What We Mean By Civility
Over the last few days, we've seen a few conversations take ugly turns, with comments sinking to personal insults, coarse language, and threats of violence. We've been able to deal with most of these incidents by editing offending comments or, in a few instances, by expelling the members who made them. These expulsions have always been preceded by implicit or explicit warnings -- edits, deletions, or emails -- unless the comment is exceptionally offensive.
The Code of Conduct describes what's over the line, but it has some holes: obscenity, vulgarity, and rudeness are open to interpretation; and, barring "99% of conspiracy theories" but not specifying them raises questions about the 1% that are allowed.
More to the point, it's possible to be passionate -- and these are passionate times -- without resorting to noisy talk about violence, or armed rebellion, or things of that nature. It's possible to rattle the sabers without drawing them.
Finally, the point of Ricochet isn't to identify who can yell the loudest, or who is more conservative than whom. The point is to create -- for those of us who agree, broadly, on some basic ideas -- a lively, smart, civil place to have a conversation. And have another conversation the next day. And the next.
Ricochet, we hope, is a place you'll want to come back to. So as a simple rule, let's not insult each other on the site. Let's not get personal. There's no way to have a useful, interesting, or illuminating conversation when we're calling each other names.
Earlier this morning, Pilgrim suggested the following:
I think it would be a good idea for The Logo to open a conversation on the Code of Conduct - sort of a Ricochet constitutional convention. Two issues that I would want discussed would be 1) the addition and wording of a zero tolerance policy and 2) community involvement in banishment of members that may have stepped one foot over the line. I have my ideas of how those items should be addressed but will hold in the event that this suggestion is taken.
We think that's a fine idea. Please let us know what you think.
- Comment (135)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Pilgrim, great example of why having lefties around is an overall good. It's not just about censoring what we say, it's about understanding "I would not want to be called a crypto-facist, so obviously Major Don won't take kindly to being called a crypto-commie." It is very easy to forget those kinds of things while amongst friends and like-minded individuals, and having people with alternate viewpoints around helps us grow as individuals and as a group.
Jun '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Except for the fact that the far left wing of the Democratic Party is full of commies. We have the roster now of those in Congress who are literally card-carrying socialists. They are the same people who make periodic trips to Cuba for the purpose of praising Fidel Castro. I would imagine that Major Don would find my comment extreme, but we have the documentation, and it's irrefutable.
Liberals believe that European socialism is a net good. They refuse to acknowledge the totalitarian tendencies within their own ranks. Conservatives believe that socialism is at best a questionable system. We know full well the consequences of socialism run amok based on history. Now, who's the extremist in this debate?
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
On the issue of inviting people of the Left to contribute, I must demur. There are lots of places for lefties, or folks of any ideological bent, to post comments, and any of us -- members and contributors alike -- are perfectly capable of linking to their posts if it adds something to our discussion.
The problem with a "guest" contributor from the Left is that he doesn't have the "skin in the game" that is the cornerstone of Ricochet. He knows he can drop a big stink bomb and leave without minding the consequences.
I see Ricochet (maybe I'm alone in this) as a place for conservatives to talk through ideas with each other, examining them in detail, working through philosophical problems, broadening the debate while elevating the tone. There's plenty of scope for enlightened disagreement; I see no reason why we should devolve into an "echo chamber".
Having all the usual left vs. right, "lemme tell you why you're wrong" sorts of shouting matches will wreck the Ricochet project and render it pointless and irrelevant.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
We should refrain from name-calling because it's basic politeness, not because it might offend a specific individual we happen to have met. Worse still, it takes up valuable time and space where a legitimate argument might have been inserted. Ask not "who will be offended?" Instead ask, "how does what I am saying advance the argument and help convince the reader?" If it doesn't do those things, it's not worth the pixels; leave it out.
I don't need (none of us here should need) a lefty standing in front of me to remind me to be polite to lefties. I have no need to express hatred of lefties anyway: it's their ideas I hate. Let's ridicule their silly notions and leave the name-calling to Kos.
Jun '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Peter Christofferson
We should refrain from name-calling because it's basic politeness, not because it might offend a specific individual we happen to have met. Worse still, it takes up valuable time and space where a legitimate argument might have been inserted. Ask not "who will be offended?" Instead ask, "how does what I am saying advance the argument and help convince the reader?" If it doesn't do those things, it's not worth the pixels; leave it out.
