Debate Now Incivility

[Foxfyre]

The innocent pay the price as far as their willingness to cave in and give up. The innocent far outweigh the perpetrators of the incivility, they can reach out to others and gain strength in numbers while effectuating change through the acceptable methods.

When I first arrived here at USMB the place was overrun with RW bullies who shamelessly abused the rep system to essentially control this forum and maintain a very rightwing slant as to what was "allowed".

There were some hardy liberals who refused to be bullied and stood up against the negative repping but it wasn't until USMB changed to this new platform and eliminated repping entirely that the bullying was effectively curtailed.

So in summary if the bullies are unrestrained they will continue to impose their uncivil behavior on others. However if they are denied the ability to intimidate and have to play on a level playing field they are outnumbered by what you referred to as the "innocents".

So now they resort to vulgarities instead. They try to intimidate by making the "innocents" feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. The bullies are essentially using incivility as a means to continue bullying since they can no longer do it in an overt manner.

Noting here a violation of Rule #1 of the thread. A characterization of "RW bullies" is ad hominem and inappropriate for this thread. Bullies come in all colors, sizes, shapes, and ideologies and singling out one group for inappropriate criticism is in itself a form of incivility that this thread is intended to address.

"A characterization of "RW bullies" is ad hominem and inappropriate for this thread." How so? Is "RW bullies" a poster here?

It was used as a derogatory characterization of a group of people at USMB in a way that cannot be supported by any evidence in fact but can be explained only on a basis of personal prejudice or perception.

But such personal prejudice and/or perception is a frequent tool used to accomplish incivility at USMB, in the MSM, in social media, and in government as expressed in the OP.

So then this is your personal perception and interpretation. That is how incivility starts when one person either misinterprets or attempts to force their own measuring rod down the throats of others. To me that is an example of incivility.

If you want to suggest that may fall within the parameters we can establish as incivility then we all can weigh in and determine if it is.

Everybody is entitled to their own measuring rods of anything, but in the SDZ the OP gets to set the rules for the discussion. In this discussion, my rules are that nobody will be allowed to accuse, attack, or use any other ad hominem technique directed at any specific individual or group at USMB or elsewhere with impunity. I also reserved the right, via Rule #2, to define what ad hominem is. Those who don't like my rules are in no way obligated to participate on this thread at all, and are quite within their allowed rights to start their own thread with any sort of rules they prefer.

There isn't anything else to say on that particular subject, so I suggest that those who care to do so enjoy discussing their perspectives on the topic.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The innocent pay the price as far as their willingness to cave in and give up. The innocent far outweigh the perpetrators of the incivility, they can reach out to others and gain strength in numbers while effectuating change through the acceptable methods.

When I first arrived here at USMB the place was overrun with RW bullies who shamelessly abused the rep system to essentially control this forum and maintain a very rightwing slant as to what was "allowed".

There were some hardy liberals who refused to be bullied and stood up against the negative repping but it wasn't until USMB changed to this new platform and eliminated repping entirely that the bullying was effectively curtailed.

So in summary if the bullies are unrestrained they will continue to impose their uncivil behavior on others. However if they are denied the ability to intimidate and have to play on a level playing field they are outnumbered by what you referred to as the "innocents".

So now they resort to vulgarities instead. They try to intimidate by making the "innocents" feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. The bullies are essentially using incivility as a means to continue bullying since they can no longer do it in an overt manner.

Indeed. I am one of those libs who did not put up with that crap and just kept on going and going and going.

 

[Alex.]

When I first arrived here at USMB the place was overrun with RW bullies who shamelessly abused the rep system to essentially control this forum and maintain a very rightwing slant as to what was "allowed".

There were some hardy liberals who refused to be bullied and stood up against the negative repping but it wasn't until USMB changed to this new platform and eliminated repping entirely that the bullying was effectively curtailed.

