Litmus test

[DoktorZ]

I agree with SQ that abuse is somewhat subjective.

WLB, you opened by claiming that intent and abuse share an "orthogonal" relationship. I'm not sure I know what that means, but I think it means that intent becomes less relevant the more severe the abuse becomes (e.g., murder).

In any case, as SQ pointed out, these forums don't have objective measures for "dickishness" because these measures probably aren't very easy to establish. Or, more precisely, establishing them would require a lot of time and effort, and probably be subject to diminishing returns.

Finally, you suggest that we should determine abuse by intent. Good luck with that. Intent is extremely difficult to determine even in court cases, and it's often completely subjective (based on a heartfelt testimony or, worse, jailhouse conversions to evangelical Christianity or Islam). This is why people like Ann Coulter can go around slandering people, and then say, "Oh, I was just kidding." We can't read anyone's mind, so intent is really not viable to determine "dickishness." Even if we could, policing people's internal intent isn't very appealing to me.

In any case, abuse on an online forum can only be judged by what appears in print on the screen. That's the only evidence relevant in this courtroom. So, if someone is saying "X user is a dick and deserves to die," that's abuse. End of. The question is whether we care enough to moderate it.

Otherwise, I think it's generally good advice not to be abusive to theists if, in particular, what you dislike about their behavior is its abusive aspects.

Z

[worldslaziestbusker]

WLB, I can't really sort out what it is that you're calling for--moderation of abusive comments?

I want people to be aware of the ethical implications of what they write. As I mentioned earlier, our scratchings in the dust such as these will likely last beyond the life of the author, so having people state that theist X deserves to be tortured for action Y and go unchallenged by the forum population is disheartening. Either no-one is thinking about the issues or no-one cares enough to speak up against the majority for fear of making themselves unpopular.
The forum already has rules about abuse, but I would like to see the atheist members of forums such as this pull each other up when abuse occurs. Without such individual concern and will to defend against injustice, what right do any of us have to call for injustices against us to be brought to an end?

I know from experience that everyone fails to live up to that standard at one point or another.

You can't know that from experience because that would require you to know everything about everyone. Big assumptions afoot. Take care with your superlatives.

I mean, if you're saying, "Stop the abuse," no one will disagree with you, and that's effectively a meaningless point to make.

It is a meaningless point you make, in turn, if abuse occurs and no-one speaks up about it.

But I can certainly agree that verbal abuse is weak argumentation. I usually scroll past such posts in boredom.

If you ignore abuse in that form, why not ignore it altogether. Where do you draw your line in the sand and how do you defend that decision? What, to you, is minimum intent to harm at which something warrants comment or action? Waiting until someone is making credible threats of physical violence seems to be a bit of a gate after the horse has bolted situation.

Incidentally, I think the willingness of individuals to consent to abuse may be most strongly demonstrated by some of the theists who troll these message boards.

And if their intent is to source evidence that atheists are abusive assholes with not ethical leg to stand on, what merit has the abuse they receive?

---

You are in no position to criticise me in this context.

I know of no position, where one person cannot criticise another, live with it douchebag, this is democracy.

Criticism and abuse are not the same thing.

Logic doesn't care about democracy, only about whether or not a conclusion follows from the premises. If you choose to accept abuse of forum members because the majority of members are okay with it, you have created a moral construct, but not an ethical one.
Theists have created moral constructs and enforced them by arguments from popularity and I'm not impressed by their efforts. Or yours.

---

Abuse is partially subjective, and I find you rather arrogant. People have to draw their own lines. What's required is empathy, not a litmus test. Not a line in the sand.

It's not a line in the sand, it's an axis about which you can choose to swing. Failing to acknowledge that abuse is binary requires that you draw a line in the sand somewhere along the spectrum of harm that abuse causes, which is both arbitrary and requires that harm be the measure, leaving intent to cause harm out of the equation.

I don't care if you find me arrogant. If there is a flaw in my case, point it out to me and I'll be forced to change. Simply calling me arrogant and not backing it up with a coherent case is, in itself, arrogant.
Think of the number of times you've read theists ranting about the arrogance of atheism and ponder whether simply labelling someone arrogant actually makes that the case. Arrogance has definitonal parameters and unless I fit them, the taxonomy is flawed. Willingness to change my ideas in the face of compelling evidence is my key evidence that I am not arrogant, but you have to provide that evidence before I am compelled to change. Names alone won't do the job.

---

Finally, you suggest that we should determine abuse by intent. Good luck with that. Intent is extremely difficult to determine even in court cases, and it's often completely subjective (based on a heartfelt testimony or, worse, jailhouse conversions to evangelical Christianity or Islam).

