Debate Now Incivility

[Foxfyre]

Incivility will continue if the proffered olive branch is turned into a stick to beat the other side with!

Which makes one question if the desire expressed to end the incivility is sincere or merely just another means to refuse to accept responsibility and berate others for daring to stand on principle after the umpteenth violation.

Such cuts both ways. When one side is expected to make ALL the concessions and accept ALL the responsibility at the demands of the other, there is no confidence that any olive branches are genuine. When one side continues to complain and stomp its feet and point fingers and accuse and blame and dig up old grievances while the other has moved on, is minding its own business, and enjoying their shared experiences together, it isn't too difficult to determine where the incivility lies.

Again none of us are perfect. We all have errors in judgment. It's pretty hard to get through life without a few stumbles and faux pas along the way. We can either choose to accept each other as imperfect human beings or we can behave as angry, spoiled brats demanding that everybody who offends us in any way be immediately reprimanded, or even destroyed.

In the end, civility is generally obtained via a good sense of what is really important.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh the overwhelming irony!

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh the overwhelming irony!

It is ironic isn't it. Unfortunately, those who most need to see it will not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh the overwhelming irony!

It is ironic isn't it. Unfortunately, those who most need to see it will not.

Irony squared!

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh the overwhelming irony!

It is ironic isn't it. Unfortunately, those who most need to see it will not.

Irony squared!

Yup. As I said, those who most need to see it will not. And I strongly suggest that this now be dropped and everybody move on.

 

[Foxfyre]

Back to the concept of anonymity encouraging incivility, that continues to be a problem and has prompted a number of studies:

(emphasis mine)

, , ,“Anonymity has a long history in journalism dating back to the beginning of U.S. newspapers. In the 1700s, Benjamin Franklin used the pseudonym Silence Dogood to get his opinion published after being denied several times with his real name,” said Santana. “It has long been seen as a valuable way to express an opinion, however unpopular.”

At play is the so-called “online disinhibition effect,” which predicts that when people’s identity is hidden, their actions or words have no consequences, thus their inhibitions drop. Online, under the cloak of anonymity, people are more likely to behave in ways that they ordinarily would not if their identity was intact.

“One of the benefits of online anonymity is that it allows people to express their views, uninhibited, especially if it is an unpopular opinion,” Santana said. “It’s when commenting descends into hateful language, threats or racism that the conversation breaks down and any benefits of constructive dialogue goes away.”

Santana observed that non-anonymous commenters were nearly three times as likely to post civil comments. He found that 44 percent of non-anonymous commenters posted civil comments following news articles compared to 15 percent of anonymous commenters. “In short, when anonymity was removed, civility prevailed,” he said.

Vexed with an overwhelming number of uncivil comments that threaten to undermine the value of their commenting forums, newspapers are increasingly disallowing anonymity by making readers sign in with their Facebook account; 48.9 percent of the 137 largest U.S. newspapers have disallowed anonymity in their commenting forums, 41.6 percent allow anonymity and 9.4 percent do not have forums, Santana found. . .

. . .“Incivility serves as a barrier,” Santana said. “People don’t want to enter the fray when there are a bunch of bullies in the room. Why would you want to join a conversation when everyone is shouting at each other? It’s possible to be forceful, robust and emotional in your argument, but when even a small minority of people resort to hateful or even intimidating language, others are reluctant to join a conversation.” . . .
UH Researcher Finds Anonymity Makes a Difference with Online Comments - University of Houston​

So the question this poses, how many of us would do this at all if we had to use our real names and post as who we really are? And would that likely result in more civility? Or would this kind of medium become a great vacant lot?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh the overwhelming irony!

It is ironic isn't it. Unfortunately, those who most need to see it will not.

Irony squared!

Yup. As I said, those who most need to see it will not. And I strongly suggest that this now be dropped and everybody move on.

For what purpose?

To merely continue to bemoan the lack of civility after shooting down a sincere offer to reach a civil compromise?

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh the overwhelming irony!

It is ironic isn't it. Unfortunately, those who most need to see it will not.

Irony squared!

Yup. As I said, those who most need to see it will not. And I strongly suggest that this now be dropped and everybody move on.

For what purpose?