So in summary if the bullies are unrestrained they will continue to impose their uncivil behavior on others. However if they are denied the ability to intimidate and have to play on a level playing field they are outnumbered by what you referred to as the "innocents".

So now they resort to vulgarities instead. They try to intimidate by making the "innocents" feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. The bullies are essentially using incivility as a means to continue bullying since they can no longer do it in an overt manner.

Noting here a violation of Rule #1 of the thread. A characterization of "RW bullies" is ad hominem and inappropriate for this thread. Bullies come in all colors, sizes, shapes, and ideologies and singling out one group for inappropriate criticism is in itself a form of incivility that this thread is intended to address.

"A characterization of "RW bullies" is ad hominem and inappropriate for this thread." How so? Is "RW bullies" a poster here?

It was used as a derogatory characterization of a group of people at USMB in a way that cannot be supported by any evidence in fact but can be explained only on a basis of personal prejudice or perception.

But such personal prejudice and/or perception is a frequent tool used to accomplish incivility at USMB, in the MSM, in social media, and in government as expressed in the OP.

So then this is your personal perception and interpretation. That is how incivility starts when one person either misinterprets or attempts to force their own measuring rod down the throats of others. To me that is an example of incivility.

If you want to suggest that may fall within the parameters we can establish as incivility then we all can weigh in and determine if it is.

Everybody is entitled to their own measuring rods of anything, but in the SDZ the OP gets to set the rules for the discussion. In this discussion, my rules are that nobody will be allowed to accuse, attack, or use any other ad hominem technique directed at any individual or group at USMB or elsewhere with impunity. I also reserved the right, via Rule #2, to define what ad hominem is. Those who don't like my rules are in no way obligated to participate on this thread at all, and are quite within their allowed rights to start their own thread with any sort of rules they prefer.

There isn't anything else to say on that particular subject, so I suggest that those who care to do so enjoy discussing their perspectives on the topic.

I understand that but who exactly was attacked and where was the incivility? Telling someone to leave the thread is incivility in action because they expressed an opinion within the rules that you set.

 

[Derideo_Te]

For the most part, I try to treat people in the same manner that they treat me because respect is earned, IMO.

That is the slippery slope approach IMO and I know that because I tried it in another place in a past life.

In essence if you start responding to vulgarities with your own vulgarities you have surrendered the high ground and descended to their level which makes you no better than them IMO.

Instead I opt to remain at my level because I know that they are incapable of rising to mine and it is frustrating for them because they can't reach me.

So the answer to incivility is not to respond in kind IMO. Instead it is to either ignore them or to just laugh it off. You won't win every battle in life and so you should always pick opponents who are worthy of your time.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The innocent pay the price as far as their willingness to cave in and give up. The innocent far outweigh the perpetrators of the incivility, they can reach out to others and gain strength in numbers while effectuating change through the acceptable methods.

When I first arrived here at USMB the place was overrun with RW bullies who shamelessly abused the rep system to essentially control this forum and maintain a very rightwing slant as to what was "allowed".

There were some hardy liberals who refused to be bullied and stood up against the negative repping but it wasn't until USMB changed to this new platform and eliminated repping entirely that the bullying was effectively curtailed.

So in summary if the bullies are unrestrained they will continue to impose their uncivil behavior on others. However if they are denied the ability to intimidate and have to play on a level playing field they are outnumbered by what you referred to as the "innocents".

So now they resort to vulgarities instead. They try to intimidate by making the "innocents" feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. The bullies are essentially using incivility as a means to continue bullying since they can no longer do it in an overt manner.

Noting here a violation of Rule #1 of the thread. A characterization of "RW bullies" is ad hominem and inappropriate for this thread. Bullies come in all colors, sizes, shapes, and ideologies and singling out one group for inappropriate criticism is in itself a form of incivility that this thread is intended to address.

Just an observation: do you fail to see the utter irony not just in what you wrote, but also how you wrote it?