Since my primary concern in this thread is that people assess their own intentions and avoid being an asshole at every opportunity, a court is not required.

---

If you want to knock my argument for six and show that unnecessary suffering is not abuse, please provide me with an example of intended harm with no benefit to the victim which you would defend as ethical. If you can do this without falling into the ethical pitfalls of negating your own rights, I will have to rescind my point.

[jonb]

@ worldslaziestbusker

A problem with religion, is the notion that one central ethic can be imposed, the problem with this thinking is that no single ethic can be stretched to fit all situations. As such most churches do as much harm as they do good. You seem to be wanting to impose a single ethic that fits with your way of expressing yourself, however you must understand there are a number of different cultures and sub cultures that even just the people on this forum represent, let alone they are a number of individuals that are to some extent at variance with their own culture. I want to hear those voices.

Some little prig coming along and saying 'wouldn't it be nice if you all behaved like me, and you all expressed your selves in a way I am comfortable with,' is a shit of the first order. I am not interested in getting away from one ethical standard which does not work, only to have it replaced by another which also will not work. If you want to express yourself one way fine, but don't impose your thinking on me.

The expression of anger is just as valid, as a thought through precise bit of intellectual play. I find little difficulty differentiating personal abuse from, a thoughtful argument. If your problem is that your cannot, the answer is to fix yourself, not to reduce others to your level.

[DoktorZ]

True about the assumptions--I wrote poorly and was speaking for myself. Still, I'd bet a fiver everyone on this thread has broken the abuse rule at least once.

If someone is actually making a threat that shows intent to harm another user, that is a credible form of actionable abuse. Showing that in court is tricky, of course, but a contact with the police *usually* stops the threat. (Often, action is taken when someone can demonstrate a pattern of threats that indicate genuine intent. Then the police gather evidence.) That is when the forum moderators have a duty to inform the police. I scroll past ad hominem attacks because I frankly find them boring. So, my yardstick there is my level of boredom. Sorry I don't have a better justification than that. I simply don't take internet insults that seriously.

Consequently, if what you're asking is for people like me to intervene in any case in which someone is called a bad name on this forum, I'm afraid I'll have to decline. I simply don't have the time to do that, especially since so many of these things occur on the internet due to juvenile trolling. I also don't respond to every drunk and tramp who shouts rubbish at people on the street. Surely you agree, also, that trading barbs on the internet very rarely leads to threats of physical violence with genuine intent to carry them out.

How and when does internet abuse lead to genuine threats of violence? How often? How do you know that abuse is motivated by genuine anger? I don't think you can really answer those questions, because here we are nothing more than electronic entities represented by avatars with cartoonish "emoticons".

If what you're asking is for me to police my own behavior and consider the ethical ramifications of what I do--well, I do that anyway. If you're doing this simply to raise consciousness, I think you've achieved it, so it's probably time to put the issue to rest. If you're saying, "Let's establish a community code of conduct and enforce it amongst each other." No. Count me out. I suppose I will have failed your ethical litmus test.

On another note, don't you think getting atheists to establish a code of internet conduct and shared values (beyond a lack of belief in god(s)) is a bit like herding cats? Not to open a can of worms, but I thought that was the philosophy behind Athiesm+, or whatever that site is called. I must confess I'm not particularly attracted to that sort of thing, mainly because I grew up around hardcore theists who were constantly micro-managing others' thought and behavior.

Z

[thesummerqueen]

I'm calling you arrogant because I personally find it arrogant to come in and say everyone should act the way you think they should. That's my personal opinion, not something that has to be backed up. That's because it's subjective. Just like "abuse".

I've actually suffered physical and emotional abuse. Someone calling me a twat for my personal opinion, which might be abhorrent to them, ain't it. On the other hand, someone who had never actually been abused might find the name-calling absolutely upsetting. If you're calling for people to re-examine themselves and have more empathy for others then fine, I'm all for it. But it sounds too much like you're trying to make a fence around a crumbling pile of sand.

---

And, I don't care if you care if I find you arrogant. If I were actually trying to hurt your feelings I'd have gotten to know you first and fucked you up in the worst way possible mentally. You know. Abusively.

[worldslaziestbusker]

On another note, don't you think getting atheists to establish a code of internet conduct and shared values (beyond a lack of belief in god(s)) is a bit like herding cats? Not to open a can of worms, but I thought that was the philosophy behind Athiesm+, or whatever that site is called. I must confess I'm not particularly attracted to that sort of thing, mainly because I grew up around hardcore theists who were constantly micro-managing others' thought and behavior.