To merely continue to bemoan the lack of civility after shooting down a sincere offer to reach a civil compromise?

I'm not seeing any form of sincerity nor any form of compromise DT. That's purely my personal observation. Sorry. So please drop it and let's move on.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There are none so blind...

And yes, you can consider that to be an ad hom but can you save yourself the bother of reporting it because I am unsubscribing from a waste of my time thread.

Obviously you are not at all sincere in wanting to actually do anything constructive about ending the incivility that you are whining about.

/unsubscribe

 

[Foxfyre]

Now, back to the topic. . . .it is interesting that the second most checked option on the thread poll is that incivility is due to people not knowing any better. Referring again to Post #286 just above, if that is the case, would eliminating anonymity in these discussions really make any difference?

 

[Gracie]

I just experienced incivility. Feel a bit better and took the dogs to the little beach we go to and a BIG guy..at least 6'3" or so and his two dogs (unleashed) are standing where I am beginning to walk. He hollers at me "my dogs will attack you and your dogs. This is a big place. Go the other way". I said (about a 50 foot distance between us) "why are they not on leashes?" and he said he doesn't feel like putting them on one. I asked why I should put my NICE dogs on a leash where they cannot protect themselves since his are loose and could be attacked since they are not under his control. He said cuz he didn't feel like it, again. He finally left after other people began to arrive and stand near me since I was his focus.

Why didn't he just leash them and warn me they were not friendly? I would have gone the other way, or left and went back later. Why not be civil and just be NICE?

 

[Foxfyre]

I just experienced incivility. Feel a bit better and took the dogs to the little beach we go to and a BIG guy..at least 6'3" or so and his two dogs (unleashed) are standing where I am beginning to walk. He hollers at me "my dogs will attack you and your dogs. This is a big place. Go the other way". I said (about a 50 foot distance between us) "why are they not on leashes?" and he said he doesn't feel like putting them on one. I asked why I should put my NICE dogs on a leash where they cannot protect themselves since his are loose and could be attacked since they are not under his control. He said cuz he didn't feel like it, again. He finally left after other people began to arrive and stand near me since I was his focus.

Why didn't he just leash them and warn me they were not friendly? I would have gone the other way, or left and went back later. Why not be civil and just be NICE?

Glad you're feeling better Gracie. And I agree the guy was a jerk. And no, I don't know why people just don't give a shit about anybody else and don't care what anybody thinks about them or are just generally antisocial. And that does manifest itself in the kind of incivility that prompted this thread--the senseless and destructive element of society that deliberately makes things unkind, unpleasant, or chaotic.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Taking the last line from Mertex's post: ". . .And, after all this talk on how manners have gotten worse, 99% of Americans say their own behavior is civil. [10]I wonder who it is that is so rude."

That is part of the problem I think. It is a kind of unintentional hypocrisy that prompts some to assigned motives or intent to other people, and they feel they are being completely righteous and civil when they do it. And then when the other person objects to whatever motive or intent was assigned, he/she is accused of 'not accepting criticism' and/or being 'uncivil'. And as the old joke goes: that's when the fight started.

The unintended hypocrisy comes in when the person who initiated the personal observations thinks it was perfectly appropriate even though he or she is highly offended when the same thing is done to him/her. We see it in our interpersonal relationships in real life, and we sure see it on message boards.

And that is usually a separate thing from those blatant trolls and jerks who deliberately say insulting things trying to stir up shit in what was a civil discussion.

Interesting. If you were doing a self-analysis, I would say you hit a home run. Incivility can also be couched in false politeness, too, but for the discerning eye, it is just as easy to spot.

If you want to have a REAL and HONEST and FRUITFUL debate about incivility, it may behoove you to consider this idea because, well, whether or not you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day, it's still a pig.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Foxfyre]

Taking the last line from Mertex's post: ". . .And, after all this talk on how manners have gotten worse, 99% of Americans say their own behavior is civil. [10]I wonder who it is that is so rude."

That is part of the problem I think. It is a kind of unintentional hypocrisy that prompts some to assigned motives or intent to other people, and they feel they are being completely righteous and civil when they do it. And then when the other person objects to whatever motive or intent was assigned, he/she is accused of 'not accepting criticism' and/or being 'uncivil'. And as the old joke goes: that's when the fight started.