I am still laughing over this.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Noting here a violation of Rule #1 of the thread. A characterization of "RW bullies" is ad hominem and inappropriate for this thread. Bullies come in all colors, sizes, shapes, and ideologies and singling out one group for inappropriate criticism is in itself a form of incivility that this thread is intended to address.

"A characterization of "RW bullies" is ad hominem and inappropriate for this thread." How so? Is "RW bullies" a poster here?

It was used as a derogatory characterization of a group of people at USMB in a way that cannot be supported by any evidence in fact but can be explained only on a basis of personal prejudice or perception.

But such personal prejudice and/or perception is a frequent tool used to accomplish incivility at USMB, in the MSM, in social media, and in government as expressed in the OP.

So then this is your personal perception and interpretation. That is how incivility starts when one person either misinterprets or attempts to force their own measuring rod down the throats of others. To me that is an example of incivility.

If you want to suggest that may fall within the parameters we can establish as incivility then we all can weigh in and determine if it is.

Everybody is entitled to their own measuring rods of anything, but in the SDZ the OP gets to set the rules for the discussion. In this discussion, my rules are that nobody will be allowed to accuse, attack, or use any other ad hominem technique directed at any individual or group at USMB or elsewhere with impunity. I also reserved the right, via Rule #2, to define what ad hominem is. Those who don't like my rules are in no way obligated to participate on this thread at all, and are quite within their allowed rights to start their own thread with any sort of rules they prefer.

There isn't anything else to say on that particular subject, so I suggest that those who care to do so enjoy discussing their perspectives on the topic.

I understand that but who exactly was attacked and where was the incivility? Telling someone to leave the thread is incivility in action because they expressed an opinion within the rules that you set.

INDEED.

 

[ChrisL]

For the most part, I try to treat people in the same manner that they treat me because respect is earned, IMO.

That is the slippery slope approach IMO and I know that because I tried it in another place in a past life.

In essence if you start responding to vulgarities with your own vulgarities you have surrendered the high ground and descended to their level which makes you no better than them IMO.

Instead I opt to remain at my level because I know that they are incapable of rising to mine and it is frustrating for them because they can't reach me.

So the answer to incivility is not to respond in kind IMO. Instead it is to either ignore them or to just laugh it off by considering the source.

I try, but some people seem to only respond to (or understand) when you are rude.

 

[ChrisL]

Okay, sometimes I try harder than other times. In fact, sometimes I might not try at all, depending upon my mood.

 

[Foxfyre]

Incivility is nothing new.

During the 1980's and 1990's, the House of Representatives allowed members to make after hours speeches on any topic. These 'special orders' were almost always presented to empty seats, and they were carried on Cspan (who wasn't allowed to show the empty seats) so we were able to listen in. And some of these were so angry and vitriolic, they made a body shudder. Bob Dornan of California was there almost every night accusing the Clinton administration. Henry Gonzalez of Texas was there almost every night accusing President Reagan and President G.H.W. Bush.

During the same period, AOL (and other) chat rooms became popular. The political and religion rooms were always packed with people taking advantage of anonymity to say the most outrageous and hateful things to each other. That tradition has seemed to carry over to message boards that have mostly replaced the chat rooms and has become commonplace in our national culture.

“In today’s America, incivility is on prominent display: in the schools, where bullying is pervasive; in the workplace, where an increasing number are more stressed out by coworkers than their jobs; on the roads, where road rage maims and kills; in politics, where strident intolerance takes the place of earnest dialogue; and on the web, where many check their inhibitions at the digital door,” says Pier M. Forni, author of “The Civility Solution: What to Do When People are Rude” and director of The Civility Initiative at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

“How in the world can we stop bullying in schools, in the workplace, in politics, when it is so close to our national character right now?” asks Dr. Gary Namie, a psychologist and cofounder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, a Washington state–based nonprofit.​

TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Why are people uncivil and so often say hateful or insulting or hurtful things to each other in this and other environments? What do they get out of it? Do they hope to accomplish something? Has anybody ever had their mind changed by somebody yelling at them and/or being insulting? What purpose does it serve? Is there some sort of personal satisfaction attached to it? And is this a good thing? Bad thing? Can it harm people? What affect, if anything, does incivility have on others, especially kids?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any specific person or group participating in this discussion or elsewhere.

