Where does civility belong in debate?

[Cato]

As a new poster, I have perused a few threads and noticed that civility isn't one of some of your strong suits. I see this a lot on forums, a coarsening of the culture that makes me wonder if there is any such thing as debate anymore. It's not just here, of course. It seems to be everywhere.

Does being wrong have to equate with a certain amount of "evil"? Does being on the other side of an issue have to mean that those opposing you are too "stupid" to understand things?

Can there be more than one side of an issue?

What say you?

[Angel Ramirez]

Shouldn't you just be thankful that no one's threatening to kill, mutilate or maim your physical body into seeing things their way?

It's just debating on a message board. Are you really that fucking wimpy?

I run into people like you all the time on the internet and the real world.

[LooF]

most humans look for something to put down in order to establish the fact that they are superior

so it will happen everywhere and anywhere

[Sapius]

Cato,

Does being wrong have to equate with a certain amount of "evil"? Does being on the other side of an issue have to mean that those opposing you are too "stupid" to understand things?

Not necessarily, but as Loof mentions above, generally that is the case.

I would say try not to let it bother you much, that is if it does, but it is good to think why it does exist. Understanding why it exists will lead one to understand the nature of the human mind, and much more.

Can there be more than one side of an issue?

Sure, there can, but it depends on the issue at hand. You can start a topic if you like or respond on what you see here, and simply ignore the uncivilized. The question is, can you do that?

.

On behalf of the forum admins, I would like to say, welcome.

[Cato]

You can start a topic if you like or respond on what you see here, and simply ignore the uncivilized. The question is, can you do that?

Well, that was an interesting thing to say. I felt it not quite thought through, but interesting.

Is it impossible to respond without vitriol to someone who gives vitriol? Does one have to simply ignore incivility and ignorance? I suppose simply ignoring such a low bred person would be one way of handling the situation, but, on the other hand, to always ignore such outbursts of stupidity merely encourages it and might even legitimize it if no scolding word in return is ever uttered. (And this goes on to the "if you leave them alone they will leave you alone" canard which leads us to the violence and it's response issue, I'd think)

For instance, here is how I respond to the poster named Rear Naked Choke...

"Wow. 50 some words and not a substantive point can be culled out of them. How sad."

To me, that would be a perfect reply. I did not reply in kind with his ineloquent usage of language. I did not name call like he did. I didn't bother to point out his foolish assumptions that one little post informs him of all he needs to know to assess whether he has, indeed, "run into" someone like me before. I didn't need to stoop low enough to this person's level to reply yet I still replied.

Still, I do not eschew the occasional name calling, nor do I shy away from the attack. Further, I don't think you need to to still stay on your point in debate. There is also sarcasm among friendly opponents that is acceptable. As long as the "you're an idiot" is meant with enough friendly jest in it, that is acceptable because that is a relationship between people that has been created and accepted by both parties.

Also, there really can be a time when you just must decide that the person with whom you are arguing is so utterly uninformed about the issue that they are "stupid" about it. And there can be someone who is so filled with hatred and rage that they are unable to see logic at all.

I think my complaint is that this conclusion that the opponent is stupid and not merely wrong is jumped to far too quickly these days. Disagreement does not equate to a confirmation of stupidity. We should force ourselves to observe civility, at the very least until we have had enough information to make an informed decision as to the intelligence of our opponent.

But, this is a matter of societal and religious pressures. Because I agree with Loof that man will nearly always bow to the lowest common denominator. Society and religion are the only things that can put a curb on the license that most people are prone to grasp for. Rear Naked Choke proved that concept quite well.

And, Sapius... thanks for the welcome.

So, now. How does the very name of this forum fit in with civility? I'd say that anyone arrogant enough to label himself a "genius" probably has a lot of problems in the civility department! (just a little poke in the ribs there)

[Nick]

Can there be more than one side of an issue?

On issues regarding truth, there can be an infinite number of conclusions, but only one answer.

[Sapius]

Cato,

So, now. How does the very name of this forum fit in with civility? I'd say that anyone arrogant enough to label himself a "genius" probably has a lot of problems in the civility department! (just a little poke in the ribs there)

Such pokes are understandable; actually, it is a very important observation and question.

Please read the Introduction on the Index page, which defines ‘genius’ differently.

