• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Can't You Just Be Nice?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I've also heard to argument that people who hold wrong opinions must
be opposed with great fervor, including insult. To do less would be
appeasement...tolerating intolerance. They justify it by claiming honesty
& candor...telling it like it is. Hogwash, piffle, barsh & flimshaw!
(Pardon me French.) They aren't out to change minds...just lash out.
These people....well, let's just say that one must tread lightly around them.

You mean it's something like this?

 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
There are also some topics where the other person's goal is to establish that their outlandish position deserves a "seat at the table" in reasonable discourse, so having a calm, respectful discussion with them on their topic actually concedes their point.

I don't see how displaying contempt for such a position is in any way productive.

Who is one to say whether another deserves a "seat at the table?"
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I didn’t see him saying that they aren’t. :smiley:
They aren't actually good qualities in me. They're flaws, to be honest. Especially in a debate. I can turn them into assets in the the proper circumstances, but, lacking patience is almost always a problem for me, imho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I don't see how displaying contempt for such a position is in any way productive.
What's "productive" depends on what the goal is.

Who is one to say whether another deserves a "seat at the table?"
Me... just as much as anyone else.

I'm thinking of issues like the movement to get "Intelligent Design" in public school science classes. They often don't argue that their position is necessarily correct; only that there's enough merit to it to include it in a discussion of a supposed "controversy" around evolution.

For that, anyone who's reasonably informed about the state of the science is equipped to refute that position, and it's any voter's position to weigh in on the issue as a matter of public policy.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What's "productive" depends on what the goal is.


Me... just as much as anyone else.

I'm thinking of issues like the movement to get "Intelligent Design" in public school science classes. They often don't argue that their position is necessarily correct; only that there's enough merit to it to include it in a discussion of a supposed "controversy" around evolution.

For that, anyone who's reasonably informed about the state of the science is equipped to refute that position, and it's any voter's position to weigh in on the issue as a matter of public policy.

When it comes to voters and public policy, it's a matter of politics. But the interesting thing about politicians is that their public face always has to be "nice," no matter how much BS they're contending with at any given time. They still have to maintain their composure and keep some kind of "poker face," even if faced with a position for which they have contempt. (Some are better at hiding it than others.)

Of course, if they're dealing with a real kook, they might have aides to whisk them away - and anyone in the crowd around them would clearly see that it's a kook - so there's no real need for anyone to actually "respond."
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
In the heat of debate, why do some of you feel the need to behave like a jerk or be disrespectful to get your point across?

I've been in heated debates, while I occasionally resort to sarcasm or snark either to get my point across or to inject humor, I do my best to maintain a level of respect for the person with which I'm engaged.

I wonder why others here struggle to do the same. Would you walk up to someone on the street and speak with someone the way you do here? I'm sure some of you would have your bell rung for the lack of respect you display here if you displayed such in real life.

Is it because you have a degree of anonymity here?

Does behaving like a jerk to others somehow make you feel better about yourself?
This gives me an idea for forum community service.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I don't see how displaying contempt for such a position is in any way productive.

Who is one to say whether another deserves a "seat at the table?"
BTW: aren't you arguing that you should be the one to decide who gets a seat at the table? I mean, isn't this thread about how you think that certain discourse you disagree with should be shut down?

It seems like you're asserting that a basic level of respect for others is a necessary part of reasonable discourse; well, in some cases - e.g. unapologetic racism or arguing that LGBTQ people deserve second-class status - that respect for others is absent regardless of how the person expresses their arguments.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
BTW: aren't you arguing that you should be the one to decide who gets a seat at the table? I mean, isn't this thread about how you think that certain discourse you disagree with should be shut down?

Nope...and nope.

It seems like you're asserting that a basic level of respect for others is a necessary part of reasonable discourse; well, in some cases - e.g. unapologetic racism or arguing that LGBTQ people deserve second-class status - that respect for others is absent regardless of how the person expresses their arguments.

Not at all. I'm asserting that being a disrespectful jerk isn't necessary.

How many bigots have you seen converted because someone approaches their views with contempt while behaving like a disrespectful jerk?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This gives me an idea for forum community service.
I wonder if we need a DIR for strictly friendly or
at least civil discussion of issues?
None of....
- Making it about the person's perceived faults.
- Insulting the person, their group, or their views.

If the ostensible spirit of RF cannot apply to the
whole of it, then perhaps we do need such a DIR.
Imagine if everyone in it honored it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
BTW: aren't you arguing that you should be the one to decide who gets a seat at the table? I mean, isn't this thread about how you think that certain discourse you disagree with should be shut down?

It seems like you're asserting that a basic level of respect for others is a necessary part of reasonable discourse; well, in some cases - e.g. unapologetic racism or arguing that LGBTQ people deserve second-class status - that respect for others is absent regardless of how the person expresses their arguments.
I think that it will be a long time before toxic behavior in Internet discussion stops, maybe even a few more decades. I think that most of what will help stop it will be offline. Meanwhile I think that anyone who wants to can help reduce and counteract its adverse effects. I’ve learned some techniques and maybe others have too. Maybe we could all learn from each other and pass on our learning to newcomers.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Nope...and nope.
Good to hear, though that's not the impression you created for me.

Not at all. I'm asserting that being a disrespectful jerk isn't necessary.
Shouldn't someone else's debate style be something for them to decide?

How many bigots have you seen converted because someone approaches their views with contempt while behaving like a disrespectful jerk?
I'm not sure that being disrespectful to a bigot is necessarily being a jerk.

That aside, shutting down a bigot is generally about reducing the bigot's influence with others, and therefore the amount of harm they can inflict.

... and I have seen that work on a number of occasions.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I wonder if we need a DIR for strictly friendly or
at least civil discussion of issues?
None of....
- Making it about the person's perceived faults.
- Insulting the person, their group, or their views.

If the ostensible spirit of RF cannot apply to the
whole of it, then perhaps we do need such a DIR.
Imagine if everyone in it honored it.
That gives me another idea. I’ve been learning how to reduce and counteract the adverse effects of toxic behavior on my conversations with others, using the possibilities that we already have in the forums. Maybe some other people have learned some other ways. Maybe we could learn from each other, and pass on what we’ve learned to newcomers.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think that it will be a long time before toxic behavior in Internet discussion stops, maybe even a few more decades. I think that most of what will help stop it will be offline. Meanwhile I think that anyone who wants to can help reduce and counteract its adverse effects. I’ve learned some techniques and maybe others have too. Maybe we could all learn from each other and pass on our learning to newcomers.
Why focus specifically on toxic behaviour in internet discussions? Why not focus on toxic behaviour in general?

If toxic behaviour were fixed - however you plan to do that - then that would make internet discourse more respectful as a matter of course, since that would mean we wouldn't have people online trying to sell others on white supremacy, gay-bashing, etc.
 
Top