Who gives a fuck about civil discourse?

[viscousmemories]

Inspired by recent discussions, I've been thinking a lot about the nature and value of "civil discourse". First, what characterizes it? Is it using correct grammar and punctuation? Avoiding 'vulgar' language or an aggressive tone? The degree or quality of substance in a person's posts?

Secondly, what value do you personally assign it? Do you seek out or favor Internet forum environments where "civil discourse" (however you define it) is the enforced or natural norm?

[Lauri D]

:hiya: I do. I must do some thinking about how to answer your questions in more detail though. Good thread.

[LadyShea]

I'll take a crack, though I may be off base.

I don't care too much about vulgar language, aggressive tone, or spelling and punctuation in and of themseves. If a post contains some substance, something discussable, and is spelled/grammared correctly enough that the meaning is clear, I am okey dokey. Posts that contain nothing BUT aggression and foul language, with no discussable content, should be ignored.

What I have observed is that too many people see the non discussable attacks, and become focused on them, while ignoring or overlooking the civil posts of others and/or addressing any substance that may be contained in a post in addition to the vitriol.

For example

"Bush is a moronic fucktard and anyone who voted for him is an asshole" as a stand alone post, contains no substance, there is nothing to discuss. Ignore it

"Bush is a moronic fucktard and anyone who voted for him is an asshole. Here's why I think so A, B, C, D, E...."
May be discussable if the reasons given have some kind of thought process behind them. One can respond to points A, B, C, etc. while disreagrding the "non-civil" opinion part.

[squian]

The civil part seems quite relative. What is civil in some place may be rude in another. That's a hard question.

At the core of any discourse should be the careful consideration of the topic at hand. I think this can happen in a civil or a rude context.

Whether people are posting in a civil manner, I wonder, "Who gives a fuck about discourse?"

[wade-w]

Inspired by recent discussions, I've been thinking a lot about the nature and value of "civil discourse". First, what characterizes it? Is it using correct grammar and punctuation? Avoiding 'vulgar' language or an aggressive tone? The degree or quality of substance in a person's posts?


I don't think using correct grammar and punctuation (and spelling) are necessary to civil discourse. It's certainly preferable, in my opinion, but then again, I sometimes intentionally deviate from technically correct grammar for stylistic reasons. I have similar feelings about "vulgar" language; I generally avoid it, but sometimes it can be useful to make a point. Also, what is "vulgar" to one might not be considered vulgar to another. the degree of quality or substance in posts is also a subjective issue. What constitutes quality or substance can vary depending on context and the reader's own experience.

I think that tone goes to the heart of the matter. An excessively aggressive tone is certainly not what I would consider "civil." However, aggression alone is not necessarily the only detriment to what I would consider "civil" discourse. Being dismissive or derisive of another's posts can also be a problem, without being aggressive per se.


Secondly, what value do you personally assign it? Do you seek out or favor Internet forum environments where "civil discourse" (however you define it) is the enforced or natural norm?

I value it highly. Yes, I do favor environments were civil discourse is the norm.

[wei yau]

At the core of any discourse should be the careful consideration of the topic at hand. I think this can happen in a civil or a rude context.

As far as I'm concerned, this is all that needs to be said. Of course, I limit this within the context of this forum. Since all we can do is talk here, that's fine. But, out there, other actions are sometimes necessary.

[Dingfod]

Fuck civil disco, live entertainment is what I want. Bring on the dancers, pronto!

[Lauri D]

Okay; a more in-depth response now.

First, what characterizes it? Is it using correct grammar and punctuation? While these things make following and/or participating in a discussion more enjoyable/less frustrating, not a major concern. Avoiding 'vulgar' language or an aggressive tone? These things only irk me when they are gratuitous or meant to deflect from the issue being discussed. The degree or quality of substance in a person's posts? That's the main thing, there, but delivery (or "tone" as others have mentioned) is pretty important to me.
Secondly, what value do you personally assign it? Do you seek out or favor Internet forum environments where "civil discourse" (however you define it) is the enforced or natural norm? I prefer places where it tends to happen naturally, most of the time. :shrug:

[HelenM]

Inspired by recent discussions, I've been thinking a lot about the nature and value of "civil discourse". First, what characterizes it? Is it using correct grammar and punctuation?

