Debate Now Incivility

[Foxfyre]

Since this mornings episode...I took the advice of one of the ladies that saw all that go down today at the beach and went to another place CLOSER to home. That will be our new spot.

Nobody goes there often. So...I doubt if I will stumble across another uncivil person with uncivil dogs unleashed.

That's sort of what I meant. I want the SDZ to provide a refuge where uncivil dogs won't be allowed to run free and spoil everybody else's experience.

And in a way that was the purpose behind this thread to begin with. We all should be able to live without incivility if we choose to do so. I would like to start encouraging a culture and society where that is a lot more possible than it is in many places now.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Since this mornings episode...I took the advice of one of the ladies that saw all that go down today at the beach and went to another place CLOSER to home. That will be our new spot.

Nobody goes there often. So...I doubt if I will stumble across another uncivil person with uncivil dogs unleashed.

That's sort of what I meant. I want the SDZ to provide a refuge where uncivil dogs won't be allowed to run free and spoil everybody else's experience.

And in a way that was the purpose behind this thread to begin with. We all should be able to live without incivility if we choose to do so. I would like to start encouraging a culture and society where that is a lot more possible than it is in many places now.

I concur with you on that point.

 

[Foxfyre]

Scanning through some of today's headlines, I inadvertently stumbled across this National Journal article/study that suggests at least one NYC article that suggests our propensity to be liberal or conservative could be hardwired into our psyche. That in itself is not a problem. . .but. . .our propensity to to adhere to a team mentality, or more precisely, a my team is better than your team mentality does make it much more difficult to hear each other or be at all sympathetic or sensitive to differing points of view.

The article is here:
How Politics Breaks Our Brains and How We Can Put Them Back Together - NationalJournal.com

One of the illustrations used deep into the article was the 'like' button provided as a way to respond to message board posts. It was suggested that something as innocuous as 'liking' another member's post can aggravate the tension between opposing groups. But when the 'like' button was replaced with a 'respect' button, it made a huge difference in the emotional responses of those participating in the discussion. You can 'respect' somebody's point of view without necessarily agreeing with all or anything they said.

And now I'm thinking about that.

 

[Wake]

If someone makes the effort to share their political/social/religious views in a cordial, respectful, and genuine way, I adore that, and am way, WAY more willing to listen and consider your views than someone who'd shout at and call me vulgar names.

It's not about the message [except in rare cases like crazy nazis and commies], but about the way it is given. I find that being quieter, kinder, softer, and more patient and respectful in the way I share my views seems to help make my views more receptive to fellow members [not tooting my own horn: learned this through tons of trial and error].

 

[Foxfyre]

If someone makes the effort to share their political/social/religious views in a cordial, respectful, and genuine way, I adore that, and am way, WAY more willing to listen and consider your views than someone who'd shout at and call me vulgar names.

It's not about the message [except in rare cases like crazy nazis and commies], but about the way it is given. I find that being quieter, kinder, softer, and more patient and respectful in the way I share my views seems to help make my views more receptive to fellow members [not tooting my own horn: learned this through tons of trial and error].

I don't get attacked a great deal for my views and maybe it is because, like you, I have learned to communicate in a less combative manner and that does work with most. At the same time, I am as capable of being as annoyed as the next person when some numbnut insists on accusing me of -- for example -- hating old people because I support privatization of social security or hating the poor because I think those receiving public assistance should have to actually do something to receive that assistance if they are able to do so.

Or when somebody demands that I agree with him/her or else I am the intractable or recalcitrant one.

I do try to avoid taking the bait when it is dangled out there trying to provoke a fight thought.

But I do like the idea of a 'respect' button instead of a 'like' button. The argument made for that makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Gracie]

Wake and FF posts are right on the mark. I click the buttons supplied here, but one gal had a hissy and told me to STOP agreeing with her because she dislikes me. Um. Ok. I don't particularly care for her either but she sure says things quite often that I agree with. However, since she had a tantrum and I know I would forget...and probably click when she demanded that I stop...I had to put her on ignore. Which is a bummer cuz I am missing out on some of her great posts. Then again, I am missing out on her slams towards me for agreeing with her, too, so I guess its best.

 

[candycorn]

I call them the way I see them. What is most uncivil are people who are shown to be incorrect, wrong, and they still insist they are correct. Profanity only bothers the insecure.

 

[Ravi]

Scanning through some of today's headlines, I inadvertently stumbled across this National Journal article/study that suggests at least one NYC article that suggests our propensity to be liberal or conservative could be hardwired into our psyche. That in itself is not a problem. . .but. . .our propensity to to adhere to a team mentality, or more precisely, a my team is better than your team mentality does make it much more difficult to hear each other or be at all sympathetic or sensitive to differing points of view.