The unintended hypocrisy comes in when the person who initiated the personal observations thinks it was perfectly appropriate even though he or she is highly offended when the same thing is done to him/her. We see it in our interpersonal relationships in real life, and we sure see it on message boards.

And that is usually a separate thing from those blatant trolls and jerks who deliberately say insulting things trying to stir up shit in what was a civil discussion.

Interesting. If you were doing a self-analysis, I would say you hit a home run. Incivility can also be couched in false politeness, too, but for the discerning eye, it is just as easy to spot.

If you want to have a REAL and HONEST and FRUITFUL debate about incivility, it may behoove you to consider this idea because, well, whether or not you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day, it's still a pig.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The thread is not about my own self-analysis or what I should consider to produce a real or honest or fruitful debate. I have marked down Post #293 as an ad hominem violation of rule #1 for this thread. Please participate in a real, honest, and fruit debate by focus on the thread topic and/or the discussion in progress and avoid personal comment re any member participating in the discussion. Thank you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Taking the last line from Mertex's post: ". . .And, after all this talk on how manners have gotten worse, 99% of Americans say their own behavior is civil. [10]I wonder who it is that is so rude."

That is part of the problem I think. It is a kind of unintentional hypocrisy that prompts some to assigned motives or intent to other people, and they feel they are being completely righteous and civil when they do it. And then when the other person objects to whatever motive or intent was assigned, he/she is accused of 'not accepting criticism' and/or being 'uncivil'. And as the old joke goes: that's when the fight started.

The unintended hypocrisy comes in when the person who initiated the personal observations thinks it was perfectly appropriate even though he or she is highly offended when the same thing is done to him/her. We see it in our interpersonal relationships in real life, and we sure see it on message boards.

And that is usually a separate thing from those blatant trolls and jerks who deliberately say insulting things trying to stir up shit in what was a civil discussion.

Interesting. If you were doing a self-analysis, I would say you hit a home run. Incivility can also be couched in false politeness, too, but for the discerning eye, it is just as easy to spot.

If you want to have a REAL and HONEST and FRUITFUL debate about incivility, it may behoove you to consider this idea because, well, whether or not you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day, it's still a pig.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The thread is not about my own self-analysis or what I should consider to produce a real or honest or fruitful debate. I have marked down Post #293 as an ad hominem violation of rule #1 for this thread. Please participate in a real, honest, and fruit debate by focus on the thread topic and/or the discussion in progress and avoid personal comment re any member participating in the discussion. Thank you.

Uhm, that's not what I said. I used "if", twice, conditional form. In fact, to assist you, I bolded both of those words in the quote and made them very big to see.

There is no ad hominem in that at all, not even one little bit. You are being overly sensitive and are also not willing in the least to actually listen to what a number of people are trying to tell you.

Did you also report your own posting here as an ad hominem as well?

Debate Now - Incivility Page 21 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Because, you see, your formulation there was also an "if" formulation.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Do you not even see that your emotional reactions to other members are causing you to be uncivil, and to boot, on a thread about incivility? Do you not fail to see the irony in this.

I meant every single word I wrote. Did you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Taking the last line from Mertex's post: ". . .And, after all this talk on how manners have gotten worse, 99% of Americans say their own behavior is civil. [10]I wonder who it is that is so rude."

That is part of the problem I think. It is a kind of unintentional hypocrisy that prompts some to assigned motives or intent to other people, and they feel they are being completely righteous and civil when they do it. And then when the other person objects to whatever motive or intent was assigned, he/she is accused of 'not accepting criticism' and/or being 'uncivil'. And as the old joke goes: that's when the fight started.

The unintended hypocrisy comes in when the person who initiated the personal observations thinks it was perfectly appropriate even though he or she is highly offended when the same thing is done to him/her. We see it in our interpersonal relationships in real life, and we sure see it on message boards.

And that is usually a separate thing from those blatant trolls and jerks who deliberately say insulting things trying to stir up shit in what was a civil discussion.

Interesting. If you were doing a self-analysis, I would say you hit a home run. Incivility can also be couched in false politeness, too, but for the discerning eye, it is just as easy to spot.

