Debate Now Incivility

[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.

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.

Maybe you don't, but other people most certainly do. Some people get their kicks out of going on these kinds of forums for just that specific purpose. We call them trolls.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

I concur with you that some people are indeed like that.

 

[MaryL]

One word: Liberalism. This growing trend to liberalism, the relaxation of standards, the lowering of expectations because ...not everybody can play, even on a even playing field. Now we got troll internet bullies, Bad drivers and road rage. Illegal aliens dictating immigration policies. Nut cases with guns dictating gun laws....This country is lost. Nobody has the guts to stand against the decline of standards and expect Americans to do better.

 

[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.

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

Ahhhh, but that is indeed the topic.

Take a minute and think about that....

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You can read the thread as well as I can quote it. Nobody was told to leave the thread, but that is offered as an option for those who do not wish to participate in this discussion on the terms set down for this discussion. If enforcing the rules set for this thread is interpreted as being uncivil, those who feel that way about it probably should find something else to do.

Now can we please return to the topic? Thank you very much.

 

[ChrisL]

One word: Liberalism. This growing trend to liberalism, the relaxation of standards, the lowering of expectations because ...not everybody can play, even on a even playing field. Now we got troll internet bullies, Bad drivers and road rage. Illegal aliens dictating immigration policies. Nut cases with guns dictating gun laws....This country is lost. Nobody has the guts to stand against the decline of standards and expect Americans to do better.

Being pro 2nd Amendment right is not liberalism. And who are these nutcases with guns who are dictating the laws? Congress?

 

[Alex.]

"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.

You can read the thread as well as I can quote it. Nobody was told to leave the thread, but that is offered as an option for those who do not wish to participate in this discussion on the terms set down for this discussion. If enforcing the rules set for this thread is interpreted as being uncivil, those who feel that way about it probably should find something else to do.

Now can we please return to the topic? Thank you very much.

Suggesting someone leave, asking someone to leave, forcing someone to leave, anything that makes a person uncomfortable or causes them to feel trepidation in what they consider a valid response is incivility. That is on topic and we do not need government intervention to cause that behavior to stop, we just had a few posters object to your post, that is the way people in a society deem what is incivility and how to stop the behavior.

 

[MaryL]

Given the level of gun violence in this country, and the inability of some people to recognize that, puts them up there with liberals and legalizing gay marriage. Disconnect from reality on a pet issue, not acceptable.

 

[Foxfyre]

One word: Liberalism. This growing trend to liberalism, the relaxation of standards, the lowering of expectations because ...not everybody can play, even on a even playing field. Now we got troll internet bullies, Bad drivers and road rage. Illegal aliens dictating immigration policies. Nut cases with guns dictating gun laws....This country is lost. Nobody has the guts to stand against the decline of standards and expect Americans to do better.

Well that is definitely a recap of the complaint set down in the OP, Mary, but IMO this is not one of those things we can blame on liberalism. I don't think we can point to liberals for the road rage or incivility on the internet etc. I see much incivility being demonstrated by folks on the right. And I'm sure the side most guilty is always going to be a subject of controversy based on any one person's perception.

But we used to be a nation where good manners were valued and expected. You don't think we can get back to that?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I do not believe I have ever gone out of my way to be uncivil to anybody on line or in real life.

Not to belabor the point or to criticize but I want to make this one point because it pertains to what I call "perceived incivility".

I agree that in your mind you are being absolutely truthful when you made the statement that I quoted above.

So what you actually posted was unintentionally uncivil and came across as bullying to those reading it.

I fully appreciated that at the time and the only point I am trying to make here is all of us are human and make mistakes from time to time, including myself.

So applying the benefit of the doubt rule was appropriate in that case and I deliberately chose not to take umbrage and instead argued the merits of what you were trying to say as opposed to the substance of what you actually posted.

Yes, it was a fine line that you believe I crossed and I don't but neither of us were going to accomplish anything if we allowed that to degenerate into incivility.

So it was a matter of looking for common ground instead of butting heads as we so often do.

Only by allowing each other some leeway are we ever going to be able to go along in order to get along.

 

[ChrisL]

Given the level of gun violence in this country, and the inability of some people to recognize that, puts them up there with liberals and legalizing gay marriage. Disconnect from reality on a pet issue, not acceptable.

Um, no, some of us are concerned about our rights and would never allow the government to restrict any of them. The 2nd amendment is a right of the people. Our rights are the ONLY thing that keep us a free people.

Edit: But I digress. We are getting off topic here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Given the level of gun violence in this country, and the inability of some people to recognize that, puts them up there with liberals and legalizing gay marriage. Disconnect from reality on a pet issue, not acceptable.

Let's be careful and don't divert everybody's attention to other controversial topics. But I agree, that it is people's 'pet issues' that most often seem to trigger the incivility. And there are those who just do it for sport and intentionally try to provoke a fight. Such people used to be pretty rare. Now they are commonplace. Why?

