Civility subsection suggestion

[Catholic_Lady]

So ... since challenging views would be allowed in such a subforum, are the following specific examples considered civil/uncivil? Which is which?

1. Referring to the Bible/Quran as "magic book" or "book of fairy tales".

2. Pointing out to someone that they're being disingenuous, or are incredibly ignorant about a subject they're discussing.

3. Willfully referring to someone as a gender that they clearly do not identify with.

4. Referring to certain views as nonsense/garbage/rubbish, even while seriously addressing the various points being made.

1. Seems like baiting to me. Seems a provocative and detrimental distraction from the point at hand. I would just stick to calling the Quran and the Bible, "Quran and Bible."   

2. Disingenuous is ok if it is an honest attempt at trying to understand the person (good example: "it seems disingenuous when you say _____ because _____."). I would steer clear of calling someone ignorant. It's probably better to say "It doesn't seem like you know this subject very well because _____".   

3. Provocative/baiting  

4. Nonsense seems okish I suppose, I'd avoid calling anyone's views garbage or rubbish though. What good does that do? Much more productive to be like "This is why your views don't make any sense _____."

I'm not saying any of those things specifically should be against a particular rule, though they certainly do chip away at the spirit of the rules which is to have civil discussion.    

The thing is, if you are genuinely wanting to have a productive and good discussion with someone, why would you want to push the boundaries and see just how much you can get away with? Why not just keep things in a way that will be most conducive to a good discussion? If you're trying to push boundaries you're kind of going into it with the wrong attitude. Better stick to the other subforums on AF and not bother requesting to post in the civility subforum.

---

So ... since challenging views would be allowed in such a subforum, are the following specific examples considered civil/uncivil? Which is which?

1. Referring to the Bible/Quran as "magic book" or "book of fairy tales".

2. Pointing out to someone that they're being disingenuous, or are incredibly ignorant about a subject they're discussing.

3. Willfully referring to someone as a gender that they clearly do not identify with.

4. Referring to certain views as nonsense/garbage/rubbish, even while seriously addressing the various points being made.

If you have to ask, err on the side of caution and don't say it.

How hard was that?

Some people just seem to have a childish need to push boundaries and see how much they can get away with, I suppose. 

Seriously. The subforum would be specifically for those wanting productive, civil discussion. If you don't want the discussion to be that way, don't post on that subforum. Very simple.

[johan]

CL I think I you've made your reasons and intentions for the sub forum pretty clear. Its all about paving the way for more productive and focused discussions without the distraction of insults, name calling, and posts that only serve to otherwise derail genuine discussion. On that level I'm interested and I suspect many others are as well.

You're pretty active here so out of curiosity let me ask you, have you felt that you were not able to participate in discussions here as much as you would've liked because of people insulting you?

[Whateverist]

F that.  

^^ reported

[Edwardo Piet]

it means that none of us knows everything but each of us knows something...

I'm glad you recognize that latter point!

Next time somebody tells me that they know I know nothing I'll tell them "KittyAnn says you're wrong", lol.

That annoys me so much! Lol. It's kind of ironic to tell someone they know nothing because it's kind of hypocritical and ironic lol.

Skepticism has been taken a step too far when people are telling me I'm being intellectually dishonest and committing an act of hubris to announce that I know that I'm conscious, that I know that 2+2=4, that I know that bachelors aren't married and that I know that a square has 4 sides...

True rationality is a balance of knowing and not knowing.

And Socrates is indeed awesome because he got me into philosophy. But this quote:

"I know that I know nothing" - Socrates

May indeed be a classic but the reality of it is that it is not only self-contradictory but it is totally inferior to this one:

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." - Francis Bacon

So, there ya have it. Good one KittyAnn.

[Catholic_Lady]

CL I think I you've made your reasons and intentions for the sub forum pretty clear. Its all about paving the way for more productive and focused discussions without the distraction of insults, name calling, and posts that only serve to otherwise derail genuine discussion. On that level I'm interested and I suspect many others are as well.

You're pretty active here so out of curiosity let me ask you, have you felt that you were not able to participate in discussions here as much as you would've liked because of people insulting you?

Thanks Jo!

I've been able to participate in discussions, no problem. It's just tedious having to comb through the shit posting and wasting my time responding to people who end up not actually being interested in discussion lol.

[Ravenshire]

No, I'm certainly not expecting that. My question was posed merely to make it clear if reports were required. But, the number of times I've reported what I honestly believe to be a clear violation of the rules, only to be told that it's not sometimes leaves me wondering what point there is in reporting it in the first place.

