really needs in the first place.
Speech certainly has different purposes. I think we can divide all speech into persuasive and non-persuasive speech. Persuasive speech can be further subdivided into speech to persuade one's opponent and ones audience. When trying to persuade an opponent, I think civility is generally a prerequisite to effective conversation. When trying to persuade an audience, snark may be effective, but, as MrMr said any success achieved is ill gotten/stolen.
Non-persuasive speech necessitates civility less, but even in the most personal situation, I still do not think that things like name calling or personal insults help anything. At best they provide emotional relief, but in my opinion, doing something like yelling or name calling is the way a child deals with being upset.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Also, space: Over the course of many topics on these boards you have continually shown a frankly herculean degree of patience and restraint and I sincerely commend you for it.
But it kind of feels like you want everyone else to hold to the same standard all the time (and in all places) and I don't really think that's a reasonable expectation.
I am saying exactly that people should show the same level of civility and patience that I do on these boards when engaged in persuasive speech. If everyone did then everyone would actually need much less patience. . .
Posts
PA has a wonderful community! I feel like the silent clause is different for us though:
For me, it's "PA has a wonderful community, but we can make it better by not tolerating terribleness from anyone in our discussions and arguments"
For you I feel like it's something different.
Anyway, you kind of proved my point here by saying that it's only tone policing when a minority around here does it. When the majority enforces rules of behavior on these forums, it's not tone policing for you, and when they deviate from those rules, it's not hypocrisy. That's something I think you ought to consider.
Also, can I just challenge this assertion that you'd love for every argument to be civil, and that you only hit back after being pushed? That isn't what you described in your earlier posts - in those posts you said it was OK to be terrible to people in service to a goal, not only as a defense or a reaction in kind. Which one is more accurate as a standard you'd like to see on these forums?
Finally: it is definitely an either/or situation. You have on the one side "being uncivil is always bad" and on the other "no, being uncivil is good when I think it's good, and bad when I think it's bad".
Well, the former is tautologically true, based on prior posts. If we recognize that superficially polite but insulting speech is uncivil, or that superficially polite speech combined with harassment is uncivil, or that it is okay to use, say, profanity as long as nobody is insulted... then we've basically defined "uncivil" as "anything that is bad."
What remains is disagreement about what counts as civil or uncivil, which is going to be a nuanced discussion.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In a way it kind of reminds me of unilateral disarmament, in which a traditionally-oppressed group is reluctant to surrender part of its toolbox to conform to a standard of civility set by those who traditionally oppressed them.
I can agree with that assessment.
My arguments aren't strictly about PA, it's for everywhere.
By civil I mean people who are hiding behind civility for bigotry. That said, I won't automatically shout down bigots who do that, they need to escalate their comments until they can't be ignored before I act. Terrible people come in many forms, they can be polite, ignorant and hostile jerk-weasels who won't listen to reason. I'll act/react according to what method I feel will accomplish my goal.
Depends on the context, it's not an answer that has a simple yes or no response.
I wasn't using my arguments on that metric. I was talking about how arguments are in general, which isn't an either/or situation in the slightest.
One definition of a civil discussion (the one that seems to be being advanced by SKFM, MisterMr, et al) is a discussion in which ideas are generally separated from individuals, and evaluated as much on their own merits. In this type of discussion, personal attacks against anyone are regarded as wrong and distracting, and the focus is on everyone working through and addressing their ideas. The goal of such an argument is not necessarily to 'win', or to root at wrong ideas. Instead, the primary goal is to compare your views to the views of others, and to hopefully walk away with new perspectives and new ideas to think about.
The other type of 'civil' discussion (which some here also seem to be arguing for) is one that enforces the social norms and popular opinions of the society. For example, if this type of discussion were had in the 50s, defending women's rights would be regarded as uncivil and would reasonably be grounds for insults or ostracization. This kind of 'civil' discussion tends to be less about gaining a new perspective, and more about reinforcing one's identity and righteousness. A side effect of this kind of discussion is that the further someone's views are from the majority view, the less likely they are to participate over time, which has a cyclical effect until only the true believers are left. This is a good thing for dogmatic members of the majority, but not particularly good for those who value a diversity of opinion.
I obviously prefer the first kind of discussion - but many people here seem to be arguing that they would prefer to see more of the second. That ostracizing incorrect ideas and forcing people to change their opinions or suffer consequences should be the primary focus This often comes in the form of people saying that they simply cannot tolerate 'bad' ideas (which translates to "whatever ideas are unpopular with the person talking.")