I don't see that they have anything to do with civility except when one poster mocks another's lack of correct grammar and punctuation.

Avoiding 'vulgar' language or an aggressive tone? The degree or quality of substance in a person's posts?

I don't consider 'vulgar' language incivil unless it is used to insult another poster, in which case the incivility is because of the insult rather than the vulgar language.

People vary in their tone but I would say there's a level of 'aggressiveness' in tone which most people would perceive as incivility, regardless of whether it was intended to be or not.

Secondly, what value do you personally assign it? Do you seek out or favor Internet forum environments where "civil discourse" (however you define it) is the enforced or natural norm?

I prefer civil discourse; it definitely has value to me. On the whole I feel that if people aren't willing to make the effort to be civil to me, why should I make the effort to interact with them?

I find it very disappointing when boards have de facto subcultures of incivility, in other words there's a group opinion that it's ok to be incivil to certain posters.

And yet, I find that having threads perpetually derailed by a sequence of one post deemed incivil and a flurry of replies pointing that out can be as annoying as the incivility.

As Lauri said, I prefer places where people are disposed to be civil; which doesn't mean they have to be perfectly civil, because we're all human and get frustrated at times. What I mean is, the posters don't delight in incivility and they don't get their kicks from treating others incivilly and seeing how much they can wind them up (which is trolling, I suppose).

Helen

[viscousmemories]

Thank you all for the interesting responses.

What I have observed is that too many people see the non discussable attacks, and become focused on them, while ignoring or overlooking the civil posts of others and/or addressing any substance that may be contained in a post in addition to the vitriol.
I agree that this is a common problem, and I am frequently guilty of it myself. Even if you think your next post is going to be the coup de grace, keep bringing up the garbage and eventually the thread looks like a dump.

At the core of any discourse should be the careful consideration of the topic at hand. I think this can happen in a civil or a rude context.
I agree with eldar that this is a very good point, squian. But do you think anyone is likely to characterize their own contributions (generally speaking) as careless? If not, how would someone improve in that regard? I typically find it insulting when someone suggests I re-read their posts or think more carefully, despite the fact that I have often realized errors when I do so.

I think that tone goes to the heart of the matter. An excessively aggressive tone is certainly not what I would consider "civil." However, aggression alone is not necessarily the only detriment to what I would consider "civil" discourse. Being dismissive or derisive of another's posts can also be a problem, without being aggressive per se.
That's an excellent point, wade. The problem is that one man's clarity is another man's condescending. I've had a big problem in the past with people misinterpreting my posts as derisive when I was just trying to avoid miscommunication by being very detailed and precise. And when I made a conscious effort to be less precise and more casual recently I offended someone. Nevertheless the point that aggression is but one face of incivility is a good one.

The degree or quality of substance in a person's posts?
That's the main thing, there, but delivery (or "tone" as others have mentioned) is pretty important to me.
Tone and langauge are important to me, too. But I agree that the degree and quality of substance is the more important. For example there are some people (at IIDB far more than here) whose tenor is so abrasive, condescending, or otherwise distasteful to me that I literally have to squint and hold my nose while I read their posts (well okay, slight exaggeration) but I read them anyway because they have some knowledge or perspective that I can learn from.

[viscousmemories]

I prefer civil discourse; it definitely has value to me. On the whole I feel that if people aren't willing to make the effort to be civil to me, why should I make the effort to interact with them?
I feel the same way.

I find it very disappointing when boards have de facto subcultures of incivility, in other words there's a group opinion that it's ok to be incivil to certain posters.

And yet, I find that having threads perpetually derailed by a sequence of one post deemed incivil and a flurry of replies pointing that out can be as annoying as the incivility.
I find the former very disappointing too, and as such I'm often guilty of engaging in the latter. It seems like a Catch-22 to me, though. As members of the community what can we do to express our disapproval of incivility without confronting it head-on? One answer is ignore it, but might the offensive person not perceive that as tacit endorsement?

As Lauri said, I prefer places where people are disposed to be civil; which doesn't mean they have to be perfectly civil, because we're all human and get frustrated at times. What I mean is, the posters don't delight in incivility and they don't get their kicks from treating others incivilly and seeing how much they can wind them up (which is trolling, I suppose).
Very well put, Helen. I agree completely.

[LadyShea]

As members of the community what can we do to express our disapproval of incivility without confronting it head-on? One answer is ignore it, but might the offensive person not perceive that as tacit endorsement?

Well as has been pointed out, incivilty is a subjective term. I have had very fruitful discussions (meaning I learned something, taught something, or came to some kind of agreement) online and in real life that others' witnessing the exchange perceived as a pointless throwdown. Peacemakers jumping in to tell us to cool it, or trying to enforce their own subjective level of civility, has actually served to ruin productive discourse in many cases for me personally....for example my sister in law is terrible about telling me and her dad how to communicate and interjecting incorrect "explanations" for what each of us intended to say. We communicate just fine in our own growly way, and her getting in between us to break up what she sees as a fight, is actually detrimental to that communication.

I guess what I mean to say is, try to ignore incivility not directed at you as two or more other people may be doing just fine, even if you don't understand their styles and even if you don't see how any good can come from the discussion...you may be wrong.

If everyone ignores the more generalized "Fuck all y'all 'cuz you all suck donkey dicks" with nothing discussable in the post, then, like a bully, the troll gets no reinforcement for their behavior and will eventually move on.

[squian]

But do you think anyone is likely to characterize their own contributions (generally speaking) as careless? If not, how would someone improve in that regard? I typically find it insulting when someone suggests I re-read their posts or think more carefully, despite the fact that I have often realized errors when I do so.

Yes, this is the crux of the issue. The tone (civil or not) may not preclude discourse but it may indicate a lack thereof. I find rude and confrontational posts (especially my own) to be the least considered, thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Being uncivil surely does not add anything.

As for characterizing contributions as careless, I think only the author is actually qualified. Who else can really know if a post was really well considered? I think I can honestly say when a post is careless or not. I would hope others can do the same. So I don't think it's necessary to challenge the author's contribution as thoughtful.

That said, this community as a whole could do a better job of keeping the authors honest with themselves. In my experience, this cannot be done with rude, confrontational, or offensive posts. A probative, Socratic approach does much more to foster intellectual integrity than debate. We should not deny the emotional reactions that posts inspire in us but we should favor those emotions which will drive a constructive conversation.

Do those who are passionate about this community care enough to change the way they think and write to encourage participation rather than discourage it? Does that conflict with the "free thought" and "free speach" values stated here?

[HelenM]

I find that having threads perpetually derailed by a sequence of one post deemed incivil and a flurry of replies pointing that out can be as annoying as the incivility.
I find the former very disappointing too, and as such I'm often guilty of engaging in the latter. It seems like a Catch-22 to me, though. As members of the community what can we do to express our disapproval of incivility without confronting it head-on? One answer is ignore it, but might the offensive person not perceive that as tacit endorsement?

I suppose they might. But, so what if they do?

Helen

[flufeemunk]

I find civil discourse to create a great environment, especially if it is a board where the members tend to agree on a large variety of issues. One of my favorite boards is Barbelith (http://www.barbelith.com), though it can get a bit persnickity at times when it comes to being civil. When I want a huge flame war there are infinitely many boards that I can go to, but it is a rare few at which I can find discourse that is elevated above the level of personal attacks.

[pescifish]

As members of the community what can we do to express our disapproval of incivility without confronting it head-on? One answer is ignore it, but might the offensive person not perceive that as tacit endorsement?

I suppose they might. But, so what if they do? If I don't find a way to correct my dog from chewing or peeing in my bedroom, she will naturally assume they are both acceptable behaviors. Those behaviors will escalate; migrating from room to room to destroy the whole house. I think a similar effect can happen in any community where discourse is a goal.

Whether people are posting in a civil manner, I wonder, "Who gives a fuck about discourse?"This question struck home to me. If a group of people are actually interested in discourse, then I think anything but civility would be counterproductive to that goal.

As others have suggested, "civility" is a subjective term, variable not just from person to person, but from topic to topic. However, if it can be established that all parties do share a common goal of "discourse", then I expect a generally higher level of civility will follow naturally.

I just don't think "discourse" is necessarily what interests all or even most people on a bulletin board.

[squian]

I just don't think "discourse" is necessarily what interests all or even most people on a bulletin board.

Agreed. Should this one be any different?

[pescifish]

I just don't think "discourse" is necessarily what interests all or even most people on a bulletin board.

Agreed. Should this one be any different?Hmmm, I dunno. Since vm opened this thread here instead of the Forum Administration, I was only thinking in general terms.

But, now that you ask, I had an instant answer to my own What [I think] It Is Now impression. I don't have a quick response to What [I think] It Should Be, though.

To help with both, I thought I'd revisit the stated charter/goals of this board.** I have the sound bite blurb of the logo splash and the sticky thread in the Watering Hole, Introducing the Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51) to go by. Not that we have to stick with either of these, but it's a starting point for my thinking specific to this board.

Freethought Forum
think what you like, say what you think It implies we can all toss out whatever we have on our minds, but there's not much there implying anyone needs to be out there to catch it. I suppose that covers one side of interchange of ideas, simple expression. I don't know if it covers two more things I think the word "discourse" implies: 1) two sided conversation and 2) a style of expression of ideas that is more formal, reasoned, well-developed.

To this end, the Freethought Forum is inspired by the following four principles:

1. Freedom of thought
2. Freedom of expression
3. Community
4. Self-determination Not much about style of expression here, but I suppose the word "Community" might imply that some people might want to be share and hear other people's ideas, not just to spout off all their own shit without some conversation. The "Are you new to the Internet?" post in that thread gives some good netiquette conversational and style tips.

So, all in all, the stated principles match my own What [I think] It Is Now impression: this board does an excellent job of providing a place for people to think what they like and say what they think. However, as a group, we don't always seem to have common goals of mutual understanding or even conversing. I think to some individuals the definition of "Mutual Understanding" is "you finally got your head out of your ass and listened to what I said, so now I'm done." And "conversing" means "hey, give me attention!"

Even after all of that, I still don't have a answer to What [I think] It Should Be. What do you think, squian? Everyone else?



** vm, livius, you might want to consider adding a link to that sticky thread to the portal page, forum Quick Links and/or in the FAQ. And if I missed the neon sign to another set of Forum Charter, I apologize and please give me a link and I will rethink!

[viscousmemories]

I am following and thinking about all the issues in this thread, btw, I just don't have anything to add right now. I'm really more interested in input on this subject, since I talk too much as it is. But I like the idea of shifting it to a discussion of the culture here, because of course that's what I'm most interested in working out. I'll split it off if anyone prefers the original to stay general, though.

Great post, pescifish. I look forward to the possibility of having my head extracted eventually, so I hope you don't give up on me. :)

[pescifish]

Silly, you should know by now I didn't mean you. Or even anyone in particular; I could probably find instances of any/all of us (me definitely included) involved in the kind of situations I was thinking of.

I meant that definition of "Mutual Understanding" to be a not-so-complete one. I don't think an individual who is only interested in other people understanding his/her point of view has the "mutual" part of that covered. I'd like to see more conversations where people say "hey, sounds like you got what I what I was saying, now let's concentrate on me understanding what you had in mind." And when it comes to "conversing" I'd prefer "hey, I had an interesting thought and I want to be heaped with praise and adoration, but I want everyone to know your great and wonderous thoughts, too".

[viscousmemories]

Oh I know you didn't mean me, I was being self-deprecating. :yup:

[pescifish]

And here I thought you were making fun of my shocking language or something. :cryhome:

:wink:

[wildernesse]

As members of the community what can we do to express our disapproval of incivility without confronting it head-on? One answer is ignore it, but might the offensive person not perceive that as tacit endorsement?

I suppose they might. But, so what if they do? If I don't find a way to correct my dog from chewing or peeing in my bedroom, she will naturally assume they are both acceptable behaviors. Those behaviors will escalate; migrating from room to room to destroy the whole house. I think a similar effect can happen in any community where discourse is a goal.



Perhaps a solution would be off-thread "correction"--maybe when you see something that you think needs confronting, why not a pm? It's not ignoring and it's not derailing. Of course, then there's nothing but a send button between me, you (general you) and a pm of SCREAMING RAGE (for example). Then if people have problems with the pms being nasty, then that calls for a thread of its own and discussion of the issue that started everything.

At the least, it could confine mudfights to the backroom. Even though watching the mudslinging can be entertaining, we'd probably all be better off not watching so much of it.

[HelenM]

As members of the community what can we do to express our disapproval of incivility without confronting it head-on? One answer is ignore it, but might the offensive person not perceive that as tacit endorsement?

I suppose they might. But, so what if they do? If I don't find a way to correct my dog from chewing or peeing in my bedroom, she will naturally assume they are both acceptable behaviors. Those behaviors will escalate; migrating from room to room to destroy the whole house. I think a similar effect can happen in any community where discourse is a goal.

I agree with you.

But I don't think correcting a dog is exactly analogous to confronting a person who is being incivil, because we have ways of correcting dogs that are proven effective, whereas I'm not aware of any method of correcting people who are incivil on discussion boards that is effective if those people don't want to be civil. The relationship dynamics are different from that of an owner with his/her dog. Dogs respond to correction from their owners but posters on discussion boards don't necessarily respond to correction from other posters or from the board staff.

Hence, if derailing threads to confront people who are being incivil makes no difference to how civil they are, then IMO discourse goes better when they are ignored rather than confronted.

I suppose we confront people in threads, derailing them somewhat, because we hope it will make a difference and if it does, the short-term derailment will be worth the longer-term improvement in civility.

Perhaps ignoring a person's incivility is more of a second response when the first one hasn't worked, the first one being attempts to persuade them to be more civil.

Helen

[squian]

Even after all of that, I still don't have a answer to What [I think] It Should Be. What do you think, squian? Everyone else?
Personally, I'm not a big fan of free speach. It's an important means to an end but not an end in and of itself.

I feel that free thought is a process of thinking not the free flow of static thoughts into words. Generally, what I expect from a real dialog is thesis->antithesis->synthesis. Instead, what I see more of is thesis->antithesis->flamewar. While flamewars smack of incivility, that's just a symptom of the underlying problem that people are posting what they think without really thinking.

I would like to see the focus move from "free" to "thought". I do not see any reason to change the site or policies to accomplish this. I just want to see it done by our right to self-determination.

Perhaps ignoring a person's incivility is more of a second response when the first one hasn't worked, the first one being attempts to persuade them to be more civil.

Ignoring incivility is not "actively discouraging anti-social behaviors" (from vm's Introducing the Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51)). On the other hand, the technical controls for the site are all focused on letting a user control what they ignore. Has reliance on technical mechanisms has made the community soft and complacent in accepting anti-social behaviors?

[livius drusus]

I too am fascinated by this discussion and at this point would much rather absorb for a while than post as if I know my thoughts on the matter (which I don't).

I would like to bring up another question, however. I was once unspeakably rude to a Nazi because I believed he was intentionally masking his vile positions behind vaguely humanistic statements in order to ingratiate himself to the community and because he tried to use an offhand comment someone had made on another forum to prop himself up (and, I believe, taunt her). I think my grammar was correct, but other than that, I broke every possible standard of civility in vm's OP and a few more. He had a Nazi avatar within a day and was banned shortly thereafter.

I didn't feel good doing it. I knew I was giving the admins a headache. I knew I was fucking with threads where some people were making an effort to converse reasonably. I did it because I believed it was the right thing to do despite the negative consequences.

I think it's a key issue: Even in a forum where civil interaction is a principle to which the community generally adheres (and pesci, your post about where FF stands on that is an excellent one to which I will return after further absorption), are there times when incivility is a necessary response? The times we've seen incivility here, for instance, it seems likely the participants believed it was the appropriate response to something they felt was wrong.

For me that response may be engendered by manipulative crypto-Nazis, but others may feel that they are compelled by their sense of right and wrong to incivility in self-defense, or to expose a discursive trap, or to treat someone as they have seen that someone treat others, or because the issue is so seriously important, etc.

Do y'all think there are circumstances when incivility is a more just response than civility? Is it always damaging to the community (even if only for the duration of the unpleasantness) even if it is ethically sound on a personal level? How does a civil community respond to people with really, really bad motives: to Nazis, to trolls, to pedophilia propagandizers?

[maddog]

I care A LOT about civil discourse. IRL, I just don't get along with and tend to avoid people who are argumentative, disagreeable, loud, etc. Granted, an anonymous discussion board is a little different, and people do "try on" different personalities and techniques.

I prefer conversation to debate. I don't like "debate," personally. I'd rather be someplace where I can trust I have a foundation of common good-will with someone. To me, that's the only way that the serious topics I want to address can be handled so as to achieve greater understanding, from one to another. Of course, I have no control over what someone else does or how they feel. If there are minimum conduct standards on a forum, then it's up to the members to decide if they think something seriously crosses over that line. To me, that's what the "report post" button is for, and then let the administrators decide what to do. I have tried to be very, very tolerant about the way others want to express themselves. What I DO have control over is what I do and say. I try to be reasonable, focused, substantive, and so on.

Basically, it comes down (for me) to a question of my own character. What kind of person do I want to be? "Kindness" is a characteristic I admire, and something I want to incorporate into my own values and practice. Screaming at people is almost always unkind. Swearing at people is almost always unkind. Rudeness is, virtually by definition, unkind. Bluntness can sometimes be a kindness, but I think that's the case less often than we give ourselves permission for. My concentration of effort should be mostly on myself. So, if I value civility in discourse, and discourse as a goal of "belonging" to a forum, then I must govern myself accordingly.

#80

[wade-w]

For me that response may be engendered by manipulative crypto-Nazis, but others may feel that they are compelled by their sense of right and wrong to incivility in self-defense, or to expose a discursive trap, or to treat someone as they have seen that someone treat others, or because the issue is so seriously important, etc.

Do y'all think there are circumstances when incivility is a more just response than civility? Is it always damaging to the community (even if only for the duration of the unpleasantness) even if it is ethically sound on a personal level? How does a civil community respond to people with really, really bad motives: to Nazis, to trolls, to pedophilia propagandizers?

Great question, liv. I've been pondering this myself for the last couple of days. I have been engaged in treating someone as I have seen that someone treat almost everyone, and I have come to the conclusion that it was an ill considered decision. I felt somewhat hypocritical even as I was doing it. I kept telling myself it was "the right thing to do." I should have listened to my misgivings and taken the high road. Worse, it has become obvious that the target of my intended "lesson" is incapable of comprehending what I was trying to do, so I have compromised myself for no gain.

I still think that yes, there are circumstances when incivility is a necessary response when in an environment where administrative recourse is not available. And yes, it is always damaging to the community. At the same time, allowing people with what the community as a whole sees as people with "really really bad motives" to disrupt the community can be even more damaging. So sometimes you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, and you must then choose between the lesser of two evils.

On the other hand, where should the bar be set? Shouldn't anything and everything be open to examination on a board that is dedicated to free thought? Does that include pedophilia and National Socialism? In theory, it seems to me that it should be possible to have a civil, reasoned discourse and deconstruct a pedophile or Nazi's position. Trolling is another matter; a troll is only interested in attention, and has no real position. But who determines when a member of the board is trolling? And it seems to me that the proper response to trolling is to ignore it. When the troll's efforts garner no attention, they'll go away eventually.

So, in sum: I dunno, livius. If I ever come up with an answer, I'll let ya know!

[Adora]

Inspired by recent discussions, I've been thinking a lot about the nature and value of "civil discourse". First, what characterizes it? Is it using correct grammar and punctuation? Avoiding 'vulgar' language or an aggressive tone? The degree or quality of substance in a person's posts?

"People talking about stuff" is enough for me. I've been in enough civil discussions where vulgar language is used, aggressive tones are used, people even call each other names, but at the end of it all, they come to an understanding and will still buy each other beers at the pub, because they don't take it too seriously, and aren't wankers about it all. I've also been in dicussions, mostly on the internet, but also IRL, where people are so up themselves every single little line of a discussion or post is somehow misconstrued as a personal attack against them. Different kinds of people, I guess. Personally, I like the first kind better, but I'm the kind of person who swears inbetween putting my thoughts across, among other things. So I like discussions with people who don't take themselves too seriously, and are smart enough to be able to realise which bits are important in the discussion, and which bits are just the way I discuss things, and not-important.

Do you seek out or favor Internet forum environments where "civil discourse" (however you define it) is the enforced or natural norm?

Nope. Civil discourse just happens. It doesn't need a specific designated area or place. Sometimes it happens in a place not really very condusive to the discussion though, othertimes people who feel threatened by it try to shut it down, or control the discussion. I think if there's one thing society has to get over it's this idea that there is a time, place, or special kind of forum where serious issues can be discussed. All it does is create faux-elitism and intelligisa who designate that because they reside in X kind of social circles the most in life, they're the only ones who have the right to talk about it more than others. I'm not saying expert opinions are bad, just that when people think that the only way to talk about such issues is when empirical evidence is involved- ie competition of knowledge rather than understanding of knowledge - it kind of ruins the ability for a lot of people to feel like they're valued in a discussion. In my mind, it just runs entirely against the whole idea of democracy. If you're going to ignore someone's opinion because of the fact that they swear when they put it across or use "vulgar" language or are aggressive, then you're going to be ignoring the opinion of a large percentage of the population.

I'll make this relative by saying it relates to "2. Freedom of expression" in the things mentioned. Expression isn't just getting your thougths across. Expression is how you express things. Body language, the words and connotations you use, the context of your words, your perceived attitude you have to the person you are talking to and also their opinion of you, yadda yadda yadda. Unfortunately, the internet currently doesn't have a good way to communicate body language, which makes up a large percent of human communication. Which is why I think so much utterly pointless bullshit happens online. Also, I think it has a lot to do with the way we view emotions in society- ie we devalue you them for a lot of reasons which I won't go into now because it's too complicated and it'll derail this thread, BUT I think we seriously need to redress this issue. If someone shows emotion in a discussion, instead of acting like a total turd and dismissing someone, perhaps trying to understand why someone is showing emotion is more condusive to a discussion in the long run, and may also give you a profound insight into the issue at hand.

[viscousmemories]

Thank you all for your responses. I still don't have anything profound to add (and may never) but you've all given me a lot to think about. I have come to several personal conclusions.

For one thing, I'm going to try harder to be a positive voice on threads instead of indulging in sniping when I'm angry or frustrated. There have definitely been times when I knew the best course of action was to keep my mouth shut and I didn't.

I'm also going to back off from calling people on shit and trying to mediate in conflicts. Neither seems to have any net positive effect, since the former is naturally antagonistic and the latter is interpreted as taking sides and/or trying to impose my own standards of behavior on others.

Lastly liv and I have been talking a lot about any institutional/technological changes we might be able to make to help mitigate some of the flare-ups that have become all too common around here. We're not seriously considering rules or moderation at this point, but we do feel like there are gaps that need filling - specifically those that we originally intended the post voting system to address, before we disabled it.

Anyway I'm going to keep reading over this thread and thinking about things, and I'm definitely interested in input from others. We've had a very tumultuous week and I'm afraid we've lost a number of people as a result of hurt feelings and miscommunication. I'm really optimistic that we've got a good thing going here, though, so I hope if any of you feel like we're adrift you'll speak up even more than you already have here about what your hopes for this community are.

Thanks again for your participation. :)

[dave_a]

Anyway I'm going to keep reading over this thread and thinking about things, and I'm definitely interested in input from others. We've had a very tumultuous week and I'm afraid we've lost a number of people as a result of hurt feelings and miscommunication. I'm really optimistic that we've got a good thing going here, though, so I hope if any of you feel like we're adrift you'll speak up even more than you already have here about what your hopes for this community are.

Thanks again for your participation. :)

I think you may be trying to find a way to prevent the inevitable. Human interaction breeds conflict. It is a means to resolution. Not the most efficent means perhaps, but a means nonetheless.

There have been some who have left temporarily or permanently, but it isn't necessarily because of conflict. There may be other reasons for people leaving and conflict is the excuse they bow out under.

I don't think this community is adrift. There isn't a goal for this forum other than free thought expressed freely is there? If that is the goal then why even try to prevent conflict? Free though colliding with free thought may well result in some sparks.

I am trying to think here, Lady Shea called me a racist, I went off on Adora not because I was mad at her, but because I felt like giving her some shit for fun and an object lesson that apparently nobody understood. I have told Liv that she is a bitch who is always bitchy with me and she appears to avoid me for the most part now. Who cares? I like all 3 of the people I mentioned.

People are going to come and go for their own reasons and those reasons may not be what they appear on the surface. In the event I leave it will be because I am bored, not because Lady Shea calls me a racist or I think Liv is being major PMS bitchy.

I am in the group that enjoys civil discourse when it comes to topics that normally lead to conflict. I enjoy reading an abortion debate or evolution debate or whatever that is done in a civil manner because it's uncommon. As far as normal day to day conversations go who cares? Somebody might be drunk, got fired, had a fight with their S.O. or whatever. Tomorrow is another day.