[Angel Ramirez]

You can start a topic if you like or respond on what you see here, and simply ignore the uncivilized. The question is, can you do that?

Well, that was an interesting thing to say. I felt it not quite thought through, but interesting.

Is it impossible to respond without vitriol to someone who gives vitriol? Does one have to simply ignore incivility and ignorance? I suppose simply ignoring such a low bred person would be one way of handling the situation, but, on the other hand, to always ignore such outbursts of stupidity merely encourages it and might even legitimize it if no scolding word in return is ever uttered. (And this goes on to the "if you leave them alone they will leave you alone" canard which leads us to the violence and it's response issue, I'd think)

For instance, here is how I respond to the poster named Rear Naked Choke...

"Wow. 50 some words and not a substantive point can be culled out of them. How sad."

To me, that would be a perfect reply. I did not reply in kind with his ineloquent usage of language. I did not name call like he did. I didn't bother to point out his foolish assumptions that one little post informs him of all he needs to know to assess whether he has, indeed, "run into" someone like me before. I didn't need to stoop low enough to this person's level to reply yet I still replied.

Still, I do not eschew the occasional name calling, nor do I shy away from the attack. Further, I don't think you need to to still stay on your point in debate. There is also sarcasm among friendly opponents that is acceptable. As long as the "you're an idiot" is meant with enough friendly jest in it, that is acceptable because that is a relationship between people that has been created and accepted by both parties.

Also, there really can be a time when you just must decide that the person with whom you are arguing is so utterly uninformed about the issue that they are "stupid" about it. And there can be someone who is so filled with hatred and rage that they are unable to see logic at all.

I think my complaint is that this conclusion that the opponent is stupid and not merely wrong is jumped to far too quickly these days. Disagreement does not equate to a confirmation of stupidity. We should force ourselves to observe civility, at the very least until we have had enough information to make an informed decision as to the intelligence of our opponent.

But, this is a matter of societal and religious pressures. Because I agree with Loof that man will nearly always bow to the lowest common denominator. Society and religion are the only things that can put a curb on the license that most people are prone to grasp for. Rear Naked Choke proved that concept quite well.

And, Sapius... thanks for the welcome.

So, now. How does the very name of this forum fit in with civility? I'd say that anyone arrogant enough to label himself a "genius" probably has a lot of problems in the civility department! (just a little poke in the ribs there)

Wow. Way more than fifty words and you said even less than I did. That's not sad. That's amazing. You are amazing.

[Cato]

... childish retort. Right on cue.

Maybe "genius forum" is a misnomer for some posters?

Whata'ya think?

[Angel Ramirez]

Maybe "genius forum" is a misnomer for some posters?

Well, if you read the definition of genius by the moderators of the board you would find that most people here do not match it.

Is it a misnomer regarding yourself? If you belong on a genius message board maybe you can tell me who is and isn't a genius. I'd appreciate it.

[Cato]

... assuming, of course, that I should somehow take it as a duty to inform you about life? You'll excuse me if I deem that a waste of my time.
;)

[Dan Rowden]

Hello Cato, and echoing Sapius, welcome to the board. Firstly, regarding the board's name, let me point out that this isn't, necessarily, a place for those that claim Genius, though some do, it is a place for the discussion of Genius and its nature. I trust you'll see the difference. Secondly, regarding the quesion of civility, I wrote the following a while back (as an editorial in Genius News) with reference to our old email forum, Genius-L, but it applies just as well to this place:

--------------------

"Sense and Sensibility"

by Dan Rowden

"We here at genius-l are quick on the attack, quick on the assumption, and quick on the judgement. It is, for the most part, a hostile environment, not one where all ideas are welcomed for the purpose of discourse. It is one thing to discuss something and dismiss it for lack of merit. It is another to attack it on the assumptions and prejudices we hold." Jim Downey 8/02/01

Genius-L is most assuredly a challenging, uncompromising and intolerant environment. It is not, however, openly hostile. How people respond to the environment of the list is an indicator of the workings of society in general, and how in that society, private sensibilities constantly get in the way of open, no-nonsense discussion. There is always the most extraordinary arrogance at work in anyone who seeks to exercise control over the tenor of a discussion on the basis of their egotistical sensibilities. It happens all the time. It is inconceivable to me that all but a rare few of those reading this editorial could not be occasionally or regularly guilty of this behaviour.