Good heavens, if someone says that date rape is just a lie told by women who sleep around too much, that's the same thing as going up to every date rape survivor and telling them that they were never raped, they lied about it because they're too easy, and that the putative rapist is innocent. That is what that "view on the topic" means. A rape survivor is not going to be less offended if a misogynist dickhead not only denies her experiences, calls her a liar, and says the person who raped her was innocent, but also finds a way to do the same to most of her RAINN survivor group, several friends, and a few family members. And good God, man, you genuinely don't get that when someone says, "Please call me X, not Y", insisting on calling them Y is rude. Seriously, calling people what they want to be called is kind of basic common courtesy. Even without the continuing history of trauma and oppression of trans people.
Look, why don't you go ask some minority/oppressed folks if denying their experiences and insisting on using appellations they find demeaning are rude things to do.
So is it?
I have never said I do not feel or understand empathy. That is an accusation that has been levied against me by certain posters here, but it is categorically false. I am not emotive because I do not get worked up about a discussion I am having on the Internet on a board dedicated to the discussion of topics. I did not get worked up when I was on a debate team and do not get worked up over positions used against me in negotiation at work. I do get worked up over personal insults and rudeness, but instead of engaging in kind, I point out their rudeness and ask them to stop on threat of ending the conversation because I do not need to endure such behavior during a leisure activity.
Someone brought up transphobia a little upthread, but my reaction to transphobia has not generally been to hate the person or want them out of my life. If someone says I'm not a woman, to me that is more of a jumping off point for a discussion - what does gender mean to that person and why do they think the way they do? Maybe talking to me will teach them a thing or two, maybe not, but at worst I'll honestly share my views and they'll honestly share theirs. Now, there are other things they could do that would annoy me; maybe they refuse to respect my wishes on how I want to be treated, harass me, try to keep me from employment, or any number of other bad things. These things I would not look on so generously. But if someone just has their own opinion about gender and says it respectfully, I won't have any issue having a civil discussion with them.
Some trans people feel differently, and that's fine. I stopped reading the trans thread in SE++ because the last couple of times I looked in on it,people were raging at some transphobic things some random celebrity or person of interest had said, and talking about what an asshole the person was. I'm sure some find that kind of venting helpful, but it drives me away, not because I agree with the transphobic comments, but because I see no point in attacking people who aren't here to defend their ideas. It felt like anger for anger's sake, and when you paint anyone who disagrees with an idea as a villain, the idea starts to feel more like a religious affiliation than a belief arrived at through thought and consideration.
Broadly, I think that policing of opinions does not inherently makes an environment more appealing to minorities or other vulnerable groups. Minorities are also individuals, and they have a wide variety of opinions on speech and thought. Some are offended by people stating their disagreement, and some are not. Using civility to police acceptable opinions only works in favor of people who want to police opinions, some of whom are latino trans-women and some of whom are white republican males. I've heard arguments that ostracizing those who hold certain views can create 'safe' spaces, but when I look at a community and see people constantly on the attack, the last thing I feel is safe - even if I broadly agree with the politics of the attackers.
Ok here's another question. Do you, SKFM, become emotionally engaged when discussing slavery, racism, sexism, etc, or do you maintain an emotional detachment from the subject?
Actually I think the argument is that the first kind of discussion is more an ideal than a reality most of the time. I love this forum but even it is, broadly and minimal, is conscious of social norms. It's just that we all agree with those norms in general. And there are moderators. There is an actual civility police on these forums. ("Civility Police" is a good name for a band or tumblr.)
I think the notion of civility is inherently political. The notion that it is good to listen to everyone on an equal footing presupposes the notion that everyone is equal. There was a defence of your first notion of civility on the basis that it helped balance power inequality. That not only requires the acceptance of the political notion that power inequality exists but also that it is a bad thing. (Why not exploit it?) And what counts as insult or not is heavily dependent on political and social norms.
Recognizing that, and recognizing that your own notions of civility are influenced by society, means we can't seriously argue that our notion of civility is a-political and therefore absolute. So a "civility=good, uncivility=bad" stance is impossible to take, what was once seen as civil can become uncivil and what was uncivil can become civil.
While I think there is sometimes too much malice assumed and too much anger wrongly directed I think there is value in having forums where people can express their anger. I imagine it can be cathartic when you feel ignored. And furthermore I think such places can possibly support admirable goals. If you are having a polite and civil argument about a personal topic it could be nice to have a place where you can out frustrations and feelings without affecting the polite and civil discussion. It's SE++, not Debate & Discourse.