2. To avoid getting bogged down, for purposes of this discussion only, the OP reserves the right to specify what definitions will be used if there is any dispute about that.

3. If you post a link, please give at least a brief description of what we will learn if we click on that link. Links can be useful, but are not required to express an opinion in this discussion.

"""Why are people uncivil and so often say hateful or insulting or hurtful things to each other in this and other environments? ...."""

They are actually fairly civil when face to face. It's anonymous message boards like this that gives one free reign to say what they are really thinking. They can drop the fake social mask and be honest. Let their hypocrisy hang out and they don't care.

Me? Nope. I'm up front and unedited regardless of here or anywhere else. Just last week I had about eight Republicans pile on me because I took exception to an attack on Biden while he was barely back from his son's funeral. My goodness those people could barely restrain themselves. I'm sure a couple of people wanted to hit me. But true to human nature in real life situations, they were totally fake.

And another person might have eight Democrats or eight accordian players jump on them because of an expressed opinion. The problem is not that somebody disagrees with somebody else. There wouldn't be any point to a message board or many other venues of participation if everybody saw everything exactly alike.

But why is it necessary to attack a person personally or try to verbally destroy him/her just because he/she says something others don't agree with? There was a time when people could speak their mind and be criticized for it without being demonized for it. When did that change? Why did it change?

 

[Judicial review]

For the most part, I try to treat people in the same manner that they treat me because respect is earned, IMO.

That is the slippery slope approach IMO and I know that because I tried it in another place in a past life.

In essence if you start responding to vulgarities with your own vulgarities you have surrendered the high ground and descended to their level which makes you no better than them IMO.

Instead I opt to remain at my level because I know that they are incapable of rising to mine and it is frustrating for them because they can't reach me.

So the answer to incivility is not to respond in kind IMO. Instead it is to either ignore them or to just laugh it off by considering the source.

I try, but some people seem to only respond to (or understand) when you are rude.

That's your problem. You don't need to be rude. Simply ignoring stupid behavior can send an even louder message.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And since it is a fact that you cannot prove or support in any way that it was RW bullies

But I can do so!

The amount of rep that each poster had was ranked by USMB. The top 20 posters in the forum with the highest rep were all on the right. In fact there were no LW posters on the entire first page of 30 posters. That is not to say that the bullies were all on the first page because they weren't. But the tone was there and it was reflected not only in those rankings but in the numerous threads complaining about the bullying that was rampant. Those threads still exist if you care to look them up for yourself.

So yes, the bias was there and the bullying was there and it was so egregious that the USMB administrators chose to eliminate rep entirely in this new platform even though they had the option to transfer it over.

Now you can argue that it wasn't only RW'ers who were doing it and that was true once the LW'ers figured out how the system worked. They had reason enough for payback IMO.

Speaking for myself I considered negative repping to be the worst aspect of USMB and I did my utmost to render it ineffective it was an uncivil practice that resulted in unnecessary discord and harm to innocents as Alex refers to them.

Drop it DT. You're out of line pushing this. It does not matter who had the highest rep nor does that provide any proof of bullying, of who bullied who, or who started it, or anything else. So please return to the topic or I will start reporting the infractions.

Now to return to the topic, rep bullies of all ideologies did exist at USMB and many have greatly objected to not being able to continue that practice. I see this as a symptom of the larger underlying problem of hurting, insulting, or demeaning people as sport and how incivility is commonly expressed. What prompts people to do this?

Should USMB (and other forums, venues, and groups) institute hard fast rules to prevent it such as the rules on this thread? Why or why not?

No, he is not. He made a good point and the irony of this is your behavior to him on a thread about incivility.

You just cannot make this stuff up.

Wow.

 

[ChrisL]

Incivility is nothing new.

During the 1980's and 1990's, the House of Representatives allowed members to make after hours speeches on any topic. These 'special orders' were almost always presented to empty seats, and they were carried on Cspan (who wasn't allowed to show the empty seats) so we were able to listen in. And some of these were so angry and vitriolic, they made a body shudder. Bob Dornan of California was there almost every night accusing the Clinton administration. Henry Gonzalez of Texas was there almost every night accusing President Reagan and President G.H.W. Bush.

During the same period, AOL (and other) chat rooms became popular. The political and religion rooms were always packed with people taking advantage of anonymity to say the most outrageous and hateful things to each other. That tradition has seemed to carry over to message boards that have mostly replaced the chat rooms and has become commonplace in our national culture.

“In today’s America, incivility is on prominent display: in the schools, where bullying is pervasive; in the workplace, where an increasing number are more stressed out by coworkers than their jobs; on the roads, where road rage maims and kills; in politics, where strident intolerance takes the place of earnest dialogue; and on the web, where many check their inhibitions at the digital door,” says Pier M. Forni, author of “The Civility Solution: What to Do When People are Rude” and director of The Civility Initiative at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

“How in the world can we stop bullying in schools, in the workplace, in politics, when it is so close to our national character right now?” asks Dr. Gary Namie, a psychologist and cofounder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, a Washington state–based nonprofit.​

TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Why are people uncivil and so often say hateful or insulting or hurtful things to each other in this and other environments? What do they get out of it? Do they hope to accomplish something? Has anybody ever had their mind changed by somebody yelling at them and/or being insulting? What purpose does it serve? Is there some sort of personal satisfaction attached to it? And is this a good thing? Bad thing? Can it harm people? What affect, if anything, does incivility have on others, especially kids?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any specific person or group participating in this discussion or elsewhere.

2. To avoid getting bogged down, for purposes of this discussion only, the OP reserves the right to specify what definitions will be used if there is any dispute about that.

3. If you post a link, please give at least a brief description of what we will learn if we click on that link. Links can be useful, but are not required to express an opinion in this discussion.

"""Why are people uncivil and so often say hateful or insulting or hurtful things to each other in this and other environments? ...."""

They are actually fairly civil when face to face. It's anonymous message boards like this that gives one free reign to say what they are really thinking. They can drop the fake social mask and be honest. Let their hypocrisy hang out and they don't care.

Me? Nope. I'm up front and unedited regardless of here or anywhere else. Just last week I had about eight Republicans pile on me because I took exception to an attack on Biden while he was barely back from his son's funeral. My goodness those people could barely restrain themselves. I'm sure a couple of people wanted to hit me. But true to human nature in real life situations, they were totally fake.

And another person might have eight Democrats or eight accordian players jump on them because of an expressed opinion. The problem is not that somebody disagrees with somebody else. There wouldn't be any point to a message board or many other venues of participation if everybody saw everything exactly alike.

But why is it necessary to attack a person personally or try to verbally destroy him/her just because he/she says something others don't agree with? There was a time when people could speak their mind and be criticized for it without being demonized for it. When did that change? Why did it change?

It has much to do with the venue and the anonymity of being online, I think. Instead of holding your tongue, you will come out and say whatever to whomever.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What prompts people to do this?

Low self esteem IMO.

In essence bullies suffer from low self esteem because they lack the ability to rise any higher. Without that option they try to bring others down to their own level instead.

Should USMB (and other forums, venues, and groups) institute hard fast rules to prevent it such as the rules on this thread? Why or why not?

Given that USMB did exactly that in hindsight I agree that it was the right decision. The amount of time and effort that was wasted trying to manage the incivility from the bullying was detracting from the overall experience.

So yes, I would agree that putting in place hard and fast rules that deal with bullying and incivility do work. Have they stopped all of the incivility? Nope, and it is probably impossible without infringing on freedom of speech. But it can be "discouraged" and in that regard USMB has an effective tool that does exactly that, it discourages those that are incapable of behaving in a civilized manner.

So the answer is all of the above. Use both hard and soft approaches.

Admittedly eliminating rep and the institution of the CDZ, the Lounge, the SDZ, and efforts to keep the political threads more on topic have been appreciated by those who are not among the uncivil 'cults'. But elsewhere, on any threads that lend themselves to more provocative topics, I am frankly seeing so little civility that serious discussion of those topics has become difficult to accomplish.

I'm just not seeing it getting any better and if anything it has become worse. Are all those who participate in the insult fest, who organize pile ons targeting certain individuals, who instigate and relish the food fights all suffering from low self esteem?

Do all the politicos and talking heads and pundits and social media people et al participating in the uncivil rhetoric all suffer from low self esteem?

It is getting worse because USMB allows the absolute dregs of life to post an endless stream of hateful, racist, bigoted threads. And you really think that people of good will are going to put up with that utter crap?

No way.

 

[Foxfyre]

The innocent pay the price as far as their willingness to cave in and give up. The innocent far outweigh the perpetrators of the incivility, they can reach out to others and gain strength in numbers while effectuating change through the acceptable methods.

When I first arrived here at USMB the place was overrun with RW bullies who shamelessly abused the rep system to essentially control this forum and maintain a very rightwing slant as to what was "allowed".

There were some hardy liberals who refused to be bullied and stood up against the negative repping but it wasn't until USMB changed to this new platform and eliminated repping entirely that the bullying was effectively curtailed.

So in summary if the bullies are unrestrained they will continue to impose their uncivil behavior on others. However if they are denied the ability to intimidate and have to play on a level playing field they are outnumbered by what you referred to as the "innocents".

So now they resort to vulgarities instead. They try to intimidate by making the "innocents" feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. The bullies are essentially using incivility as a means to continue bullying since they can no longer do it in an overt manner.

Noting here a violation of Rule #1 of the thread. A characterization of "RW bullies" is ad hominem and inappropriate for this thread. Bullies come in all colors, sizes, shapes, and ideologies and singling out one group for inappropriate criticism is in itself a form of incivility that this thread is intended to address.

Just an observation: do you fail to see the utter irony not just in what you wrote, but also how you wrote it?

I am still laughing over this.

I am pleased to be entertaining to you. Now please return to the topic. Thank you very much.

 

[ChrisL]

For the most part, I try to treat people in the same manner that they treat me because respect is earned, IMO.

That is the slippery slope approach IMO and I know that because I tried it in another place in a past life.

In essence if you start responding to vulgarities with your own vulgarities you have surrendered the high ground and descended to their level which makes you no better than them IMO.

Instead I opt to remain at my level because I know that they are incapable of rising to mine and it is frustrating for them because they can't reach me.

So the answer to incivility is not to respond in kind IMO. Instead it is to either ignore them or to just laugh it off by considering the source.

I try, but some people seem to only respond to (or understand) when you are rude.

That's your problem. You don't need to be rude. Simply ignoring stupid behavior can send an even louder message.

Ahhh, kettle meet pot.

 

[Derideo_Te]

For the most part, I try to treat people in the same manner that they treat me because respect is earned, IMO.

That is the slippery slope approach IMO and I know that because I tried it in another place in a past life.

In essence if you start responding to vulgarities with your own vulgarities you have surrendered the high ground and descended to their level which makes you no better than them IMO.

Instead I opt to remain at my level because I know that they are incapable of rising to mine and it is frustrating for them because they can't reach me.

So the answer to incivility is not to respond in kind IMO. Instead it is to either ignore them or to just laugh it off by considering the source.

I try, but some people seem to only respond to (or understand) when you are rude.

When you are rude in return you are playing by their rules. You are not obliged to do that and you can set your own rules. If they can't play by your rules you are free to ignore them. I do that all the time.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Incivility is nothing new.

During the 1980's and 1990's, the House of Representatives allowed members to make after hours speeches on any topic. These 'special orders' were almost always presented to empty seats, and they were carried on Cspan (who wasn't allowed to show the empty seats) so we were able to listen in. And some of these were so angry and vitriolic, they made a body shudder. Bob Dornan of California was there almost every night accusing the Clinton administration. Henry Gonzalez of Texas was there almost every night accusing President Reagan and President G.H.W. Bush.

During the same period, AOL (and other) chat rooms became popular. The political and religion rooms were always packed with people taking advantage of anonymity to say the most outrageous and hateful things to each other. That tradition has seemed to carry over to message boards that have mostly replaced the chat rooms and has become commonplace in our national culture.

“In today’s America, incivility is on prominent display: in the schools, where bullying is pervasive; in the workplace, where an increasing number are more stressed out by coworkers than their jobs; on the roads, where road rage maims and kills; in politics, where strident intolerance takes the place of earnest dialogue; and on the web, where many check their inhibitions at the digital door,” says Pier M. Forni, author of “The Civility Solution: What to Do When People are Rude” and director of The Civility Initiative at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

“How in the world can we stop bullying in schools, in the workplace, in politics, when it is so close to our national character right now?” asks Dr. Gary Namie, a psychologist and cofounder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, a Washington state–based nonprofit.​

TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Why are people uncivil and so often say hateful or insulting or hurtful things to each other in this and other environments? What do they get out of it? Do they hope to accomplish something? Has anybody ever had their mind changed by somebody yelling at them and/or being insulting? What purpose does it serve? Is there some sort of personal satisfaction attached to it? And is this a good thing? Bad thing? Can it harm people? What affect, if anything, does incivility have on others, especially kids?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any specific person or group participating in this discussion or elsewhere.

2. To avoid getting bogged down, for purposes of this discussion only, the OP reserves the right to specify what definitions will be used if there is any dispute about that.

3. If you post a link, please give at least a brief description of what we will learn if we click on that link. Links can be useful, but are not required to express an opinion in this discussion.

"""Why are people uncivil and so often say hateful or insulting or hurtful things to each other in this and other environments? ...."""

They are actually fairly civil when face to face. It's anonymous message boards like this that gives one free reign to say what they are really thinking. They can drop the fake social mask and be honest. Let their hypocrisy hang out and they don't care.

Me? Nope. I'm up front and unedited regardless of here or anywhere else. Just last week I had about eight Republicans pile on me because I took exception to an attack on Biden while he was barely back from his son's funeral. My goodness those people could barely restrain themselves. I'm sure a couple of people wanted to hit me. But true to human nature in real life situations, they were totally fake.

Yes, that was truly disgusting. Not even the 2nd most powerful man in the world, literally a heartbeat away from the presidency of the most powerful land on the face of the Earth, can be afforded even one single freaking day of peace without RWers attacking him BRUTALLY and with unbelievable incivility. Where was your umbrage about that, Foxfyre? Or are only LWers uncivil, in your esteemed opinion? Hmmmm???

 

[Derideo_Te]

Okay, sometimes I try harder than other times. In fact, sometimes I might not try at all, depending upon my mood.

Yes, we are all human and we sometimes make mistakes.

 

[Judicial review]

For the most part, I try to treat people in the same manner that they treat me because respect is earned, IMO.

That is the slippery slope approach IMO and I know that because I tried it in another place in a past life.

In essence if you start responding to vulgarities with your own vulgarities you have surrendered the high ground and descended to their level which makes you no better than them IMO.

Instead I opt to remain at my level because I know that they are incapable of rising to mine and it is frustrating for them because they can't reach me.

So the answer to incivility is not to respond in kind IMO. Instead it is to either ignore them or to just laugh it off by considering the source.

I try, but some people seem to only respond to (or understand) when you are rude.

That's your problem. You don't need to be rude. Simply ignoring stupid behavior can send an even louder message.