 

[Judicial review]

Given the level of gun violence in this country, and the inability of some people to recognize that, puts them up there with liberals and legalizing gay marriage. Disconnect from reality on a pet issue, not acceptable.

Um, no, some of us are concerned about our rights and would never allow the government to restrict any of them. The 2nd amendment is a right of the people. Our rights are the ONLY thing that keep us a free people.

Edit: But I digress. We are getting off topic here.

Let's play a game. I'll restrict 1 right of yours while you do 1 of mine and we will play this game till we both have no rights left. (some people are really stupid)

 

[ChrisL]

Given the level of gun violence in this country, and the inability of some people to recognize that, puts them up there with liberals and legalizing gay marriage. Disconnect from reality on a pet issue, not acceptable.

Let's be careful and don't divert everybody's attention to other controversial topics. But I agree, that it is people's 'pet issues' that most often seem to trigger the incivility. And there are those who just do it for sport and intentionally try to provoke a fight. Such people used to be pretty rare. Now they are commonplace. Why?

Because they feel threatened. It is an important issue to that person, and when something really matters to you, you tend to be more emotional.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Given the level of gun violence in this country, and the inability of some people to recognize that, puts them up there with liberals and legalizing gay marriage. Disconnect from reality on a pet issue, not acceptable.

Um, no, some of us are concerned about our rights and would never allow the government to restrict any of them. The 2nd amendment is a right of the people. Our rights are the ONLY thing that keep us a free people.

Edit: But I digress. We are getting off topic here.

We have both the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Resolving our differences via the latter has tragic consequences which is why the 1st is preferable.

So let's lay down the 2nd and stick to the 1st and look for ways that we can be civil with each other.

No, we won't agree on every topic but that doesn't mean that we should resort to being uncivil. There is way more that unites us than divides us.

 

[MaryL]

Given the level of gun violence in this country, and the inability of some people to recognize that, puts them up there with liberals and legalizing gay marriage. Disconnect from reality on a pet issue, not acceptable.

Um, no, some of us are concerned about our rights and would never allow the government to restrict any of them. The 2nd amendment is a right of the people. Our rights are the ONLY thing that keep us a free people.

Edit: But I digress. We are getting off topic here.

Yes we are ( I was, sorry.) But you were very civil about it.

 

[ChrisL]

I am always accused by the right of being a liberal if I disagree on a particular issue with them, and of being a conservative by the leftists when I disagree with them on an issue. Sometimes, I don't even HAVE to necessarily "disagree" but just make a statement or even ask a question. It's just ridiculous at times. For instance, today I was talking about the brothel in Nevada saying that they wouldn't "service" Josh Duggar, and I mentioned how I found that to be rather random an act and how I thought maybe it was for publicity's sake that they were so vocal about THIS particular case, and I get accused of defending child molestation, or something similar. It's ridiculous. When something like that happens, yes, I tend to get a bit perturbed about it.

 

[ChrisL]

BTW, according to political tests I've taken, I am neither right or left but a centrist. So there!

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You can read the thread as well as I can quote it. Nobody was told to leave the thread, but that is offered as an option for those who do not wish to participate in this discussion on the terms set down for this discussion. If enforcing the rules set for this thread is interpreted as being uncivil, those who feel that way about it probably should find something else to do.

Now can we please return to the topic? Thank you very much.

Suggesting someone leave, asking someone to leave, forcing someone to leave, anything that makes a person uncomfortable or causes them to feel trepidation in what they consider a valid response is incivility. That is on topic and we do not need government intervention to cause that behavior top stop, we just had a few posters object to your post, that is the way people in a society deem what is incivility and how to stop the behavior.

So what is more uncivil: breaking the stated rules or enforcing the stated rules? Coming onto a thread with the intent of derailing it and/or starting a fight or asking such people to find something else to do?

Disagreeing with somebody or getting in a huff because somebody dared disagree?

If enforcing the stated rules and/or giving people who don't want to follow them other options is to be interpreted as incivility, then so be it. I don't see it that way and probably never will.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am always accused by the right of being a liberal if I disagree on a particular issue with them, and of being a conservative by the leftists when I disagree with them on an issue. Sometimes, I don't even HAVE to necessarily "disagree" but just make a statement or even ask a question. It's just ridiculous at times. For instance, today I was talking about the brothel in Nevada saying that they wouldn't "service" Josh Duggar, and I mentioned how I found that to be rather random an act and how I thought maybe it was for publicity's sake that they were so vocal about THIS particular case, and I get accused of defending child molestation, or something similar. It's ridiculous. When something like that happens, yes, I tend to get a bit perturbed about it.

That definitely is one form of incivility as well as bullying--demanding that other people agree with you or else they will be accused of being something evil or unacceptable. We have probably all been targets of that kind of incivility at times I'm sure.