And one of the benefits is that it shows there is actual anger. It shows that it's not always just a theoretical debate.
Reading my post back it seems I painted you as some kind of unfeeling robot. It was not my intention to portray you that way and I'm sorry.
Regarding empathy, you've commented on it, and your separation from it, before - I think in the Ferguson thread? And i was referring to that post. But it's long gone now so I can't really elaborate without reading it again.
Steam: adamjnet
I would say that the distinction is between something directed at you as an individual and a policy statement intended to be discussed. I think it is absolutely the case that, for example, there can be a discussion of the merits of gay marriage involving gay and straight people which is not about the relationships of any of the people involved in the discussion. As I have said before, civility can require a certain degree of detachment. I do not think this is a problem though. It is just a necessary characteristic of abstract or policy level discussions.
You are the only person that is talking about personally targeted statements. Surely, there is a difference between discussing the idea of whether trans people are really their birth or self identified gender and calling someone who identifies as a man a woman. In fact, you can have the former discussion while adhering to the correct pronouns in addressing others in the conversation, and I would argue that civility requires doing so. But I would also argue that it is uncivil for a trans person to come into a conversation on gender identification and say "fuck you for not thinking I am really a man." If you cannot discuss a topic in the abstract, then you should not attempt to participate in such discussions. Failing to adhere to such guidelines is how you get a useless echo chamber like the se++ trans thread, vs the threads we have had here which have included useful oppositional discussions, and which lead me to completely change my view on the topic.
I maintain detachment, as with all in topic conversations here.
Right but in the original example it basically was "claims of date-rape are falsely made by women to excuse their sleeping around" which is not really a policy statement so much. "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman because it says so in the bible" is a different sentiment from "I think gay people are sinners and inferior" and I would argue that the original example fell way more towards the latter.
So defend that. Flat out admit that the original example was insulting to an entire group of people or don't but please don't pretend that it's either personal attack or policy statement. Just because you didn't single out anyone doesn't mean you are not insulting people.
I would add, as a side note, that I see this aside as actually quite rude--talking about someone in a negative way, in front of them, to a separate group of people, is in no way an example of 'using civility tactically' (or using it at all). It's a conversational 'tactic' that is sufficiently insulting that it can undercut a discussion even when, as here, it is couched in suitably neutral surface language. I think that a commitment to open and productive discussions involves not just polite phrasing, but also a commitment to avoid 'dirty tricks.'
That's part of why I started out my response to that by characterizing the whole post as very meta. I think the rudeness was entirely intentional.
That belief is bolstered by his general argument that incivility is sometimes an acceptable tactic, and lack of clarification regarding his opinion of using that tactic on these forums.
The aside was uncivil. I was angry after I was told that I was lying to cover being secretly cruel when I was not. But you're right. Okay, Spool, I was rude to you, and I'm sorry.
I disagree really strongly. I think that an insult requires intent which was not present here. I think that this is a policy statement (as are both statements on gay marriage) and that if person A makes the statement and person B says they find it offensive then person A can say "I am sorry you found that statement offensive. That was not my intent, although I believe the statement I made to be true." Following such a reply, it is on person B to either put aside her feelings and discuss the statement or to exit the conversation.
Note that in this very thread someone made a post stating that I do not understand or feel empathy and, despite it being a direct statement about me as an individual, I could tell that the intent was not to insult me and I responded in a civil manner, which response evoked an apology.
This, uh
This here sets a pretty toxic standard for discourse in my opinion.
First, A gets to say something offensive to B, and when called on it, A gets to:
-Offer up a complete non-apology "I'm sorry you were offended,"
-Shift the blame to B for being offended instead of himself for doing the offending, and
-Double-down on the initial statement to show that even though it was offensive to B, he stands by exactly what was said
Then B gets the option to:
-Choke down not only the initial offense, but the faux apology and the reinforcement of the original offensive statement;
-Disengage and surrender the conversation and the space to the offensive speaker; or
-Fail to meet his standard of "civility" and invite a host of tone-policing complaints
It sounds like a perfect environment for trolling, since the troll gets to declare victory on anyone who takes the bait.
(Also, a policy statement can be plenty inflammatory all on its own. "I think we should return to southern chattel slavery" is a policy statement but if you seriously expect that to spark an entirely detached, emotionless discussion you are kidding yourself. Maybe in a classroom or the debate team where the subject is wholly subservient to the debate itself, but a thread like that started here wouldn't last long enough to type "may I play devil's advocate?")