When a person becomes defensive and indignant over the way their views are being addressed one can be sure that behind that defensiveness is insecurity and an unwillingness to scrutinise those views without prejudice. It is one thing to speak of the prejudice others express towards us and our beliefs, but another to recognise the prejudice we hold towards our own position. It is this particular prejudice that ignites our indignation and causes us to feel as though we are being wrongly forced to validate ourselves, when, all the while, we are asking that very thing of others.

How often do we witness accusations of prejudice, based on nothing more than one's inability to see any reason that such prejudice is justified. It does not follow that because we can see no reason to be generally dismissive of, for example, the religious mentality, that others are likewise limited in their vision. The projection of one's perceived limitations onto others, either in the quality and capacity of reason or in one's level of knowledge, is painfully common.

Clearly, the quest for truth is undermined by the existence of groundless prejudice in us, but whilst we continue to paranoically see it only in those who disagree with us, our own prejudice will do its damage quietly in the background of our conscousness. If we are remotely serious in our quest for understanding, for wisdom, we cannot afford to wear our sensibilities on our sleeve, we cannot afford to heed them or demand that others do so. We cannot afford to allow reason to be dictated to by our egos.

Philosophy is rendered impotent if there is one single thing that is left untouched, unexamined, that is not stripped bare and its true nature exposed to the light of reason. Nothing is or can be sacred in the face of such a goal, including our belief in our right to keep some part of us separate from the process of philosophic discourse; some aspect of our selves that we wish to protect from the harsh scrutiny of intellectual critique and discrimination. Philosophy cannot proceed where there is the slightest will to keep hidden away in the dark caverns of our ego, either our most precious attachments, or even the most fleeting and seemingly insignificant of them.

Philosophy is not simply about ideas and how they relate; it is, at all times and in all ways, about..........you.

--------------------

Dan Rowden

[swan]

Do we need fancy protocol to express our ideas and to discuss things? i believe not.

Is it useful? well, only if it's synergical.

Wouldn't the civility parameters confine our ability and right to share ideas?

I believe that aslong as we can share thoughts and get something out of this conversations, even with the supposed lack of civility, this forum fulfilled it's objective.

[XealotX]

Civility is best saved for discussions among relative peers, or essentially in more or less controlled environments. In open and relatively anonymous forums, such as are common on the net, the right to ask someone what the fuck they've been smoking is actually critical to maintaining the integrity of a discussion. I personality believe a certain degree of hostility to be a very good test of another's conviction as well as the overall integrity of their arguments.

I also find that in certain cases civility can actually narrow the communication bandwidth to an extent, as well as foster ambiguities.

[Andrew]

I agree with XealotX's point that no holds barred conversation is probably more efficient in general conversation on anonymous internet forums (as well as in real life). I think this is so, mainly because whether we would rather it be the case or not, we communicate much more information than we realise through our pragmatics, and this information is often fairly crucial in general discussion. But I think a lack of civility, will tend to do nothing but hinder the efficient transmission of *technical* understanding of a given topic under discussion.

I think there are a range of different reasons why rudeness is rife on this forum. There are some situations I have caught myself being very rude to someone because I have felt that their views are ignorantly immoral, and need to be stamped out quick. Likewise, I have been the target of such treatment on many occasions. But I think these occurrences are relatively uncommon, even though they are the only cases where I think morality, and hence “evilness”, is applicable at all.

It’s far more common to be spoken to in a disrespectful manner either because the speaker is frustrated with you or your ideas, because the speaker believes that you “shouldn’t” react badly to his or her words (with the justification being that if you do, then you are just a wimp and don’t deserve sympathy), or because the speaker is aware of the general consensus among the forum’s regulars, and sees an opportunity to strengthen his or her bond with the group by making fun out of the outsider. And of course, there could be any combination of the above.

Ultimately, I believe that the problem does stem from the listener as opposed to the speaker. It would be most beneficial overall, if all visitors to this forum left their own value of “self” at the door. If this were the case, we could be free to discuss the subject matter *and* each others intellectual abilities without anyone becoming upset, resulting in a complete breakdown of the focus of the discussion. However, this is simply not possible. There are very few people here who can feel no reactionary emotion to discourteous conversation, and there is no way to legislate that everyone else achieves this state. It is far easier, however, to instigate a social consensus of civility.