I get why that would be frustrating. If you think we’ve made mistakes you could maybe compile some of the posts you’ve reported in the Questions for Staff subforum and let us know why you think we should have decided differently. That’s just an idea. We are just people so we’re certainly capable of being wrong.

It's not that I think the staff is wrong, but that we have (and this points up the futility of attempting to enforce civility, even in a sub forum) different interpretations of what trolling is. Or flaming. Or any of the other things there are rules against. Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining that member X didn't get the ban hammer because I reported him/her. I just don't understand the complaint that such and such never gets reported when the reports of apparently glaring violations are dismissed seemingly out of hand.

---

I would steer clear of calling someone ignorant.

Not directed specifically at you CL, but I've always wondered at the use of ignorance as an insult and the taking of it as an insult. Telling someone they're ignorant isn't an insult. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. Everyone is ignorant of something and ignorance can be fixed, as long as it's not willful ignorance. Calling them stupid would be, especially if they've demonstrated a modicum of intelligence. You want to tell me I'm ignorant of something, by all means. knock yourself out. I'm far more likely to take it as a challenge to gain information than I am to take it as an insult.

---

Have I ever been reported? Lol. Now I'm curious.

^^Reported!^^


























































J/K.

[RoadRunner79]

CL I think I you've made your reasons and intentions for the sub forum pretty clear. Its all about paving the way for more productive and focused discussions without the distraction of insults, name calling, and posts that only serve to otherwise derail genuine discussion. On that level I'm interested and I suspect many others are as well.

You're pretty active here so out of curiosity let me ask you, have you felt that you were not able to participate in discussions here as much as you would've liked because of people insulting you?

What it seems to me, is an area where the spirit behind the prime directive would be enforced. If you can’t be civil, then you don’t get to participate at the adult table.

[GrandizerII]

1. Seems like baiting to me. Seems a provocative and detrimental distraction from the point at hand. I would just stick to calling the Quran and the Bible, "Quran and Bible."

Of course you would, but is there an expectation on your part that everyone else should show some unwarranted respect to these books? Is your idea of civility that people should show satisfactory (to you) level of reverence to the religious views you hold sacred? I don't see referring to the Bible as a book of myths and legends or "fairy tales" as necessarily uncivil. It depends on the context in which it's being said. If the person is saying it with a "meh" tone, and just to remind people what is being discussed exactly, I could hardly call this uncivil.

2. Disingenuous is ok if it is an honest attempt at trying to understand the person (good example: "it seems disingenuous when you say _____ because _____."). I would steer clear of calling someone ignorant. It's probably better to say "It doesn't seem like you know this subject very well because _____".

This seems so arbitrary. So calling someone "disingenuous" is ok (in some cases), but "ignorant" is not? You see what the trouble here is? People have varying views on what is considered civil or not.

I'm not saying any of those things specifically should be against a particular rule, though they certainly do chip away at the spirit of the rules which is to have civil discussion.

You say this now, but once shit hits the fan, many of you will be hoping for some of these rules to be enacted. Because, like it or not, many theists here don't really like their theistic views being strongly challenged. And any hint of harshness (towards views) will be seen as uncivil by someone.

The thing is, if you are genuinely wanting to have a productive and good discussion with someone, why would you want to push the boundaries and see just how much you can get away with?

That's not my intention (to push boundaries and all). And we have several productive and good discussions in this forum that I have been glad to be a part of. And I got to be a part of them while not worrying much about exactly how to be civil (as long as I was nice enough). If this subforum is made, not only will I have to ponder what exactly constitutes civil or not, most of these good and productive discussions will probably be centered in the subforum (as Steel pointed out earlier), and there probably won't be many of such threads outside of it.

Why not just keep things in a way that will be most conducive to a good discussion? If you're trying to push boundaries you're kind of going into it with the wrong attitude. Better stick to the other subforums on AF and not bother requesting to post in the civility subforum.

In addition to what I said above, I am against this in principle (because it's pretty clear to me that this idea is more for the benefit of theists than it is for members in general, no matter how you slice it), and considering that this is primarily an atheist forum.

[The Grand Nudger]

We should chill speech, it will totally promote speech!

[Amarok]

You say this now, but once shit hits the fan, many of you will be hoping for some of these rules to be enacted. Because, like it or not, many theists here don't really like their theistic views being strongly challenged. And any hint of harshness (towards views) will be seen as uncivil by someone.

Like banned calling me a sociopath because i call him out on his lying . This will be abused mainly by theists to quiet criticisms they don't like . 

Funny you don't here Benny crying "your being mean " when i have chewed him out . How many profanity laden back and forth have i had with Shelly B . Never once did she demand a "civil discussion thread " 

If you bothered by shit posts don't read them . I generally don'y