Civility?

[_Dr Moore]

Reverend, your words speak to my soul. Forum civility, in simple terms, is the sum of word choices made in moments of passion.

It is easy for me to be civil when discussing topics for which I have no history or emotional attachment. My life and happiness are unaffected by Saturn’s hexagon and the price of Bitcoin, for instance, so I am highly confident in my ability to remain perfectly civil if those topics come up.

Unfortunately, due to my Mormon upbringing and culture, places like MD, SeN and others like them are replete with the most triggering subjects in the universe. So civility is not just a nice idea. It might be the single most important indication of my growth — whether I can, triggered up as a John Wick film, violently oppose an idea with real compassion toward the individual(s) presenting that idea.

I stayed away from these boards, as you all say, like a dutiful chapel Mormon, for >40 years. Now that I’ve decided to engage, the onus of policing my own civility in these fora rests entirely on me.

Thank you for the discussion!

[_Holy Ghost]

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.

Yep.

[_Physics Guy]

When I started this thread I hadn't really noticed Kishkumen's recent concerns about that post of Philo Sofee's, so I didn't have that in mind at all. Instead I was thinking of this longer term fact:

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.

People here and various Mormon apologists have both been continually accusing each other of continual incivility. And I agree with Kishkumen that there's at least some truth in both accusations. I started writing something about that, found it sounded pompous, tried to tone it down, and finally gave up because when I tried to just be honest about what I felt I discovered I didn't actually know what I felt.

So I thought I'd ask what other people thought. I didn't mean to call for Shades to clamp down or anything.

[_Holy Ghost]

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.

I've not been offended by you, nor by most others here, even when a post in response to mine seems to have missed my point. I was surprised that it was on the board, rather than just in PMs, that you called Philo Sofee out on this. Out in the open, it does seem like board nannying.

[_Kishkumen]

I've not been offended by you, nor by most others here, even when a post in response to mine seems to have missed my point. I was surprised that it was on the board, rather than just in PMs, that you called Philo Sofee out on this. Out in the open, it does seem like board nannying.

Yeah, I am talking primarily to Philo Sofee but not exclusively to him. This is a public forum, the comments are public, and my reaction to them is public. I rarely use PM. Most PM exchanges I have are initiated by the other party. If I want to save someone the embarrassment of a spelling error, I may PM them. For the endemic problem of hyperbolic insulting here on MDB, I think it is more useful to say something publicly.

I guess I don’t see the problem. If some folks can spout vitriol and insult, it is also in my rights to express my preference that this not happen so much. It is not that I am personally hurt by it; it is more the fact that it looks puerile and indecent and therefore annoys me. But, hey, I know that my dislike of it will not change things. And I promise I am not on a quixotic crusade. Now and then I may say something about it. Read or ignore it according to your preference.

Every act of persuasion is a power move. Therefore, we are all engaging in power moves. Let no one think otherwise.

[_Physics Guy]

Around 2010 the old MAD board (now MDD) would ban anyone critical of the LDS church for even the slightest suggestion of incivility. On the other hand, 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.

That sounds like a good inadvertent experiment. Diehard partisans will probably just love it when all the mud gets slung by their side but any undecided swing voters, as it were, will probably notice the difference and draw different conclusions.

Thinking about what kind of evolutionary effects I would prefer to have has maybe helped me clarify my thinking here. I think I've realized that what bothers me more than rudeness is irrelevance—deliberately dwelling on side issues at the expense of important points. What I dislike about sniping is that it isn't sniping: it's blowing off a lot of rounds into the bushes just for the sound. If somebody had a really telling point, they wouldn't need to be snarky with it—but if they used harsh language out of passion then I think I wouldn't mind as long as the lightning was worth the thunder.

So I guess my personal resolution is not so much to be more civil as to focus more consistently on major issues and let minor things pass. The problem with pissing contests is that they're pissing around.

[_Finn the human]

I also think a good demarcation line between civility and incivility is to debate a point or idea and not the poster. For example, making fun of a certain prominent apologists appearance, to use Kishkumens phrase, seems “puerile and indecent.” Additionally, that apologists do not act Christlike toward this board is unremarkable in my opinion. Some posts here, which are cathartic for unbelievers, will obviously strike a nerve to believers sanctity sensibilities and can result in knee-jerk uncivility.

I think a call for civility is always a good reminder. Also, knowing your audience goes a long way too. I don’t go to MD&D because I think maybe this time I’ll agree with all their posts. I go there because I’m a masochist.

[_Lemmie]

also think a good demarcation line between civility and incivility is to debate a point or idea and not the poster. For example, making fun of a certain prominent apologists appearance, to use Kishkumens phrase, seems “puerile and indecent.”

Good point. Although I haven’t seen any references to appearance since the last time it was pointed out that appearance shouldn’t be part of the comments.

What I have seen is midgley speculating that SeN commenters he assumes are not lds behave like a boy sniffing around an outhouse, hoping for a large load to sniff, or speculating that they were fired from their jobs because of dishonesty, or speculating that they no longer post on the NYT site because they were caught behaving dishonestly, or speculating that they remain anonymous because they are shamefully hiding terrible truths from their families, or speculating that they studied a ridiculous subject in college, leaving them with a stupid MA, or speculating that when he beat up a (now dead) person in middle school it was because their homosexual leanings warranted it, or speculating that a boy in a car accident crashed because of his sinful use of alcohol and drugs even though the police at the scene told him that was not a warranted assumption, or speculating that .... well, you get the point. Midgley is the epitome of “puerile and indecent.” It should be pointed out, and it’s not uncivil to do so.

[_Kishkumen]

There is also something to be said for ignoring the noise and silly behavior of your opponent and instead giving it exactly the amount of attention it may merit: in this case, none.

Who looks bad when they behave in a puerile and indecent way? How does it look when their friends who should know better remain silent about it?

There is an argument to be made in favor of not rising to the bait and not giving such a person the base pleasure they seek.

[_Lemmie]

Louis Midgley 14 minutes ago

I am delighted that there have been no grumpy, nasty comments to what Professor Peterson set out in this blog entry. What a relief.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 4642726178

Midgley is pleased with his own self-restraint.