The article is here:
How Politics Breaks Our Brains and How We Can Put Them Back Together - NationalJournal.com

One of the illustrations used deep into the article was the 'like' button provided as a way to respond to message board posts. It was suggested that something as innocuous as 'liking' another member's post can aggravate the tension between opposing groups. But when the 'like' button was replaced with a 'respect' button, it made a huge difference in the emotional responses of those participating in the discussion. You can 'respect' somebody's point of view without necessarily agreeing with all or anything they said.

And now I'm thinking about that.

That sounds rather PC.

 

[Foxfyre]

The article I think also nailed the idea of partisanship or the 'us vs them' mentality being a huge component in many forms of incivility. It used illustrations that if you remove that aspect from the mix, that people react much differently and are likely to be less combative and less critical of each other and more willing to cooperate.

It used the illustration of President Jimmy Carter negotiating a peace agreement between Sadat of Egypt and Begin of Israel and at one point humanizing those talks by giving an intractable Begin autographed photos of his grand children. This was effective in reminding Begin of what was at stake and brought him back to the negotiating table.

Dana Perino in her new book recounts President G.W. Bush dealing with a very divided group of Israeli ministers during negotiations between Abbas of Palestine and Olmert of Israel. The Israelis were not in agreement and personal tensions were high. And some were especially angry with Olmert for entering into the talks. At one point during the state dinner Olmert had arranged, President Bush asked each to tell something personal about himself--where he was from, how his family came to Israel. As each told his story, others reacted: "Wait, your dad was in Poland in 1928? So was my dad!" The exercise erased the tension, the group started talking with each other again, and there was a new spirit of cooperation and comraderie that extended into the peace talks.

A great deal can be accomplished by making an effort to at least hear and understand the other person's point of view and see the other as a person instead of an adversary. When we insist that we are right and they are wrong and make no effort to find any common ground, we start talking at each other and not with each other. And that results in much incivility.

 

[Foxfyre]

The article I think also nailed the idea of partisanship or the 'us vs them' mentality being a huge component in many forms of incivility. It used illustrations that if you remove that aspect from the mix, that people react much differently and are likely to be less combative and less critical of each other and more willing to cooperate.

It used the illustration of President Jimmy Carter negotiating a peace agreement between Sadat of Egypt and Begin of Israel and at one point humanizing those talks by giving an intractable Begin autographed photos of his grand children. This was effective in reminding Begin of what was at stake and brought him back to the negotiating table.

Dana Perino in her new book recounts President G.W. Bush dealing with a very divided group of Israeli ministers during negotiations between Abbas of Palestine and Olmert of Israel. The Israelis were not in agreement and personal tensions were high. And some were especially angry with Olmert for entering into the talks. At one point during the state dinner Olmert had arranged, President Bush asked each to tell something personal about himself--where he was from, how his family came to Israel. As each told his story, others reacted: "Wait, your dad was in Poland in 1928? So was my dad!" The exercise erased the tension, the group started talking with each other again, and there was a new spirit of cooperation and comraderie that extended into the peace talks.

A great deal can be accomplished by making an effort to at least hear and understand the other person's point of view and see the other as a person instead of an adversary. When we insist that we are right and they are wrong and make no effort to find any common ground, we start talking at each other and not with each other. And that results in much incivility.

The management styles of Obama and Reagan are very similar. They turn over control to people they trust and do not manage them closely. This is how you end up with Iran Contra and the VA Scandals (to name one from each administration).

So you would relate that to the topic of incivility how?

 

[candycorn]

Some people's ability to look at such facts and claim their management styles are nothing alike.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some people's ability to look at such facts and claim their management styles are nothing alike.

One more time, how does that relate to the thread topic? Please relate it to the thread topic or take it as a separate topic to a different thread. This thread is entitled 'incivility'.

 

[Wake]

Yes, I'm bumping this thread.

No matter what political side you're on, the best way to be heard is to be civil, genuine, and forthright.

If I talk politics with a liberal and start calling him stupid, hackish names or trying to be subtle and ridicule him, chances of him wanting to even consider my views is slim to none. If we have no intention of trying to persuade others to our beliefs, or actually want them to understand us a bit better, what is the point of even posting?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I'm bumping this thread.

No matter what political side you're on, the best way to be heard is to be civil, genuine, and forthright.

If I talk politics with a liberal and start calling him stupid, hackish names or trying to be subtle and ridicule him, chances of him wanting to even consider my views is slim to none. If we have no intention of trying to persuade others to our beliefs, or actually want them to understand us a bit better, what is the point of even posting?

I have family members and good friends, and even some friends here at USMB who are pretty much the polar opposite of me on most political and social issues, but we get along fine because we discuss all manner of things and when we do disagree on something, we disagree civilly. Such people I can and do admire a great deal and appreciate more than I can probably explain here.

But then there are those who cannot disagree without being disagreeable and/or uncivil, and it is very difficult to respect that.

How did we become a culture that cannot argue without insulting people? And honestly, can anybody think of a single time in which their mind was changed by somebody directing insults at them?