If you want to have a REAL and HONEST and FRUITFUL debate about incivility, it may behoove you to consider this idea because, well, whether or not you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day, it's still a pig.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The thread is not about my own self-analysis or what I should consider to produce a real or honest or fruitful debate. I have marked down Post #293 as an ad hominem violation of rule #1 for this thread. Please participate in a real, honest, and fruit debate by focus on the thread topic and/or the discussion in progress and avoid personal comment re any member participating in the discussion. Thank you.

Uhm, that's not what I said. I used "if", twice, conditional form. In fact, to assist you, I bolded both of those words in the quote and made them very big to see.

There is no ad hominem in that at all, not even one little bit. You are being overly sensitive and are also not willing in the least to actually listen to what a number of people are trying to tell you.

Did you also report your own posting here as an ad hominem as well?

Debate Now - Incivility Page 21 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Because, you see, your formulation there was also an "if" formulation.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Do you not even see that your emotional reactions to other members are causing you to be uncivil, and to boot, on a thread about incivility? Do you not fail to see the irony in this.

I meant every single word I wrote. Did you?

I did not report my post in response to your post and I did not report your post which I could have done, but I did add this qualfier to the post you referenced: "Since I know your post was intended to be taken tongue-in-cheek, I will accept it as such. But you still have missed the point being made." (And in retrospect, the first phrase is ad hominem, but not critical ad hominem so I will forgive myself as I have forgiven you and many others for such a mild technicality.)

I see no qualification whatsoever on the post I will report if there are repeats. If you will rephrase your post to clearly specify that you were using the generic 'you' instead of referring to me personally, I will remove the post from my infraction list.

It is the difference between addressing the post somebody makes and in attacking or referring to the person who made it. And THAT is how things can be kept civil in the midst of disagreement.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Aha....

 

[ChrisL]

Taking the last line from Mertex's post: ". . .And, after all this talk on how manners have gotten worse, 99% of Americans say their own behavior is civil. [10]I wonder who it is that is so rude."

That is part of the problem I think. It is a kind of unintentional hypocrisy that prompts some to assigned motives or intent to other people, and they feel they are being completely righteous and civil when they do it. And then when the other person objects to whatever motive or intent was assigned, he/she is accused of 'not accepting criticism' and/or being 'uncivil'. And as the old joke goes: that's when the fight started.

The unintended hypocrisy comes in when the person who initiated the personal observations thinks it was perfectly appropriate even though he or she is highly offended when the same thing is done to him/her. We see it in our interpersonal relationships in real life, and we sure see it on message boards.

And that is usually a separate thing from those blatant trolls and jerks who deliberately say insulting things trying to stir up shit in what was a civil discussion.

Interesting. If you were doing a self-analysis, I would say you hit a home run. Incivility can also be couched in false politeness, too, but for the discerning eye, it is just as easy to spot.

If you want to have a REAL and HONEST and FRUITFUL debate about incivility, it may behoove you to consider this idea because, well, whether or not you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day, it's still a pig.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The thread is not about my own self-analysis or what I should consider to produce a real or honest or fruitful debate. I have marked down Post #293 as an ad hominem violation of rule #1 for this thread. Please participate in a real, honest, and fruit debate by focus on the thread topic and/or the discussion in progress and avoid personal comment re any member participating in the discussion. Thank you.

Uhm, that's not what I said. I used "if", twice, conditional form. In fact, to assist you, I bolded both of those words in the quote and made them very big to see.

There is no ad hominem in that at all, not even one little bit. You are being overly sensitive and are also not willing in the least to actually listen to what a number of people are trying to tell you.

Did you also report your own posting here as an ad hominem as well?

Debate Now - Incivility Page 21 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Because, you see, your formulation there was also an "if" formulation.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Do you not even see that your emotional reactions to other members are causing you to be uncivil, and to boot, on a thread about incivility? Do you not fail to see the irony in this.

I meant every single word I wrote. Did you?