I don't need (none of us here should need) a lefty standing in front of me to remind me to be polite to lefties. I have no need to express hatred of lefties anyway: it's their ideas I hate. Let's ridicule their silly notions and leave the name-calling to Kos. · Sep 18 at 7:06am
Point taken
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I agree with every word from Peter Christofferson in comments # 43 and #44. I've been thinking all morning of a way to say something similar. Thanks, Peter.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: They're not mutually exclusive, Humza. I am absolutely in favor of every line of the Code of Conduct and its intolerant application. I was addressing the question raised by Kenneth--should the doors be open to people like Major Don, who describes himself as a "Man of the Left?"
(Fortunately, since he's described himself that way, we're spared the debate about the definition of a "Man of the Left.") · Sep 18 at 4:43am
That actually is not a question I asked, Claire. I asked if we could discuss what we'd learned from our experiments at dialogue with Babur and Major Progressive.
Just waking up here...more to come.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
You know, cdor, my heart's totally with you on this one, but even my own brother has described me as "about as sensitive as a toilet seat." I like things fractious, as obviously do you, but earthling ways are a little different from ours--they are touchy on this planet. Oh, and the caption contest--that was kind of another failed Claire Berlinski scheme to bring about World Peace. I was actually thinking, "Huh. This Major Don thread is getting a little out of hand. Let's start a fun contest to distract 'em!" Boy did that go wrong. Lesson: Nothing about Michele Obama is funny. What prompted me to erase the thread shall retain an eternal Ricochet mystery, like the purpose of Stonehenge. It's better that way. · Sep 18 at 5:48am
I saw the offending comments before you took it down, Claire. Hair-raising.
Sep '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Attempting to persuade professed right or left-wingers to change their PoV on core issues is a fool's errand.
The notion of independents has been pooh-poohed in these pages, but there really are voters who can swing either way. IMHO it's that type of person at whom your "open door" should be aimed.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I'm glad we're having this discussion, but count me among those saying "so far, so good." There have been a handful of comments that I thought were over the top, but they've been in conversations that I'm not involved in (or where I posted something that generated no further discussion). I'm sure I would care more if one of my own half-baked comments were attacked.
For my part, I know I'm a smart-ass - so I'm used to reviewing what I type three or four times and toning it down before posting. I don't want to offend a fellow commenter, and concerns about lefty sites using a few comments to prove what loons we conservatives are strike me as legitimate.
...Although, the mentions of Huffington Post seem weird to me, since that site looks more like a mix between The Enquirer and Seventeen every time I visit.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
We're addressing numerous issues here:
This is gonna take more than 200 words, but here I go:
With regard to (1) I now realize that there isn't much to learn. Poor Babur, faced with Members citing Islam's long history of violence and the Koranic tenets from which that violence sprang, was simply not able, in public form, to delve into those matters
With regard to Major Progressive, Claire was responding to his "can't we talk?" message while the rest of us were focusing on the breathtaking, snarky dishonesty at the top of his "letter". What we did learn is that a Progressive, when confronted by his dishonesty, simply dodges and weaves, but never fully admits error. But we already knew that.
So I guess the answer is: don't invite those folks in. There's nothing edifying to be gained.
Now on to point (2):
Re: What We Mean By Civility
After a week of spirited discussions, it makes sense to glean as many lessons as possible from the tone of those discussions and apply those lessons now, because as Ricochet grows and the election nears, passions will not diminish. I don’t think it unreasonable to expect that there will be some leftists who become members, and perhaps the occasional guest like Major Don. It is possible to shred their arguments without shredding their dignity. I can’t help but recall an example from Bill Buckley who, in a debate said, “I would like to take your argument seriously, but I’m afraid that to do so would be an affront to your intelligence.” Buckley proceded to annihilate the guy's argument.
