Civility

[Belacqua]

I think that swearing was part of the rules of the section.

Oops! That's probably true. 

I have accidentally banned myself!

[RoadRunner79]

I think that swearing was part of the rules of the section.

Oops! That's probably true. 

I have accidentally banned myself!

You could probably edit it... now that you realize.   Personally for me, it's not about the words themselves but the intent.   I had thought about sending you a PM about it.... I hope you don't mind how I let you know... it's probably a good reminder for everyone.  As I said I'm not too concerned, and anyways I believe in grace for the repentant.

[Belacqua]

You could probably edit it.

Done. 
Maybe it's ironic that I was the first to break the rules. No more first-stone-casting from me.

[Catholic_Lady]

Theres a lot of talk now about how we shouldn't have suggested a section like this because we aren't always civil. I wanted to address that here in this thread. I think we've all had our moments of not being 100% respectful and mature in discussions here, and that goes for probably every single person. No one is perfect. But I think there is still plenty of merit in wanting a section like this where we can hold ourselves to higher standards and try to be better than we have been in the past.

[Belacqua]

we can hold ourselves to higher standards

This is key, I think.

It's for me to be better. I can't change other people.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is generally little to do with honesty when it comes to asking for civility, for that matter.

I'm pretty sure (if I'm reading my own feelings accurately) that when I ask for civility I'm not asking to abandon honesty. 

I want to hear: "I disagree with you for these three reasons:_____" and not, "Go and die you [edited to read: unpleasant dolt]." I wouldn't even call the latter response honest -- just a kind of phatic burst.

I don't think that every person who asks for civility is asking for (or has) an abandonment of honesty, only that it's common...and even in those who do not intend to produce this effect, because honesty and civility must occupy the same space...the effect is produced regardless.

[Belacqua]

I'm pretty sure (if I'm reading my own feelings accurately) that when I ask for civility I'm not asking to abandon honesty. 

I want to hear: "I disagree with you for these three reasons:_____" and not, "Go and die you [edited to read: unpleasant dolt]." I wouldn't even call the latter response honest -- just a kind of phatic burst.

I don't think that every person who asks for civility is asking for (or has) an abandonment of honesty, only that it's common...and even in those who do not intend to produce this effect, because honesty and civility must occupy the same space...the effect is produced regardless.

Well, I think you know I won't agree with that. 

Being kind and patient with one another, and not typing personal insults when we disagree, seems to me more conducive of clear thinking. And clear thinking is helpful in pursuing honest discussion. 

The idea that someone wants kindness and patience and therefore he's probably trying to be cagey about things... That I don't see. 

Maybe you're thinking of specific people on the forum I haven't encountered. But as a rule, I don't see the connection.

[The Grand Nudger]

This seems like free association over words with a positive connotation.  

Consider again, though, that whatever space honesty would occupy...kindness and patience, or civility (one needn't be kind or patient to be civil, and civility is an effective mask for a complete lack of either), insisted upon..must by need replace it in that space. If some honest thing is neither kind, nor patient, nor civil..and we defer to those three over the first, we have lost that honesty and miscommunicated ourselves...but we've prevented none of the unkindness, none of the impatience.

I don't just disagree with a nazi, to use the internets favorite example. I don't just think that this ideology is wrong, and here's why..I think that it's abhorrent and wrong, and would rather people be wrong than abhorrent. There is no civil way to phrase this..particularly to a nazis ears. History informs us as to the consequences of being civil in these instances.

[Belacqua]

This seems like free association over words with a positive connotation.  

Consider again, though, that whatever space honesty would occupy...kindness and patience, or civility (one needn't be kind or patient to be civil, and civility is an effective mask for a complete lack of either), insisted upon..must by need replace it in that space.  If some honest thing is neither kind, nor patient, nor civil..and we defer to those three over the first, we have lost that honesty and miscommunicated ourselves...but we've prevented none of the unkindness, none of the impatience.

I don't just disagree with a nazi, to use the internets favorite example.  I don't just think that this ideology is wrong, and here's why..I think that it's abhorrent and wrong, and would rather people be wrong than abhorrent.  There is no civil way to phrase this..particularly to a nazis ears.  History informs us as to the consequences of being civil in these instances.

I think I cover the Nazi situation in point 2 of the OP. 

If there were horrible extremists posting here, neither reasonable argument nor personal insult would have any effect. In real life if you meet such extremists you have to choose whether to take action or walk away. In that case, I suspect that calling the police would be the usual course, and would be more effective than personal insult. 

I'm aware of Popper's argument about not tolerating intolerance, and I have no fight against that.

[Angrboda]

we can hold ourselves to higher standards

This is key, I think.

It's for me to be better. I can't change other people.

Meh. Or maybe people could just grow a pair. YMMV.