Note: the i]things[/i can be one and the same.
Speaker A does not need to apologize any further than he has. He did not have any malicious intent. There is nothing else to apologize for. The fact of Speaker B's offense does not preclude Speaker A from holding or advancing his view. In fact, he had no reason not to. No counter argument has been offered.
You left out the option where Speaker B recognizes that she is engaged in discourse on the topic and that she should approach the topic as such and formulate responses to persuade the speaker.
I don't know that I agree we could not have a discussion on slavery like that here and if we could not, then that is unfortunate. It is an interesting topic.
This was discussed earlier in the thread. Suffice to say that my position is that not all people should engage in discussions on all topics. If you cannot take on at least enough detachment to step back and discuss the issue as an issue without yelling, name calling, etc. (and remember, cool statements of anger are wholly appropriate) then perhaps that is not a topic you should discuss.
Malicious intent is not a prerequisite for causing (emotional) harm. Carelessness and thoughtlessness do the job just as well. "Gay people are inferior" is absolutely an inherently inflammatory statement and you can't reasonably expect that everyone offended by it should just shrug it off and accept a non-apology like, "I'm sorry you were offended, but it's true."
As per the bolded, you assume that B's intention is actually to persuade A. This is not necessarily the case; as per the examples given I'd argue that someone claiming "gay people are sinners and inferior" is never going to be persuaded through logical discourse, since his views are obviously rooted in religious dogma.
And the slavery discussion might well be worthwhile, however there is an element of practicality at work: Such a thread would quickly devolve into a shitshow purely by nature of its inflammatory title. Policy statements can be sufficiently inflammatory by themselves that the mods here would rightfully shut down discussion to head off the inevitable clusterfuck.
So to bring this back around to the reason you bumped this thread, a victim's public responses to the people harassing her:
A person targeted by a coordinated campaign of harassment, death and rape threats, intimidation, slander, etc both online and off, directed at her and also her family, should be expected to only respond "coolly" to all of that?
That if she couldn't keep herself from calling her harassers names, she should just remain silent? You know that's a win condition for the harassers?
She has no hope of "persuading" them of anything, this is the farthest thing from an academic discussion as it's possible to get. So why should we hold her emotional responses against her?
(Just to note that I agree with the bolded as an acceptable standard of civility for discussions on a forum, but take issue with them being applied to all situations everywhere in every medium, where the purpose of the speech is highly relevant.)
That's fair enough--'psychologizing' people, by which I mean analyzing their motives rather than their arguments, is another conversational tactic that is typically rude.
More generally: adversarial arguments often involve transfers of prestige; 'beating' someone involves gaining face, 'losing' to someone involves losing it. It's very natural to want prestige, and to be uncomfortable at the prospect of losing it. Some of the conversational tactics coming up here--psychologizing, slighting, grandstanding, and etc.--are effective ways of approaching conversation as a competition whose goal it is to acquire that prestige. But reflection on them reveals that they acquire it by theft rather than honest toil; they are, at bottom, ways of rhetorically bullying. They are the verbal form of pantsing someone in the cafeteria.
Maybe some people really need to get pantsed. But the natural social drive for prestige is very intense--which makes sense, as our prestige translates into access to all sorts of resources. And we are also prone to self-flattering rationalizations. So, I think we should be extremely skeptical of ourselves when we are tempted to give ourselves permission to engage in this sort of verbal pushing-around. Can we really be so sure that we're doing it for righteous reasons, and not just because we are naturally pursuing our own advantage and then glossing it in a rosier light than it deserves?
On this front, I am by no means an angelic creature, free of sin. I have rhetorically 'gone for the throat' and tried to utterly destroy people before, such that their humiliation might contribute to the general perception of my comparative wisdom. Looking at my own behavior, I am disturbed; I try to do better but don't know, on the balance, how well I am doing. Perhaps I am just projecting, and this is not a problem for other people. But this is a worry I have about rhetorical 'dirty tricks.' They enable self-interested bullying.