The result of such an approach will either be; A) they concede the argument, B) they mysteriously vanish from the discussion, or C) they resort to unserious comments or behavior that the COC already prohibits and are shown the exit. While this site’s main focus is not political evangelism, engaging the occasional leftist is not a problem. We have the facts, history, and on this site (from members to contributors) the intellect to handle them.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
To drify into a cliched lazy metaphor on Saturday morning, Ricochet is a sort of family. Families have deeper ties than pure surface words. Sometimes things can get a little bit heated, and sometimes even friends exchange words in a discussion where both have strong views. Sometimes they just kid each other using terms that might be insuoting in another context. We need to use "conservative" common sense, not either bombast or hypersensitivity. Zero tolerance is a leftist concept, used to arrest 6 year old boys who bring their Boy Scout fork to school to eat lunch, because it is a dangerous weapon. Consider the context.
Sometimes it is wise to avoid certain concepts- the cost-benefit equation isn't worth it- e.g.,, racial/ethnic jokes, anything about violence/revolution. Conservatives should avoid playing into inapt stereotypes. On the other hand, if something is nonsense, used to kill legitimate debate (CAIR's censorship list), we should resist.
There is no more significant debate on the Right, though, than between the party purifiers (e.g., Michael Tee) and the more pragmatic squishes (uh, me and others). We do need to be able to talk about it. If not here, where?
Sep '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I loved that podcast. More Goldberg please.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Duane Oyen:
There is no more significant debate on the Right, though, than between the party purifiers (e.g., Michael Tee) and the more pragmatic squishes (uh, me and others). We do need to be able to talk about it. If not here, where? · Sep 18 at 8:10am
Sniff. Sniff. I've never been so complimented in quite some time. Much thanks. Sniff. Sniff.
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Continued from #52: That said, I respectfully submit that we should be discerning when it comes to actually inviting a leftist to engage. Intellectual honesty and civility are a must.
I understand that the primary purpose of this site is facilitate a civil and enjoyable conversation among right of center people. In that regard, I think things have gone very well, actually. It helps to remember that a huge election looms, and the stakes are high. So passions will run high as well. But civility need not suffer. Now, having been up driving all night,…I’m going to get some rest.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
So what do we do about offensive posts?
I am persuaded by those who commented before me that "zero tolerance" is a scary term - and probably meaningless.
I like Jay Tee's suggestion of a multi-step process. I have seen some Members moderate their tone after an ill-crafted post was taken down or another member chided them.
(3). But I still do wonder what we will do when, inevitably, some Lefty trolls appear with their usual "you guys are intolerant haters" barbs. It only takes a couple of mean-spirited types to turn a salon into a bloody cage fight. That is perhaps where "zero tolerance" comes in.
(4) I like Pilgrim's suggestion in #38.
As to having Progressives here at all, I'm also with Pilgrim. I've listened to their ideas all my life and learned nothing, other than that when those ideas are put into practice, disaster ensues.
There is no more universal piety in American life than that we should listen to both sides of an argument. Perhaps.
But we have, already, a sufficiency of contending views among our Center/Right Members.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I should hasten to add to my comments above that I mean them to apply to Contributors only, not members. I'm not talking about an ideological purity test of any kind. Anyone who pays his money, abides by the rules, and shares his thoughts should be welcomed and treated with all civility. None of us should have any problem taking on leftist arguments, whether expressed here by an actual leftist, linked from another site, or introduced by someone playing "devil's advocate". After all, how do you know what you believe unless you've been forced to confront the arguments against it?
[Thank you very much for the kind words, Ursula.]
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I rarely see them concede the argument, as we recently experienced.
And, yes, we do have the resources to handle such arguments, but it reminds me of the old adage, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Edited on September 18, 2010 at 5:30pmRe: What We Mean By Civility
Kenneth
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: They're not mutually exclusive, Humza. I am absolutely in favor of every line of the Code of Conduct and its intolerant application. I was addressing the question raised by Kenneth--should the doors be open to people like Major Don, who describes himself as a "Man of the Left?"
(Fortunately, since he's described himself that way, we're spared the debate about the definition of a "Man of the Left.") · Sep 18 at 4:43am
That actually is not a question I asked, Claire. I asked if we could discuss what we'd learned from our experiments at dialogue with Babur and Major Progressive.
Just waking up here...more to come. · Sep 18 at 7:19am
You're right--I assumed it was a somewhat rhetorical question, though.