Ahhh, kettle meet pot.

Lol..

 

[Foxfyre]

Incivility is nothing new.

During the 1980's and 1990's, the House of Representatives allowed members to make after hours speeches on any topic. These 'special orders' were almost always presented to empty seats, and they were carried on Cspan (who wasn't allowed to show the empty seats) so we were able to listen in. And some of these were so angry and vitriolic, they made a body shudder. Bob Dornan of California was there almost every night accusing the Clinton administration. Henry Gonzalez of Texas was there almost every night accusing President Reagan and President G.H.W. Bush.

During the same period, AOL (and other) chat rooms became popular. The political and religion rooms were always packed with people taking advantage of anonymity to say the most outrageous and hateful things to each other. That tradition has seemed to carry over to message boards that have mostly replaced the chat rooms and has become commonplace in our national culture.

“In today’s America, incivility is on prominent display: in the schools, where bullying is pervasive; in the workplace, where an increasing number are more stressed out by coworkers than their jobs; on the roads, where road rage maims and kills; in politics, where strident intolerance takes the place of earnest dialogue; and on the web, where many check their inhibitions at the digital door,” says Pier M. Forni, author of “The Civility Solution: What to Do When People are Rude” and director of The Civility Initiative at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

“How in the world can we stop bullying in schools, in the workplace, in politics, when it is so close to our national character right now?” asks Dr. Gary Namie, a psychologist and cofounder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, a Washington state–based nonprofit.​

TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Why are people uncivil and so often say hateful or insulting or hurtful things to each other in this and other environments? What do they get out of it? Do they hope to accomplish something? Has anybody ever had their mind changed by somebody yelling at them and/or being insulting? What purpose does it serve? Is there some sort of personal satisfaction attached to it? And is this a good thing? Bad thing? Can it harm people? What affect, if anything, does incivility have on others, especially kids?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION

1. Stay on topic with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any specific person or group participating in this discussion or elsewhere.

2. To avoid getting bogged down, for purposes of this discussion only, the OP reserves the right to specify what definitions will be used if there is any dispute about that.

3. If you post a link, please give at least a brief description of what we will learn if we click on that link. Links can be useful, but are not required to express an opinion in this discussion.

"""Why are people uncivil and so often say hateful or insulting or hurtful things to each other in this and other environments? ...."""

They are actually fairly civil when face to face. It's anonymous message boards like this that gives one free reign to say what they are really thinking. They can drop the fake social mask and be honest. Let their hypocrisy hang out and they don't care.

Me? Nope. I'm up front and unedited regardless of here or anywhere else. Just last week I had about eight Republicans pile on me because I took exception to an attack on Biden while he was barely back from his son's funeral. My goodness those people could barely restrain themselves. I'm sure a couple of people wanted to hit me. But true to human nature in real life situations, they were totally fake.

And another person might have eight Democrats or eight accordian players jump on them because of an expressed opinion. The problem is not that somebody disagrees with somebody else. There wouldn't be any point to a message board or many other venues of participation if everybody saw everything exactly alike.

But why is it necessary to attack a person personally or try to verbally destroy him/her just because he/she says something others don't agree with? There was a time when people could speak their mind and be criticized for it without being demonized for it. When did that change? Why did it change?

It has much to do with the venue and the anonymity of being online, I think. Instead of holding your tongue, you will come out and say whatever to whomever.

I don't believe that Chris. I do not believe I have ever gone out of my way to be uncivil to anybody on line or in real life. I can name dozens of other people I interact with on a message board who I believe have never done that. I don't criticize those who like the food fights here or elsewhere--whatever floats their boat. But I do not enjoy that kind of stuff myself. Being uncivil is just not sport or fun for many people.

So I have to believe it is learned behavior or a monkey see - monkey do kind of thing for some. And maybe it is just a cultural norm for some who don't intend to hurt anybody or be a jerk. I honestly don't know.