So, for the benefit of the general flow and focus of discussion, I think there is reason to try to bring about a social taboo of speaking unkindly; as there is in many branches of greater society. But this is an attitude that will never catch in this particular group because of the stronger and more prevalent attitude that “one should not be a wimp” – deduced from the more general “do not be swayed by emotion”.

Andrew

[suergaz]

Andrew is a wise man.

[Cato]

Andrew is a wise man.

I disagree. In fact, it looks to me he neither understands what the purpose of civility is, nor does he want to admit that he only wants a discussion free of the niceties of having to consider the sensibilities of his opposite merely so that he can say what ever he wants to say without rapprochement.

And his foolish ideas of eliminating the 'self" in discussion is as absurd as the rest of his ideas. Man is nothing BUT the self. He may as well be asking a cat to consider itself a dog.

Further, I'd bet he walks about in life imagining that he is so much better than all around him because HE can subdue his "self" and think logically... yet he is so congratulatory of his "self" for the achievement.

No, Andrew is no more wise than many others. But he HAS succeeded in fooling himself that he is.

[Chadwick Stone]

It's not necessary to be civil in debate, although a modicum of civility does help convey a point in a more socially appealing manner. Some people desire social appeal, some people could care less.

[Cato]

Some people desire social appeal, some people could care less.

Some people know what civility IS, some are too self-important to learn it!

[Chadwick Stone]

Some people desire social appeal, some people could care less.

Some people know what civility IS, some are too self-important to learn it!

True.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't think it is true. In my experience those who "know" what civility is are usually those what wish to impose their personal egotistical sensibilities onto a discussion. Civility is far too subjective a thing to have any meaning in the context of serious philosophical discussion. The only "civility" that ought apply in such a context is the genuine valuing of truth and reason. That's what makes for meaningful discussion.


Dan Rowden

[Cato]

Civility is far too subjective a thing to have any meaning in the context of serious philosophical discussion.

It's only "subjective" if you don't want to be "forced" to observe it. Otherwise, it is quite easy to learn of its parameters.

The only "civility" that ought apply in such a context is the genuine valuing of truth and reason.

Interesting that you feel "civility" is too subjective to bother with, but that "truth and reason" is so universal that we must all observe it!

That's what makes for meaningful discussion.

No, meaningful discussion can only be had when both sides observe enough civility to share ideas, ideas that may end up changing a position dearly held. Without civility, that discussion is rare.

[Chadwick Stone]

I don't think it is true. In my experience those who "know" what civility is are usually those what wish to impose their personal egotistical sensibilities onto a discussion.

I "know" what civility is but I don't expect others to agree or exercise civility. Sometimes I'm civil, sometimes I'm an asshole, the difference between me and most other people is that I'm not in denial when it comes to being an asshole.

Civility is far too subjective a thing to have any meaning in the context of serious philosophical discussion. The only "civility" that ought apply in such a context is the genuine valuing of truth and reason. That's what makes for meaningful discussion.

Many people (IMO) ascribe meaningless pleasantries to civility, but as you said, it's subjective.

[Dan Rowden]

There are no real "objective" standards for so-called "civility". One man's civility is another man's grovelling sychophancy, and yet another's pretence to empathy. Nietzsche's literary approach is widely regarded as lacking civility and yet I think it is overbrimming with it. There are more objective standards with respect to matters such as coherence and logic. It all really comes down to one's motives and their purity or lack thereof.

Cato,

How exactly are you defining "civility" (dictionary defintions just go round in circles with respect to these concepts and are therefore useless)? Can you give a brief description of what you mean by it? I can only find rather tenuous allusions to what you mean in this thread thus far.


Dan Rowden

[Cato]

How exactly are you defining "civility"

Civility

-Discussion without name calling
-Discussion without assumptions of automatic superiority (at least not on constant display of that feeling, anyway)
-Not constantly interrupting who you are talking to (of course this is not an internet problem)
-Asking about a point instead of assuming you KNOW what he "really" meant
-Having Patience and good humor

But, in a discussion of presumable import like philosophy, the first one is prime.