{"id":9654,"date":"2006-05-17T18:28:32","date_gmt":"2006-05-18T01:28:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/2006\/05\/17\/civility.html"},"modified":"2006-05-17T18:28:32","modified_gmt":"2006-05-18T01:28:32","slug":"civility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2006\/05\/17\/civility.html","title":{"rendered":"Civility"},"content":{"rendered":"

DOF has a pair<\/a> of posts<\/a> on (if I may paraphrase) how overrated civility and polite discourse sometimes are, and how sometimes Godwin’s Law<\/a> is counterproductive to useful discussion.<\/p>\n

I managed a long, rambling comment in the second of those posts (as compared to a short, rambling comment in the first of them), which means I should probably post it here:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I will grant that meta-arguments about \u201cyou\u2019re invoking Nazis!\u201d are rarely worthwhile. Indeed, I believe Godwin\u2019s law simply indicates that the argument is over<\/em> at that point, and it\u2019s the civility crowd that has inserted \u201cand the nice guys won.\u201d [Actually, Godwin’s Law merely states that, as a discussion thread grows longer, the probability that Nazis will be dragged into the discussion approaches 1.]<\/p>\n

Arguing for civility in discourse is like arguing for niceness in the tides or politeness from tornadoes. If you get to that point, you might as well pack up and leave, because things have gone as far as they are going to.<\/p>\n

The problem with outrage and Nazi comparisons and flecks of spittle about the lips is that, in and of themselves, they make it clear that further discussion isn\u2019t going to change anything. If you assert your belief that George W. Bush is out to create A Handmaiden\u2019s Tale<\/em>, or that Hillary Clinton is out to establish the One World State of the Anti-Christ, those are positions that approach axioms \u2014 you can\u2019t argue with an article of faith, so why continue the discussion. The dialectic has broken down \u2014 best to go your separate ways, roll your eyes to your friends, and cut down on the bandwidth.<\/p>\n

Moreso, the advantage of civility is that it at least presents the facade of respect. I don\u2019t particularly care to associate with those who don\u2019t offer me courtesy and respect; I\u2019m much more willing to do so with people who treat me as human, even if I bitterly disagree with them. Someone who screams that my position on X reveals me to be an evil, corrupt dupe of [fill in the blank] isn\u2019t someone that seems interested in hanging with me, nor I with him.<\/p>\n

That doesn\u2019t mean, to me, that we approach each issue with Olympian detatchment. Outrage is proper when outrage is felt. But all too often, outrage turns into any range of logical fallacies, demonization, and incoherent babbling. I think it is possible to feel passionately about an issue and still leave the door open to dialog\u2014if dialog is what you\u2019re really interested in.<\/p>\n

Which, sometimes, it\u2019s not. I have no desire to debate sexual ethics with NAMBLA, or racial differences with Klansmen. I have my hot buttons, and I\u2019m willing to admit it. I tend to be intolerant of intolerance (cue Tom Lehrer and \u201cNational Brotherhood Week,\u201d an ironically now-sexist title).<\/p>\n

But, in general<\/em>, I think most issues become clearer with discussion, and I retain enough ego to think that sometimes I might be able to sway someone who is simply a Wrong-thinker (and enough humility to admit that sometimes I might change my mind, too). But for that to happen, I need to be civil to others, and expect civility in return. Passion, yes, but a modicum of politeness in that passion.<\/p>\n

Because True Believers are rarely pleasant to be around, even when I agree with them. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I will add, since it’s my blog, that there are four levels of comments I run into here:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A comment that doesn’t require a response.\n
  2. A comment that I feel like responding to, either because I agree with it or because I want to continue the dialog.<\/p>\n
  3. A comment that I feel responding to would only result in Battling Axioms, and, thus, I remain silent.<\/p>\n
  4. A comment that I feel is so outrageous that, despite Battling Axioms, I cannot leave it be.<\/p>\n
  5. A comment that I feel no further response to is needed because I’ve said all I can say, and to say more would simply be to spew my own bile.<\/ol>\n

    Thus, if I drop a thread, it’s either because I feel I don’t need to respond, I don’t feel it wouild be productive to respond, or I don’t trust myself to respond. Some folks (who insist upon the last word) take a different course; that’s why there’s a blogosphere.<\/p>\n

    I am, by nature, someone who avoids confrontation when I can. Sometimes I can’t, in which case I confront. Though, I’ll note, at least 7 of 10 times I truly let loose, I usually regret it.<\/p>\n

    I’m not sure what thjis all means, other than an expression of my own taste, foibles, and\/or psychoses. But there it is.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    DOF has a pair of posts on (if I may paraphrase) how overrated civility and polite discourse sometimes are, and how sometimes Godwin’s Law is counterproductive to useful discussion. I…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blogging","category-personal"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":9641,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2006\/05\/19\/does_godwins_la.html","url_meta":{"origin":9654,"position":0},"title":"Does Godwin’s Law apply here?","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 19-May-06 10:54am","format":false,"excerpt":"In the recent discussion of Godwin's Law, the suggestion was made that it's valid to compare someone to Nazis when you're actually comparing them to things the Nazis actually did....","rel":"","context":"In "Geopolitical Brouhaha"","block_context":{"text":"Geopolitical Brouhaha","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/geopolitical-brouhaha"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":130180,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2016\/03\/12\/can-i-ask-for-an-amendment-of-godwins-law.html","url_meta":{"origin":9654,"position":1},"title":"Can I ask for an amendment of Godwin's Law?","author":"***Dave","date":"Sat 12-Mar-16 7:44am","format":false,"excerpt":"While, formally, Godwin's Law is that \"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1,\" more popularly it means that anyone who actually makes that comparison loses the discussion \/ argument.Can we please add the phrase \"ram down our throats\" to phrases\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4743,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/01\/14\/for_godwins_sak.html","url_meta":{"origin":9654,"position":2},"title":"For Godwin’s sake …","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 14-Jan-04 9:34am","format":false,"excerpt":"Isn't it about time someone invoked Godwin's Law on this kind of crap? While it does seem, in Nuremberg terms, that Bush could be called a war criminal (invading other...","rel":"","context":"In "Politics & Law"","block_context":{"text":"Politics & Law","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3449,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2002\/11\/19\/harsh_language.html","url_meta":{"origin":9654,"position":3},"title":"Harsh language?","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 19-Nov-02 7:08am","format":false,"excerpt":"What the frell is Harvard Law School, font of such First Amendment champions as Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, doing debating whether to develop a speech code? If you...","rel":"","context":"In "ZT & PC"","block_context":{"text":"ZT & PC","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/zt-pc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7535,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2005\/02\/11\/the_right_to_be.html","url_meta":{"origin":9654,"position":4},"title":"The right to be offended","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 11-Feb-05 10:21am","format":false,"excerpt":"Here's a marvelous essay by Salman Rushdie (who knows a bit about offending) describing how a free society requires the opportunity to be offended -- as only a moment or...","rel":"","context":"In "ZT & PC"","block_context":{"text":"ZT & PC","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/zt-pc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7229,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2005\/04\/20\/naming_of_names.html","url_meta":{"origin":9654,"position":5},"title":"Naming of names","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 20-Apr-05 12:39pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Y'know, there's a lot one can find to criticize over the direction and\/or theology of the Catholic Church. And, certainly, there are aspects to the record of Cardinal Ratzinger (now...","rel":"","context":"In "Blogging & Internet"","block_context":{"text":"Blogging & Internet","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}