Civility?

[_Philo Sofee]

Gad
As far as Philo's comment goes, sure, it was quite blunt, and I certainly don't have an issue with others pointing out the problems they see with it. I do have to say I'm on the fence about it. If someone had said that to me as a missionary, it would have been offensive, but at the same time, perhaps food for thought about what I was actually doing out there. I mean, we can't just say that because we're acting well within our cultural norm and have good intentions that we're free from self-reflection. Sometimes a comment like Philo's, heartfelt as it was, is worth hearing.

Thank you Gad.....that means a lot. I made the comment with the thought that the church is so biased and determined to make sure the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, and in light of the horrific Lamanite program they carried on when I was a teenager and President Kimball's ribaldry insane comments on the dark skinned indians actually becoming white and delightsome fulfilling Book of Mormon prophecy (?!?) because it needed to JOLT Lou Midgley, were he to bother to read it. It also insulted him personally, because I have no doubt there are Maoris he loves, after all he worked with them and got to know them for years. But it was about Mormonism, not his love for people that was the impetus of him even being there. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the idea of loving people and accepting them for who they are and learning WITH them. It had everything to do with conversion to Mormonism for Mormonism's sake, not for the love of humanity. Lemmee's follow up post on Lou's own words demonstrated this perfectly. Well, so and the world has kept turning, so things are cool.....

[_grindael]

I would only say, (or quote rather):

Ecclesiastes 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?

10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.

11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Or in other words,

"A time to be civil and a time to be uncivil;"

[_Res Ipsa]

PG, I think attempting to develop consistent standards for civility is an intractable problem. I used to think that a good approach was to distinguish between mocking a person and mocking ideas. But my stubborn post modern streak insists that the distinction isn’t a good one. There is no definable boundary between me and my ideas. Indeed, one could hold easily define “Res Ipsa” as the sum of the ideas I hold to be true.

There is also a problem with the fact that civility can be substantive or formal. It is possible that for me to say something that is civil in form but deeply uncivil in substance. I’ve seen many lengthy arguments over whether a statement is civil where one side is talking about form and the other substance.

Finally, the concept of civility is so amorphous and the subjects we discuss here are so polarized that the only effective solution I can think of is Shades’ approach here: create spaces for different levels of civility and move posts to the correct space where appropriate, recognizing that perfect consistency is unattainable.

[_Dr Exiled]

Philo:

I didn't have a problem with your comments either. I agree that but for pressure from the collective, we wouldn't have gone out to various parts of the world to pressure people to join our cultish organization. This includes Midgely. I think Midge may be sincere in his comments but he is delusional and his supposed "love" for the maori comes from a place of condescension, thinking that "loving" the people was what the leaders wanted, and a lack of self-awareness. He wasn't helping out there, rather he was wasting people's time and money.

[_honorentheos]

Around 2010 the old MAD board (now MDD) would ban anyone critical of the LDS church for even the slightest suggestion of incivility. OTOH, they would allow egregious personal attacks to take place against critics when made by faithful poster.

The result was evolutionary. To post as a critic and maintain a presence on the board required conscious effort to refine a point and its presentation to ensure it would be understood while not triggering the moderation team. So, personal critical arguments and those posting in sniping, insulting ways or even simply posting an empty denial usually ended up banned leaving critical posts that had to get over a fairly high bar. The argumentative gene pool on the other end, those of the TBMs, suffered the opposite effect. Allowing anyone to post against critics in fairly offensive, personal ways meant the contrast between the two sides became quite stark. I think their eventual decision to invite previously banned critics back and to be more willing to moderate some of their own side came about due to realizing the results were counterproductive to the goal of defending the LDS church.

It made for an interesting lesson in the value of both civility and incivility as weapons in the war of ideas online. Of course, that took a unique situation where posters on one side were being filtered for behavior but not specifically because of their opposing position. But there is something to be said for recognizing contrast is a great tool for elevating a message in a crowd.

Now, there is also the question of if civility is a worthy goal for it's own sake. Pointing to Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power, we humans typically communicate in social settings as an exercise in power dynamics. No one is participating on a message board without some small degree of self interest in being perceived a certain way and using their post to further that aim. Arguing for civility is a power move itself. It is much more likely to be done as a means of advancing one's own interests than in the interest of seeing a grandiose vision of a civil society come to fruition where one mere exists as one individual among equal individuals.

[_grindael]

I recently went to the Sunstone Conference in Sandy, (an awesome experience for me), but also in a few ways, eye-opening. You see, many people knew who I was and they were coming up introducing themselves, and from more than a dozen (as I recall) I was told that they were kind of afraid or hesitant to talk to me (or something along those lines) because I was so ... I want to say uncivil because that was the impression I got... could use forceful, or intense, or whatever, but it came through in my comments and articles which they had read.

