Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
A couple of debates have been started - with varying degrees of success - over the lack of civility in much of our discourse as a people.
This debate will be refreshingly different.
I do think that there is a certain incivility out there, but I am not so sure that it is such a new thing. If you look at presidential campaign placards from as early as 1804, you can see a whole lot of mud being flung, and it was nasty, too.
Of course, what is new is social media and the opportunity for anyone with internet access and an anonymous identity on a forum such as USMB, to say pretty much anything that he or she wants to say, and that with impunity. 210 years ago, hurling insults could easily result in a real life duel to the death. Not so in the comfortable armchair-quarterback of the internet-equipped 21st Century!
I believe there are 4 major factors that lead to incivility:
1.) Hyperpartisanship - epecially in the fringe media, which spills over into personal behavior.
2.) the advent of endless commentary all over the place in social media. I swear, it looks as if it has become a sporting event, aka, who can outflame the other person better.
3.) personal frustration, from emotional to financial to religous to sexual, you name it.
4.) the cloak and dagger of anonymity.
Being sporned on by media personalities who make money of off peoples' frustrations, and armed with an anonymous identity + avatar, many people use forums to say things I doubt they would ever say in the real world, not even for a second. And they have no qualms about writing a lot of stuff when maybe drunk or stoned, or both.
Feel free to very openly discuss these 4 factors and if you think another factor is also in place, then simply add it and explain.
That is one half of the equation.
Here is the other half. This is new:
Each person who joins this thread and first comments on the above material is then welcome to tag someone else in USMB with whom he has had problems or currently has problems. But please be careful and only tag someone whom you know for sure does not have you on ignore. This should be a person you think has been especially uncivil to you. Regardless, you are going to be civil to that individual on this thread, to be sure.
And then, using the following formulation, please write the following, inserting the appropriate material in the parenthesis, of course:
"(tagged person), you often attack or write to me using phrases such as (insert material). Not only do I not like this, I feel that it cheapens the debate and I consider it very uncivil. I would like to know why you are motivated to do this so much. Please read the OP before you respond to me, should you choose to do so"
If the tagged person comes to this thread, then I ask of him to use a similar formulation, such as
"(tagged person), I often write these things to you because (insert material). In order to resolve this, I would like to see the following happen: (insert material)."
And if that person also feels that he is often treated with incivility from you, then he can go on with:
"BTW, you also often attack or write to me using phrases such as (insert material). Not only do I not like this, I feel like it cheapens the debate and I consider it very uncivil. I would like to know why you are motivated to do this so much. Please read the OP before you respond to me, should you choose to do so".
Once both tagged people are on this thread, if they so choose, they may choose to tag a third person to analyse both of their inputs/arguments and suggest a civil solution for their problem. In other words, a neutral mediator to just read the arguments and give a suggestion, nothing less and nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Da roolz:
No flaming, no insults, no ad homs. The general definitions for these things, especially as outlined by CK in the rules page, stand, so don't try to be sly and slink around the issue. NO making up your own definitions - that is a NO-NO. Just be upfront and avoid these things from the get-go.
You are definitely allowed to refer to the behaviour of specific groups or people or ideologies to make your point, but the formulation should be not intended to flame-bait. In other words, when you write what you have to write, I want to you write this as if today would be your last day on this beautiful planet of ours and there is no reason to go on the offensive anymore. Just be honest and open.
I bet you will be amazed at how people will respond if both side simply lower their weapons enough to be able to actually see the "eyes" of the other person.
And off we go....
I think that Derideo_Te would be an excellent test-subject for this thread....
This debate will be refreshingly different.
I do think that there is a certain incivility out there, but I am not so sure that it is such a new thing. If you look at presidential campaign placards from as early as 1804, you can see a whole lot of mud being flung, and it was nasty, too.
Of course, what is new is social media and the opportunity for anyone with internet access and an anonymous identity on a forum such as USMB, to say pretty much anything that he or she wants to say, and that with impunity. 210 years ago, hurling insults could easily result in a real life duel to the death. Not so in the comfortable armchair-quarterback of the internet-equipped 21st Century!
I believe there are 4 major factors that lead to incivility:
1.) Hyperpartisanship - epecially in the fringe media, which spills over into personal behavior.
2.) the advent of endless commentary all over the place in social media. I swear, it looks as if it has become a sporting event, aka, who can outflame the other person better.
3.) personal frustration, from emotional to financial to religous to sexual, you name it.
4.) the cloak and dagger of anonymity.
Being sporned on by media personalities who make money of off peoples' frustrations, and armed with an anonymous identity + avatar, many people use forums to say things I doubt they would ever say in the real world, not even for a second. And they have no qualms about writing a lot of stuff when maybe drunk or stoned, or both.
Feel free to very openly discuss these 4 factors and if you think another factor is also in place, then simply add it and explain.
That is one half of the equation.
Here is the other half. This is new:
Each person who joins this thread and first comments on the above material is then welcome to tag someone else in USMB with whom he has had problems or currently has problems. But please be careful and only tag someone whom you know for sure does not have you on ignore. This should be a person you think has been especially uncivil to you. Regardless, you are going to be civil to that individual on this thread, to be sure.
And then, using the following formulation, please write the following, inserting the appropriate material in the parenthesis, of course:
"(tagged person), you often attack or write to me using phrases such as (insert material). Not only do I not like this, I feel that it cheapens the debate and I consider it very uncivil. I would like to know why you are motivated to do this so much. Please read the OP before you respond to me, should you choose to do so"
If the tagged person comes to this thread, then I ask of him to use a similar formulation, such as
"(tagged person), I often write these things to you because (insert material). In order to resolve this, I would like to see the following happen: (insert material)."
And if that person also feels that he is often treated with incivility from you, then he can go on with:
"BTW, you also often attack or write to me using phrases such as (insert material). Not only do I not like this, I feel like it cheapens the debate and I consider it very uncivil. I would like to know why you are motivated to do this so much. Please read the OP before you respond to me, should you choose to do so".
Once both tagged people are on this thread, if they so choose, they may choose to tag a third person to analyse both of their inputs/arguments and suggest a civil solution for their problem. In other words, a neutral mediator to just read the arguments and give a suggestion, nothing less and nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Da roolz:
No flaming, no insults, no ad homs. The general definitions for these things, especially as outlined by CK in the rules page, stand, so don't try to be sly and slink around the issue. NO making up your own definitions - that is a NO-NO. Just be upfront and avoid these things from the get-go.
You are definitely allowed to refer to the behaviour of specific groups or people or ideologies to make your point, but the formulation should be not intended to flame-bait. In other words, when you write what you have to write, I want to you write this as if today would be your last day on this beautiful planet of ours and there is no reason to go on the offensive anymore. Just be honest and open.
I bet you will be amazed at how people will respond if both side simply lower their weapons enough to be able to actually see the "eyes" of the other person.
And off we go....
I think that Derideo_Te would be an excellent test-subject for this thread....
Last edited:
