A short note on civility.

[flamin lib]

I’d like to thank the Mods for the recent increase in scrutiny of offensive posts. Yeah, I’ve been the beneficiary of the new policy, not because I alerted a reply ‘cause I just don’t alert for offensive posts directed at me, but because someone else reading the thread did. That’s how it’s supposed to work, us looking out for each other.

Still, there are those posts that come right up to the line but don’t quite cross it. Things like, “Why don’t you just admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about . . .” or
“You’re just a shill for (fill-in-the-blank) and spreading disinformation.” Then there’s that whole “self serving” thing that seems to crop up a lot.

When this stuff is aimed at me I generally pass it off as heat-of-the-moment and try to reply politely, reminding the fellow DUer that we should be nice to each other. I really hate to alert on someone who might have a genuine disagreement with me but expresses it badly or heatedly.

When I see it in someone else’s thread I’ve decided to respond on the behalf of the recipient of the offensive missive. Just gently remind the author that content and motive needn’t be linked and suggest that because you disagree with the content of the post there’s no need to assume sinister motives by its author. Sometimes I suggest alternative wording that is less inflammatory. There’s a big difference between “You’re lying” and “I think you’re mistaken because . . .”

In short, be nice to those you disagree with and come to the aid of others.

[Morning Dew]

1. You're lying

You’re just a shill for civility and spreading disinformation.

:evilgrin:

[flamin lib]

3. Argggg, foiled again! nt

[Morning Dew]

5. There are so many speedy posters on DU

that I never get to be first with one of those posts... thanks for the opportunity.

:)

[Robb]

2. Predictably unrecced.

Ah, well. I certainly appreciate the sentiment. And K&R. :)

[flamin lib]

4. Yeah, the phantom unreccer struck again. I think there's someone

out here trying to wear out the unrec button.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. No, you are WRONG.

There is some clever person who has written a program that automatically unrecs every new post DU. I am absolutely convinced of this.

[emilyg]

37. Rec.

[Xipe Totec]

6. +1 k&r

[reflection]

7. K&R for civility. n/t

[Earth_First]

8. I'll fight the War on Christmas till the end! n/t

...with OR without you!

[riverdale]

16. ,

The best time to strike at Christmas is now, when it least expects it.

[notadmblnd]

9. In what book of laws is it written that people should always be nice to each other?

or that life is fair? This is an anonymous board and if people here take what others post- offensively, then shame on the person whose feelings have been hurt. To let other have that power over them is a statement on their personality, not offenders.

[SidDithers]

11. Well said...nt

Sid

[laughingliberal]

13. Whether or not a person has let someone 'have that power over them'

it does not excuse the offender's bad behavior. An offender is an offender and not dependent on the offendee's reaction The offended is responsible for dealing with their own feelings but it does not mean offenders are unaccountable for their actions.

[notadmblnd]

24. it depends on what those actions are

and there a big difference in taking action and writing a sentence that may hurt someone feelings. NO, name calling and physical threats of violence should not be tolerated, but telling someone that they don't know what they're talking about and not wrapping it with hugs and kisses should not be taken offensively. People need to grow a thick skin if they expect to get through life without getting their feelings hurt by strangers.

[laughingliberal]

36. Offending is offending. Sorry, your belittling of civility by calling it "wrapping it with hugs and

kisses" does not, in my mind, diminish the value of civility. People may or may not have thick skins. It, in no way, changes the nature of offensive, mean spirited behavior. The effect on the listener, reader, or recipient of the behavior does not define the offensiveness of it. As I said, people with hurt feelings can find ways to cope with hurt feelings but it does not excuse the offender.

[notadmblnd]

38. never claimed it did. I just don't think it should be censored.

[flamin lib]

17. Point taken.

But this is a discussion board. Anger and offensive language closes down discussion.

My feelings don't get hurt which is why I do my best to remain civil in the face of incivility. Escalating a flame war gets nobody anywhere.

Besides, sometimes things are said in-artfully. We all, from time to time, chose words poorly. I think we should give each other the benefit of doubt and not assume sinister motives or lack of intelligence.

Then there are those posts that intentionally flame or attempt to disrupt a thread.

[notadmblnd]

23. Anyone who really spends time here knows who the disruptors are

and I don't spend time alerting on people either. However, there is a difference in starting a flame war and saying something mean to another person. This censorship thing bothers me. I know for the most part that the mods have no hidden agendas, but there have been posts locked here recently where not one offensive word was said. No one was called names and the discussion was moving along. People weren't wrapping their words with hugs and kisses either, but there was no valid reason to lock it. The mod felt that it could get to the point where it could get offensive, but that had not occurred when the post was locked, the debate was shut down. And that my dear is wrong. I thought we were liberals here and that we were against things like censorship based on what might be said in the future?

[flamin lib]

26. I haven't seen that, not that I read every thread. I have seen exchanges

that escalated from the "that's stupid" to "you're serving shit on a platter" un-necessarily.

[notadmblnd]

27. I know what the mod said here and I don't see it. The thread was locked

There where many post here yesterday questioning the political leaning of the nitwit that crashed his plane in Austin. I see nothing here that justified locking the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7744069

[flamin lib]

29. Well, I'll agree that I've seen plenty of worse "attack posts".

Apparently somebody alerted it and made a case to lock it. Don't see it myself but I'll bow to moderator because things were getting out of hand there for awhile and maybe the pendulum has to swing back a bit.

[Viking12]

10. Well, frankly there are lots of people here that, in fact, don't know what they're talking about

Climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, anti-science folks in general. There is no reason not to tell these people they don't know what they're talking about.

[flamin lib]

18. Absolutely.

Just do it without telling them they are full of shit in those exact words. There are lots of nice was to disagree and say exactly the same thing.

Incivility reflects more on the offender than on the recipient.

My dad told me that the first one to make a fist is the one who has run out of ideas. The same goes for coarse language.

[Viking12]

19. You have a relatively narrow sense of civility.

A civil person would admit they know nothing when they don't. A civil person does not continue to trot out zombie arguments when they've been slayed over-&-over. Telling such people to "shut the hell up" does not mean one has run out of ideas.

[flamin lib]

28. Well, sometimes we talk past each other. Respond to something

that isn't really in the post but seems to be. Once we start down a line of argument against a point made, real or imagined, it's sometimes hard to de-escalate and accept that there was a different point attempted to begin with.

I say X, someone assumes Y because I worded it poorly and no matter how I try to explain the original intent of X the opposition beats Y to death even though I never intended Y.

Part of civility is to respect someone trying to explain themselves without continuing to pursue a winning argument against a point not intended.

Then there's techno babble; you know, where somebody is an expert at underwater basket weaving and gets do involved in the wet stitchery that they don't really see or care about the point being attempted.

[laughingliberal]

14. Rec nt

[ShortnFiery]

15. IMO, well thought out and considerate.

Yes, most of us can work to behave in a more civil manner toward our opponents ... even though they are clearly WRONG. :silly:

Thanks for this. :hi:

[DainBramaged]

20. Next we'll be offering tea and crumpets while the Repukes steal another election

Dems, no spine, more worried about hurt feelings than our country.

[Vickers]

21. We can be nice to each other, and reserve our vitriol for the Repukes.

:hi:

[hfojvt]

22. no, we cannot

because we all know that there are Repukes here pretending (albeit sometimes not very well) to be progressives.

[flamin lib]

30. So you're sayin' that even tho someone has a long establised

persona and a journal to match the progressive agenda someone should beat the shit out of them for an offense imagined or real?

See, I could have worded that better instead of being belligerent.

Something like, "Yeah, but there are progressive we know who are treated badly on some point at some time. We just have to respect each other a bit."

That's all I mean, just be nice.

[DainBramaged]

32. Yup. and when you point out who is wearing socks, your post gets deleted....

This is politics, not tennis. It's a contact sport, and some folks should get a clue.


:hi:

[notadmblnd]

25. exactly!

[TransitJohn]

31. Unrec.

n/t

[MissMarple]

33. Oh my, I did not know! I can't be rude, combative and obnoxious anymore?

I guess I'll go eat worms. :crazy:

[MissMarple]

34. Arghhh! A double post. I will offer up, however, the phrase "I beg to differ".

Quaint, polite, what's not to love? I know someone will hate it because it's quaint and polite, depending on how one says it.

[flamin lib]

35. I beg to differ is much nicer than

"you're just a dumbass shitbag and besides that you're wrong".

Beg to differ is the same sentiment but much less likely to get a response like, "Well yeah and yer mother too plus the horse ya' rode in on!"

Jes sayin . . .

[MissMarple]

39. I am delighted that you concur, so kind of you.

:rofl:

It's just so much better on the blood pressure to be polite.