Many were taken aback at how quiet I was in person (until they got me talking) and that they didn't picture me like that. I'm serious, this really happened with a lot of people. I did get praised for my work, but my TONE really did make an impression and I'm not sure I liked it and so... in thinking about this thread, I have to say that I think civility does matter and there may be a lot of people out there who weren't as diligent in getting past my uncivility in my work and that, to me is a great loss.

A spoonful of sugar and all that.... ???? Perhaps.

[_Philo Sofee]

I recently went to the Sunstone Conference in Sandy, (an awesome experience for me), but also in a few ways, eye-opening. You see, many people knew who I was and they were coming up introducing themselves, and from more than a dozen (as I recall) I was told that they were kind of afraid or hesitant to talk to me (or something along those lines) because I was so ... I want to say uncivil because that was the impression I got... could use forceful, or intense, or whatever, but it came through in my comments and articles which they had read.

Many were taken aback at how quiet I was in person (until they got me talking) and that they didn't picture me like that. I'm serious, this really happened with a lot of people. I did get praised for my work, but my TONE really did make an impression and I'm not sure I liked it and so... in thinking about this thread, I have to say that I think civility does matter and there may be a lot of people out there who weren't as diligent in getting past my uncivility in my work and that, to me is a great loss.

A spoonful of sugar and all that.... ???? Perhaps.

We can all be strident be times o the past....... we also don't want to lose our passion, but in the process of being passionate, sometimes we leave compassionate off the end of it, I know I have. So it's a constant readjustment...

[_Kishkumen]

I think I need to step in here to clarify my position.

I am not a model of civility. And I do not expect Dr. Shades to change this board in order to police civility. I saw a comment from Philo Sofee that did not jibe with my sense of who he is, and it seemed rather personal and unkind. So, I admonished him to do better. Take it for what it is worth. I think there is wisdom in trying to do better by others than you think they do by you. I think there is wisdom in being polite and giving people some benefit of the doubt, even if your philosophy of life is diametrically opposed to theirs.

But that is not a call for Dr. Shades to moderate for civility. Heaven forbid! People should monitor themselves. And, honestly, I don't expect that the nature of this place is conducive to forging it into a model of civility. Some of what makes this place valuable is that it is not institutionally set up to board nanny people into not offending others. I have not stepped up to volunteer as a moderator for a very good reason. I love you guys, but frankly some of what is said on here makes me cringe now and then. Then I get over it.

So, I will continue to try to do better. I doubt I will be perfect, and I don't think it is reasonable to suppose that I will never offend anyone. I think that is impossible. I offend people all the time. I offend people I agree with on many things. I offend people by the very nature of my attitude, positions, and way of communicating. We are probably all in the same boat here. That said, I prefer that we not go out of our way to be unsympathetic in our words and actions toward others.

That is my preference. And this is not me advocating for a change in official moderation. This is not me saying that we should be wary of ever saying anything that someone else might disagree with. And, by the way, if I write something that is genuinely stupid, I should think it would be in my best interest to entertain the possibility that the person judging me might be right, not get offended that anyone would dare think that I am a human being who is limited, makes errors, and does not necessarily like being called out for thinking and writing dumb things.

You know what is also uncivil and frankly offensive: the way that apologists routinely run down this board and people on it. That is a great example of people being deliberately unsympathetic to others, not trying to do better by one's opponents, and not seeing the best in those with whom we disagree. That said, the routinely unkind way that some apologists refer to this board should not be emulated by us in the way we talk about apologists. Unfortunately, it is. My two cents worth.

[_kairos]

Or in other words,

"A time to be civil and a time to be uncivil;"[/quote]


"A time to love, and a time to hate;"-King Solomon

He was perhaps trying to characterize or list the actions and emotions of us men and women and even families, nation-states li life in fallen world. Solomon in this part of Ecclesiasties sees life a futile- seasons come and go; we get up,we work/live, we enjoy a meal, perhaps or friends and loved ones, go to bed/sleep-then get up and do it all over again the next day.

Hate is a powerful negative emotion and if expressed in action can bring about terrible human tragedy for the hatee and the hater.

What i sense is that hate is not involved here but mocking and as you put it civility is-and we each must deal with it because it does affect the mockee and the mocker. when i find myself mocking or being uncivil i often feel good at first later not so good.

k

[_Mormonicious]

In combat, civility (not to be confused with morality, integrity and honor) is the stance of the negotiating side (a.k.a. losing).

ALL HAIL GOOGLE GOD and her SON eBay and the Holy Toaster youtube, conquerors of the Religious battlefield.