Have you ever used the ‘F’ word online? Called someone a Nazi? A Communist? How about the words ‘lie’, ‘atrocity’, or any pithy comparison to what the bull left behind? Or perhaps you never pour such vinegar through your keyboard. Maybe you prefer the more ‘civilized’ approach. Your missives are gentle, even scholarly.
More important, have you ever complained about someone else’s language? Either complaining that you are mistreated by other commenters, or calling for pragmatic civility?
To paraphrase Godwin’s Law, as any online discussion grows longer, the probability someone will begin griping about civility and style approaches one. Is an angry person necessarily wrong? Is the calm, soft-spoken, polysyllabic, seemingly humble person more likely to be right? Are we even looking for right and wrong, or are we looking for pleasing and displeasing?
It’s easy to sample hot rhetoric: Bush is Hitler. Gore is a socialist (or ‘commie’ – a word that is beginning to resurface after a long hiatus). Hillary is Satan. Any government action (such as gun control, or environmental regulation) is two quick steps from the gulag. Liberals should be rounded up and shot. Conservatives are facists. Before long you will hear the phrase “shouting past each other” and of course the term; “bashing”.
You can’t say ‘atrocity’, let alone the ‘F’ word, without a fellow leftie saying; “Hey, you’re being too rude and you won’t persuade people that way!” Thus the pragmatic argument for civility is born. We should pretend, say the nannies, to be less angry than we are so people will listen to us.
How about we stop prescribing how other people should ‘be’? The national debate might really take all kinds. Some people are turned off by blandness, some by spice. Let me suggest there’s freedom in looking past style to substance. Try to pay less attention to how someone talks and more to what they’re saying. Being ‘nice’ is overrated but it’s hard to overstate the importance of clarity.
At the very least, you can build a rebuttal that is more on-point. The fact that you found their language too stuffy or too profane, or you didn’t like a comparison, has nothing to do with how right they are.
As for what language you should use, I can’t advise you. Language is like clothing – dress comfortably and let others wear what they want. The important thing is that it covers what it’s intended to cover.
Notes and links:
Not bored yet? Here’s how the discussion started: three of my favorite blogs took up the issue of civility and online discourse, starting with Creek Running North:
“I have decided I no longer trust anyone who insists on others being civil. The bumper sticker from ten years ago said “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.” That needs updating. If you’re not outraged, then you’ve decided that the suffering that exists in the world is just fine with you, as long as you don’t feel it.”
Link
PZ Meyers predictably agreed:
“I’m all for outrage! Especially since lately there have been a few too many commenting whiners who are getting pissy because I think goose-stepping theocrats are evil, or that creationists are idiots, or that politicians who monitor our phone calls are tyrannical scumbags. If you’re complaining because I don’t compromise in damning these people, rather than complaining about what they do, the problem isn’t me: it’s your superficiality.”
link
But Alon Levy at UTI took a third way:
“Bickering about civility is about as useful as bickering about Oxford commas (by the way: everyone who omits Oxford commas is an evil fascist, I tell you!). My style is wonkish; deal with it. I don’t criticize Maryscott O’Connor for “Rage, rage against the lying of the right”; don’t criticize me for “The right is wrong because of these reasons.”
link
(Niceness is a veneer, or even a varnish over the content that it covers. If we were a little less sensitive, both in giving and receiving, we could actually pull the issue out into the sunlight and deal with it.)
Creek Running North updates the topic with Matters of weight
Well, first off, I am fully in favor of niceness, civility, and Oxford commas.
Ahem.
I will grant that meta-arguments about “you’re invoking Nazis!” are rarely worthwhile. Indeed, I believe Godwin’s law simply indicates that the argument is *over* at that point, and it’s the civility crowd that has inserted “and the nice guys won.”
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.
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’t going to change anything. If you assert your belief that George W. Bush is out to create _A Handmaiden’s Tale_, or that Hillary Clinton is out to establish the One World State of the Anti-Christ, those are positions that approach axioms—you can’t argue with an article of faith, so why continue the discussion. The dialectic has broken down—best to go your separate ways, roll your eyes to your friends, and cut down on the bandwidth.
Moreso, the advantage of civility is that it at least presents the facade of respect. I don’t particularly care to associate with those who don’t offer me courtesy and respect; I’m 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’t someone that seems interested in hanging with me, nor I with him.
That doesn’t 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—if dialog is what you’re really interested in.
Which, sometimes, it’s not. I have no desire to debate sexual ethics with NAMBLA, or racial differences with Klansmen. I have my hot buttons, and I’m willing to admit it. I tend to be intolerant of intolerance (cue Tom Lehrer and “National Brotherhood Week,” an ironically now-sexist title).
But, *in general*, 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.
Because True Believers are rarely pleasant to be around, even when I agree with them.
Hmmmm … that’s long enough for a blog post on its own …
May I grant myself the temerity to swear like a sailor when strong emotion is called for,
Discretion when such a display is ineffective,
And the wisdom to choose invective that slices to the bone.
Well, as you know, I’ve already taken a stand on language.
My own feelings about particular words aside, I tend toward the side of civility, for the same reasons Dave gave. Demonization is the great enemy of reasonable debate and when discussion turns to personal attacks, nothing is accomplished. Passion is one thing; abuse is another. The intent of abuse is to run people off, not to education or enlighten them.
That said, there are some passions which cannot be condoned, such as racism, and must be confronted wherever they occur. There are not always two sides to a debate. Needless to say, I’m conflicted.
My sarcastic remark: Whatever cooks the other person’s goose.
My real remark: It’s all about balance. Duh. If the goal is real discourse, then I think we need to talk about respect more than niceness or civility, though niceness and civility are usually components of respect.