A lot of crimes are under-reported. I don't think there's any way for a rape victim or a victim of a home invasion to discuss talking about what personally happened to them without extremes of emotion. While some people certainly become numb and detached, victim-blaming is usually in a context to prevent the victims from speaking out about the wrong that happened to them. This is exactly the time when someone should speak up, despite their inability to discuss the subject in an emotionless and detached manner. The context matters, of course, and I'm sure some people are talking about "when discussing on the PA forums" rather than "when talking about rape victims", but it's something to think about (and maybe clarify when you are posting something... it would only be polite, after all
It also occurs to me that civility is often considered a product of education (either socialization to the particular values of a culture or institutional knowledge learned through school). Is civility yet another way for those who are educated to oppress minorities (note: Not necessarily racial minorities... a double digit percentage of adults in America are currently functionally illiterate, for example) who are often under-educated (either through having less socialization to the surrounding culture or not "having enough book learning" as it were)? "Those uneducated (insert group) just don't know how to speak properly, and therefore I can ignore their plight" or something similar. It's a thought that disturbs me, especially with the educational disparities between various racial groups in the US. It also disturbs me because I consider myself well-educated (I spent 10 years after high school getting various degrees), and it makes me think "How many arguments with good points have I personally discounted simply because the speaker of those arguments was inarticulate or what I would consider not within my bounds of civility?"
Malicious intent is nor required for harm, no, but if I am engaging in a permitted activity and you happen to be harmed, that does not mean that I must demur to you. It all depends on context, but in the context of a discussion on these boards, I am very comfortable saying that Speaker A has done no wrong and that if Speaker B is uncivil then she is categorically in the wrong.
If your intent is not to persuade, then why talk to the person you so staunchly disagree with at all? It may provide emotional relief to yell at him and call him names, but it doesn't really accomplish anything, and that is not the reaction of an adult.
They win if she calls them names too. Any reaction is a win condition for them. Better to not play the game, imo.
She was absolutely in persuasion mode when she made those tweets though. She was literally presenting evidence exposing them to be conspirators against her. She was trying to persuade the audience. I think that just posting the logs without the added color would have been the stronger statement.
Under certain circumstances if you don't you'll be seen as uncivil.
That depends on what you mean by "uncivil," many people would consider ignoring a person offended by racism, homophobia and sexism uncivil. Civility isn't limited to being polite, it's reacting sympathetically.
Adults can swear and be snarky, and remain adults. It depends on what the person is trying to accomplish, if the offender is that deluded that they're beyond redemption by arguing their opponent has nothing to lose by confronting them.
Not playing the game isn't an option for victims. There is no escape hatch to run to.
Her opinion establishes context and her thought of the matter, which is very important since she's a victim at the center of the conflict. That's vital to persuade her audience.
How are you defining "a permitted activity?" If Speaker A created a thread on these forums that said, "Gay people are sinners and inferior and here is why" then I have no doubt that thread would be locked and the poster infracted or banned since it violates the Don't Be A Dick rule. Framing it as "Just a policy statement" or "Well I wasn't talking about these particular gay people, only gay people in general" or "Well I'm sorry you took offense, but it's true" is not going to be an acceptable defense against that hammer. By its very nature it is an inflammatory statement, and moderation to head off the inevitable flame war is rightly placed.
Esteemed moderators, please correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption.
Because by addressing them directly you are attempting to persuade on-lookers? Reinforce the beliefs of supporters? Put social pressure on your opponent or his supporters to rethink their hurtful arguments? Call for a little empathy? Motivate the base to action? Refuse to back down or be cowed by an oppressor? There are a lot of reasons to speak other than "convince the other guy."
As above, my read on the situation was that she was not only convincing third parties that her attackers were being shitlords, but making a defiant statement directly to them that she would not be intimidated, she would not go quietly into the night, she would not take their abuse and meekly present cold dry evidence against them. She would fight back with but a fraction of the vitriol shown her, not just for herself but for the other victims of that unforgivable harassment.
And I think that's a perfectly acceptable message to send, and anybody watching from the sidelines who tut-tuts about the tone she used is not an ally she really needs in the first place.
But it kind of feels like you want everyone else to hold to the same standard all the time (and in all places) and I don't really think that's a reasonable expectation.
Speech certainly has different purposes. I think we can divide all speech into persuasive and non-persuasive speech. Persuasive speech can be further subdivided into speech to persuade one's opponent and ones audience. When trying to persuade an opponent, I think civility is generally a prerequisite to effective conversation. When trying to persuade an audience, snark may be effective, but, as MrMr said any success achieved is ill gotten/stolen.
Non-persuasive speech necessitates civility less, but even in the most personal situation, I still do not think that things like name calling or personal insults help anything. At best they provide emotional relief, but in my opinion, doing something like yelling or name calling is the way a child deals with being upset.
I am saying exactly that people should show the same level of civility and patience that I do on these boards when engaged in persuasive speech. If everyone did then everyone would actually need much less patience. . .