I did not report my post in response to your post and I did not report your post which I could have done, but I did add this qualfier to the post you referenced: "Since I know your post was intended to be taken tongue-in-cheek, I will accept it as such. But you still have missed the point being made." (And in retrospect, the first phrase is ad hominem, but not critical ad hominem so I will forgive myself as I have forgiven you and many others for such a mild technicality.)

I see no qualification whatsoever on the post I will report if there are repeats. If you will rephrase your post to clearly specify that you were using the generic 'you' instead of referring to me personally, I will remove the post from my infraction list.

It is the difference between addressing the post somebody makes and in attacking or referring to the person who made it. And THAT is how things can be kept civil in the midst of disagreement.

I agree. There is absolutely no need to make it personal. Also, I have not seen you be uncivil here at all. You have asked for people to abide by the rules politely, IMO.

 

[Foxfyre]

Taking the last line from Mertex's post: ". . .And, after all this talk on how manners have gotten worse, 99% of Americans say their own behavior is civil. [10]I wonder who it is that is so rude."

That is part of the problem I think. It is a kind of unintentional hypocrisy that prompts some to assigned motives or intent to other people, and they feel they are being completely righteous and civil when they do it. And then when the other person objects to whatever motive or intent was assigned, he/she is accused of 'not accepting criticism' and/or being 'uncivil'. And as the old joke goes: that's when the fight started.

The unintended hypocrisy comes in when the person who initiated the personal observations thinks it was perfectly appropriate even though he or she is highly offended when the same thing is done to him/her. We see it in our interpersonal relationships in real life, and we sure see it on message boards.

And that is usually a separate thing from those blatant trolls and jerks who deliberately say insulting things trying to stir up shit in what was a civil discussion.

Interesting. If you were doing a self-analysis, I would say you hit a home run. Incivility can also be couched in false politeness, too, but for the discerning eye, it is just as easy to spot.

If you want to have a REAL and HONEST and FRUITFUL debate about incivility, it may behoove you to consider this idea because, well, whether or not you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day, it's still a pig.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The thread is not about my own self-analysis or what I should consider to produce a real or honest or fruitful debate. I have marked down Post #293 as an ad hominem violation of rule #1 for this thread. Please participate in a real, honest, and fruit debate by focus on the thread topic and/or the discussion in progress and avoid personal comment re any member participating in the discussion. Thank you.

Uhm, that's not what I said. I used "if", twice, conditional form. In fact, to assist you, I bolded both of those words in the quote and made them very big to see.

There is no ad hominem in that at all, not even one little bit. You are being overly sensitive and are also not willing in the least to actually listen to what a number of people are trying to tell you.

Did you also report your own posting here as an ad hominem as well?

Debate Now - Incivility Page 21 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Because, you see, your formulation there was also an "if" formulation.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Do you not even see that your emotional reactions to other members are causing you to be uncivil, and to boot, on a thread about incivility? Do you not fail to see the irony in this.

I meant every single word I wrote. Did you?

I did not report my post in response to your post and I did not report your post which I could have done, but I did add this qualfier to the post you referenced: "Since I know your post was intended to be taken tongue-in-cheek, I will accept it as such. But you still have missed the point being made." (And in retrospect, the first phrase is ad hominem, but not critical ad hominem so I will forgive myself as I have forgiven you and many others for such a mild technicality.)

I see no qualification whatsoever on the post I will report if there are repeats. If you will rephrase your post to clearly specify that you were using the generic 'you' instead of referring to me personally, I will remove the post from my infraction list.

It is the difference between addressing the post somebody makes and in attacking or referring to the person who made it. And THAT is how things can be kept civil in the midst of disagreement.

I agree. There is absolutely no need to make it personal. Also, I have not seen you be uncivil here at all. You have asked for people to abide by the rules politely, IMO.

Thanks. IMO those who don't have the ability to discuss ideas and concepts without making it personal aren't bad people. They just prefer to commmunicate differently and a thread like this is not for them. And a thread like this isn't for people who like food fight as sport. It's a big world and it's a big board and there's plenty of room for all to do their own thing.

I just hope we can make the SDZ work for those who want a structure that encourages those who do get personal and do like the food fights to go elsewhere or start their own threads here to engage in that kind of thing. And that will allow those who want a peaceful civil discussion of a concept to have that.

 

[Gracie]

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.