Civility 101

[Taxloss]

Things feel fairly shaken and sensitive here in the aftermath of the NYT/FOX conspiracy business. I apologise in advance if this sounds a bit preachy, the first thing we could do is make sure that when challenging a poster, we attack the post, not the person. And this is the perfect model:

"Do not be hectoring or arrogant. Those who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid or insane. Nobody needs to be described as silly: let your analysis show that he is. When you express opinions, do not simply make assertions. The aim is not just to tell readers what you think, but to persuade them; if you use arguments, reasoning and evidence, you may succeed. Go easy on the oughts and shoulds."

It's from The Economist's styleguide (http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=673927) and it's worth bearing in mind. I know it's nothing that isn't in the rules already, but it's nicely put and well justified.

The entire thing is an excellent guide to written English and, as a journalist and editor, I recommend it.

[metisnation]

1. I Disagree

J/K Not really..Your right treat people like you want to be treated. Anyone with the courage to be here and express their voice deserves respect. This is our Party's Main Ideal.

:dem:

[Taxloss]

2. Precisely.

Personal attacks make the attacker look weak and make the board look like a bear pit, which it isn't.

[ExclamationPoint]

3. It's a great skill in debating...

to treat your opponent with respect.

[Taxloss]

4. kick

[jswordy]

5. Hello fellow journalist and editor!

I agree with the essence of your post. I would add, though, that after reading this blog for months before making any posts, the tone in here is currently considerably better than it was pre-election.

So while I agree that there is further room for improvement, I feel that some credit might also be due.

That said, the knee-jerk element of the blog does make for some entertaining reading. I regularly ROFL at their creativity in the use of the English language, and must admit that I have at times actually egged them on so I could read more.

In this regard, the unfiltered comments in the blog are absent the gatekeeper role in our own profession, and so are much less apt to be distilled down to something boring. Quite refreshing to read, especially during a day spent whittling the national news down to fit the allotted space, oft a boring job. Akin to watching Jon Stewart for a breath of fresh air, in my view.

So don't be discouraged if many here ignore your comment, however much veracity it may contain. I might suggest you simply read and enjoy in those instances. It can be very entertaining.

[Taxloss]

14. Hi! Thanks for your thoughts.

There are certainly some remarkable wits here.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. nice request

The idea is a good one. It shouldn't just be limited to the events that just happened, though (I know you are not suggesting that). I have seen odious threads that start with questionable titles or hateful premises, then dissolve into a flame fest, all the while the real subject gets left in the wake. I will give some examples.

"WTF is wrong with the South...read this"...Why not something like..."WTF is wrong with this person...read this?"

There is a post about a Christian headmaster with child porn on his computer...almost the entire thread has dissolved into an anti-Christian bash and a Christian whining rant. Why not discuss the REAL issue?!

Those are two that pop into my mind. I know that one of those threads, the OP later "recanted" his title but couldn't re-edit because of time constraints. I saw it as very forthright of him to come back and state that he would have reworded the title.

We lose sight of the real issues because we are all trying to defend our own personal turfs.

As for the conspiracy threads...I like them..they are interesting. The fact that a newspaper decided to "cherry pick" something like that is nothing we can control, unless we ban those posts and we shouldn't have to (unless the poster has nothing in the way of backing up their thoughts). WE CANNOT let the other side determine how we discuss things, nor can we continue to snipe at one another in such a way that ends up dividing us more.

[jswordy]

7. I started that Christian headmaster post...

...this morning with the hope it would be a thoughtful discussion of a serious problem in the ministry these days, and also hoping it would evolve into a discussion of actions vs. words. That instantly did not happen.

However, there is little one can do once a post is begun to have control over who will say what in the ensuing thread. I am in favor of the board being "loose" like that, as I am a member of other, restrictive boards that are run by very controlling moderators. I find those to be difficult and stultifying.

In the interest of wide discourse (and of my personal entertainment), I like the way things are here.

But again, I do agree with the general thrust of the thread here that there is more power in a civil tone of debate.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. I know

I also read that you didn't want it to turn into the free for all it did. I respect what you are saying. As I stated in my previous post, I thought it was very big of you to come back and clarify...of course, but then, there was no way to get the topic back on track, save reposting. It is always tricky when posting something that will have a little "twinge" of controversy. Here recently, anything that even mentions the word "Christian' may turn into a flame war...that is just sad.

BTW...it was an important story and I am glad you posted it!

[jswordy]

10. Actually, I just went back and read the volume...

...of posts that resulted in that thread, and it does really seem to me in the aggregate that a serious discussion did indeed take place, in which many valid points were raised. And only a few knee-jerk reactions occurred, easily dismissed in my mind from the body of posts.

I also would like to point out, just between us, that the neutral topic header I created, "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven" could be taken in any of a number of ways ranging 360 degrees around the facts of the story, depending on an individual's views and prejudices.

I found it of tremendous interest to read just how that was taken, depending on how the particular poster's preconceptions were applied to the subject.

The discourse (minus the "heat") I found to be generally interesting and elucidating.

Your mileage may vary. :-)

[Behind the Aegis]

12. some good points

There were some interesting points. I can gloss over the 'flames' (although, those are very telling too!). You are right that some of the responses were quite thoughtful and insightful, as well. I have seen other 'flame' threads that also have great points. I guess it comes down to...you have to get in the mud to find the pearl. :)

[RPM]

9. maybe the real issue is christian hypocricy

and the child porn is another sad manifestation of the issue.

[txaslftist]

11. Watch for Trolls, though.

You know FREEPERS are lurking all over this board trying to make us look bad.

[flaminbats]

13. "as long as Americans continue to be ignorant..."

this line must be ditched from all future arguments. I heard this from Randi Rhodes today over and over and over...all it does is effectively drive people away!

It will not win supporters for any worthy cause, it will not win us votes for the next election, and it will not provide liberal talk radio with new listeners. I'm not advocating DLC politics, patriotism, or opposing Randi's principles. Merely stating that insulting potential voters is the best way to lose in the future!

[Taxloss]

15. "Agree with THAT? They're calling me ignorant!"

Quite. That is exactly the point.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

16. 'Forgive them, they know not...' is a healthy attitude to write with.

The intense cultural polarity and efforts to define it demographically can lead to an ugly 'us vs. them'- mentality.

Some of the country is fooled by the 'freedom on the march' propaganda and some of us are repelled by it. We can forget that three generations of full-immersion lie matrix has tricked many Americans into believing that fascism is really red-white-and-blue Jesus.

Consider Republicans (and many Dems) to be like cult victims that need good info showing that liberals aren't the enemy. We must SHARE information like a cookie, not INFLICT it on the unwilling who resist being told they have been duped like a forced feeding to destroy all they cherish.

People want to OWN their beliefs and feelings and need to save face when they figure out they have been scammed by the flagwaving and biblethumping.

And there are just plain old obnoxious disrupters and sabotageurs coming here to make it more like a microcosm of the info-war at large in the world.

Anonymity allows the less socially disciplined to post with the equivalent of 'road rage' and flippancy bordering on derision.

Thanks for offering practical ways to be civil in an anonymous setting.

[flaminbats]

17. Red White and Blue...colors on the British flag

those damned thieving snobs!

Attacking opponents can win votes, listeners, and support for ideals. Kicking an audience around and calling them ignorant will not educate or inspire voters. As you have indicated Democrats are angry, but must also be inclusive to win a majority. In the words of Otto von Bismarck "politics is the art of the possible".

[Taxloss]

18. And the French flag ...