If the goal is just entertainment, or puffery, or one-upmanship, then it doesn’t really matter. When it comes to discourse, the written word on paper (as in newspapers, magazines and other “serious” journals) is a subject to misunderstanding as it is not as interactive as face-to-face dialogue. while internet forums are more interactive by their nature, but they are often, IMO, a very blunt tool because of the isolation of many who post. It is far to easy to type and press enter than to type and wait a day or two be reflective.
Yep. I rant and rave and use the f word if I feel like and f$$$ anyone who complains about it. The left wing has left comments calling me everything from a scumbag to a bigot. Some of the religious bible thumpers call me a godless commie just because I believe that freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion and I refuse to accept anyone dictating my moral code.
But I have never beed accused of being politically correct. I kinda figure that when they can’t refute an argument then they start attacking me as a person and then when that doesn’t work they come with the insults. Of course when I write raghead that is what I intend to do..insult the terrorists. If I write goat fornicating ragheads I damn sure mean to insult the ragheads.
That said, there are some passions which cannot be condoned, such as racism, and must be confronted wherever they occur. There are not always two sides to a debate.
Of course, there’s racism, then there’s racism.
I am a model of civility on my own blog. Why even the title shows how civil I am.
DOF
Did you read Chris’s article FUCK YOUR CIVILITY on Creek Running North? Wow, and then wow some more.
It was extremely excellent.
I don’t write to convence someone to come to my viewpoint, it is usually a waste of time. I state my views, right , wrong or whatever, those are my views, hatched by almost 60 years of living. I see other views that are the direct opposite of mine, those views being formed from their life experiance. I am not sure which is correct and at this point in my life , I really don’t care. I am not politcally correct, I curse and if I feel the need to use the dreaded N word I will. My mom and dad are long dead and I don’t really give a shit what anyone else thinks about my opion.
I’m happy to say that “fuck” is one of my favorite words. Indeed, I try to use the fucking word at every opportunity. I prefer “fuck” with a “donkey” before it and an “er” at the end of it. Though sometimes it’s fun to exclaim, “Fuck the fucking fucker!”
Hah, I snuck the last one past your obscenity screener!
…which I just updated. I’m pretty fond of f* too, as anyone who knows me in daily life can attest. So why don’t I use it on my blog? Because I’m trying not to get filtered out of ‘safe search’ and namby-pamby filter software in schools. My working limit at the moment is whatever goes on The Simpsons.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out what’s so damn offensive about f* but some people get really torqued about it.
Did you ever hear Lenny Bruce’s ‘blah-blah!’ routine? Hilarious. He had cops in the audience waiting to arrest him, and did the most obscene show of his life without using any of their keywords
But that’s hardly the biggest issue in online civility. Main thing I’m trying to get my head around is how to circumnavigate the fact that many people stop listening if you call the president a liar or refer to Dog as the ‘sky fairy’. Sure, I could just ignore them but I am trying to make connections somehow. It’s a real head-scratcher.
Part 3 of this series coming up this weekend.
Okay, maybe it’s my own personal biases, but I see a difference between calling the president a liar, and referring to Dog as the “sky fairy.”
In the first case, you’re asserting fact. Unfortunately, the whole Dubya thing has gotten so polarized that all you have to do is say “Iraq” or “Bush” and a third of your audience will tune out even before you add a verb or adjective to the sentence—at which point you’ll lose another third of your audience.
But at least you can argue, one way or the other, over whether the president is a liar (or, to be more civil, whether he has lied in a particular instance, facts being the premises for conclusions as to his overall character).
On the other hand, referring to Dog as the “sky fairy” (which feels like a mix of atheistic metaphors, but I digress) is simply being argumentative. Saying “I don’t believe in God” is a personal statement of belief, and should garner respect as such. Calling God a “sky fairy” is asserting an unprovable fact (as much as calling God the Almighty is asserting an unprovable fact), and doing so in a way that belittles the faith of folks who believe otherwise.
Some folks will just turn off at that point. Others, with thicker skins, will not. Depending on your purpose, that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
Hmm, what’s a ‘personal bias’? That might be another word for experience, or perspective. Anyway, you are right; those are two different rhetorical excesses, and each has its own purpose.
What I am exploring with the help of my commenters (thanks to all) is the speaker/listener equation. For the purpose of this discussion it doesn’t really matter about the president or Dog or the designated hitter rule. Those are just examples.
(Disclaimer: I have absolutely no idea what a designated hitter is, nor care. But I have heard that’s a controversy of cosmic importance. It seems trivial to me, but who knows? Maybe Dog is a baseball fan.)
Being absolutely reasonable, level-headed, and calm, and exploring all sides of an issue with an inhuman fairness may be admirable but will fail to connect to many people on grounds of excruciating boredom. Firing off an emotionally satisfying screed will fail to connect to many other people on the grounds of offense. Net effect: same.
We don’t have control over the listener, and one’s rhetorical style (as mentioned above) is a matter of personal taste which I am not attempting to prescribe for others. What we DO control is our reaction to other people’s styles. If I can hold off the leap to judgment long enough to hear out someone whose rhetoral style is not to my preference, odds are I will at least be able to see my own issue from another angle. That is a priceless gift.
I’m still working out the HOW, though. After all, I am an emotional being and can be swayed by my reaction to style.
Ah. The old debate about whether the responsibility for communication (or, flip-side, the arbiter of meaning) is with the speaker, the listener, or some combination thereof. I tend to swing both ways (rhetorically, at least), and take at least some measure of responsibility in either role. If everyone did that, then it would likely be problem solved. Instead, too many arguments turn into, “Well, that’s not what I meant!” “Well, that’s what I thought you meant!”
I do agree that what each of us can do is control our reactions to others. And, as you note, the devil is in the implementation details.