 

[Wolfsister77]

I don't think you are going to find a forum anywhere on the internet where there isn't someone insulting people. And when it comes to Politics, it's always going to be there. The best way to deal with it, is ignore those people and not engage them. If they have no one responding to their crap, they'll probably find talking to themselves pretty boring.

On the other hand, a lot of these conversations are about issues where people have very heated opinions on them so there's going to be arguing. I have friends and family who I don't agree with politically that I can still talk issues with because they know how to be civil. The important thing is to have an open mind and listen to what the other person is saying. I'm fine doing that anywhere but the minute someone gets nasty, I'm done.

And no, I doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed on any of these issues. You just have to hope someone is willing to listen.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think you are going to find a forum anywhere on the internet where there isn't someone insulting people. And when it comes to Politics, it's always going to be there. The best way to deal with it, is ignore those people and not engage them. If they have no one responding to their crap, they'll probably find talking to themselves pretty boring.

On the other hand, a lot of these conversations are about issues where people have very heated opinions on them so there's going to be arguing. I have friends and family who I don't agree with politically that I can still talk issues with because they know how to be civil. The important thing is to have an open mind and listen to what the other person is saying. I'm fine doing that anywhere but the minute someone gets nasty, I'm done.

And no, I doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed on any of these issues. You just have to hope someone is willing to listen.

The only thing I would gently argue with you about that is that you must have an open mind. I don't think it is at all necessary to have an open mind about what does not deserve consideration or what is obviously so prejudicial or so polarized there is no reasonable discussion possible. In those cases civility comes down to allowing and respecting a person for who and what they are no matter how intractable or wrong we know they are.

I think civility it is allowing a person their beliefs and convictions and allowing a person to be who or what he/she is so long as that is not forced on anybody else. For example only, if you tell me that (the generic) you believes there is no God and all religion is bogus, civility allows you right to your opinion with no need to insult or even challenge you on that. But if (the generic) you tells me that I am fanatical or delusional or an idiot for holding my religious beliefs and/or I should be denied the ability to express them, then civility becomes much more difficult.

 

[Foxfyre]

Expanding on my post to Wolfsister, I will first offer a reminder of what the thread topic is:

TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Why are people uncivil and so often say hateful or insulting or hurtful things to each other in this and other environments? What do they get out of it? Do they hope to accomplish something? Has anybody ever had their mind changed by somebody yelling at them and/or being insulting? What purpose does it serve? Is there some sort of personal satisfaction attached to it? And is this a good thing? Bad thing? Can it harm people? What affect, if anything, does incivility have on others, especially kids?

Currently there are two hot button issues being discussed on message boards, social media, in the mainstream media, etc. all across the land:
1. The Confederate flag
2. The SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage

Some people do see racism and hatred when they see the Confederate flag. But why do those people refuse to allow others to see it in an entirely different light that has nothing to do with racism or hatred of anybody? Or vice versa? Why does that have to be an uncivil discussion with accusations of racist and hate thrown at those who think people should be allowed to fly the stars and bars if they want to or 'stupid' leveled at those who don't like the flag or symbol?

Many people are elated with the SCOTUS decision on SSM and others are dismayed in their opinion that SCOTUS overstepped its constitutional authority and is meddling in an area that should be left to the states to decide. What does that have to be an uncivil discussion with 'you want to destroy all our liberties' leveled at the supporters and 'you want to deny equal rights to gays' leveled at the opponents of that decision?

Why can't there be tolerance for different points of view?

 

[Wake]

In my years of political debate and discussion, I find that honey is almost always preferable to vinegar. Unless you're dealing with a few retarded cukes that need pickling. /jk

If I can sense that someone with a differing view than mine is actually—and honestly—receptive, I work on that immediately, becoming far more gentler and going more out of my way to understand that persson. If the goal is not to argue, but to be understand, with the added bonus of potentially changing minds, the way you approach this distant goal is absolutely critical and requires a lot of tact, patience, and civility.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my years of political debate and discussion, I find that honey is almost always preferable to vinegar. Unless you're dealing with a few retarded cukes that need pickling. /jk

If I can sense that someone with a differing view than mine is actually—and honestly—receptive, I work on that immediately, becoming far more gentler and going more out of my way to understand that persson. If the goal is not to argue, but to be understand, with the added bonus of potentially changing minds, the way you approach this distant goal is absolutely critical and requires a lot of tact, patience, and civility.

In listening techniques used in conflict management we would ask opposing persons in conflict to accurately state exactly what the other person said so that the person could know s/he had been heard and understood. You can't believe how hard it is to get people to do that though. They so strongly want to accuse the other of what they think the other intended instead of dealing with exactly what the other said.

 

[Wake]

When that occurs, a good strategy is to de-structure the arguments of that person.

The goal is to break down that person's posts into smaller and more succinct bits, to get to the bottom of it.

In a nutshell, boiling it down. Down to the 'why.'