Z

I only want people to assess their own actions, which may, at times, requires that you speak up when people you otherwise like and align with are acting poorly. Personal ethics can negate the need for societal laws. True, we have legislation condemning murder, but that is a reflection of a basic human abhorrence for murder, not the reason we find murder abhorrent. If everyone applied ethical thinking about murder, the laws prohibiting it would be irrelevant.

[thesummerqueen]

So basically you're making a word soup out of saying we should police ourselves and make sure we're being nice to everyone.

[DoktorZ]

On another note, don't you think getting atheists to establish a code of internet conduct and shared values (beyond a lack of belief in god(s)) is a bit like herding cats? Not to open a can of worms, but I thought that was the philosophy behind Athiesm+, or whatever that site is called. I must confess I'm not particularly attracted to that sort of thing, mainly because I grew up around hardcore theists who were constantly micro-managing others' thought and behavior.

Z

I only want people to assess their own actions, which may, at times, requires that you speak up when people you otherwise like and align with are acting poorly. Personal ethics can negate the need for societal laws. True, we have legislation condemning murder, but that is a reflection of a basic human abhorrence for murder, not the reason we find murder abhorrent. If everyone applied ethical thinking about murder, the laws prohibiting it would be irrelevant.

I agree with the basic premise here--that people need to consider ethics closely, rather than simply obey laws. Effectively, you seem to be saying, "Produce the net culture you want to live in, because it also in part produces the people who live in it with you." Sure, I get that--it's why it's important to speak against things like slut-shaming. Still, I want to be careful that this sort of ideal doesn't slide into establishing and policing community standards. I also happen to think it's impossible to achieve--on the internet, at least, where the id reigns.

But, again, where people have different standards of behavior, like jonb's working class Britain (which I know only too well), then we come back again to enforcement, which is itself ethically thorny--and difficult to work out in a forum where the only thing we actually share is a DISbelief of something, not a belief in something.

Z

[LastPoet]

I had a workplace that I got the pleasure of being called everything, except "daddy?". It would do a good shock therapy for ya.

EDIT:I mean the OP

[worldslaziestbusker]

@ worldslaziestbusker

A problem with religion, is the notion that one central ethic can be imposed, the problem with this thinking is that no single ethic can be stretched to fit all situations.

Kant's categorical imperative comes as close as any I've come across to date.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Kant thought long and hard about ethics and formulated the wording of his imperative such that you can use it to test the ethical merit of any given decision using logic. This allows us to test an idea as from as near first principles as possible.

Eg: Can I steal and still be a good person?
Theft is taking property without permission.
If I want to steal and still be good, I need societal approval of that act.
I want permission to take property without permission.

That the syllogism falls in a heap of incoherence is the first sign that something is amiss. I cannot be considered good if my actions are logically incoherent in the reference frame of my community (this is why I only state that it is as near to a first principles examination as possible, because valuing ownership of property is the premise required to set the scene for the logical assessment).

But we can also assess it less abstractly. If I want society to be okay with theft, I can't justify that without affording the same right to everyone else. If everyone is free to take property without permission, theft becomes pointless because there is no way it can help any individual get ahead. Theft as a concept is only of benefit to a thief if the bulk of the community do not condone it. Without condemnation of the act generally, the act loses any appeal specifically.

So to state that this is just my opinion is incorrect. This is a logical extension of an established philosophical model which I've yet to see successfully disputed. If you cannot extend the rights you want to enjoy to everyone, you have no justification in calling for that right to be respected in your case.
If you are an abusive asshole, you have no sound footing from which to criticise the actions of those who abuse you.

The expression of anger is just as valid, as a thought through precise bit of intellectual play. I find little difficulty differentiating personal abuse from, a thoughtful argument. If your problem is that your cannot, the answer is to fix yourself, not to reduce others to your level.

Anger is a powerful motivator and it has wound up the clockwork of many great humanitarian people and causes, but it cannot justify abuse.
I think I am doing fine in my ability to spot when I am about to be abusive and to balk at that fence, but I see plenty of evidence of atheists who are either ignorant or indifferent of the repurcussions of their decisions and was eager to try to model a mechanism by which people could more readily assess their actions.
If I am broken, please show me where my ideas fall apart by presenting the requested example of intended harm from which the victim cannot benefit which does not negate any of your rights in turn.

---

So basically you're making a word soup out of saying we should police ourselves and make sure we're being nice to everyone.

You don't have to be nice to anyone, you just have to avoid being an asshole.
You do have to be ethical if you want to claim the rights you want respected. Ethical isn't nice or nasty, it's neutral, because at a basal level being ethical is a zero sum game. You don't oppress anyone, no-one oppresses you.
It creates a level playing field from which situations that aren't zero sum can arise, and from which a society can begin to thrive.