Why we need civility on THR

[vito]

Civility is enhanced when those involved cannot hide behind anonymity. If forums such as this one required clear identification of the writer, including name, email address, and street address, the level of incivility would surely decrease. It is unfortunate that forums relating to firearm issues seem to attract a small but active audience of malcontents who enjoy disrupting the open flow of discourse with their expletive filled ignorance. If the moderator of this site forced full identification of the individual posting a reply we would continue to have this site holding the "high road".

 

[CZ52GUY]

I'm with Hillbilly

Civility isn't an end, it's sometimes a means to one.

That being said, I don't think confrontation is an end either. At times, it's an unavoidable means to an end (or to avoid one).

Civility or Confrontation, neither is to be embraced for it's own sake.

I admire a passionate advocate for their position, even if I disagree with their point of view. For that I can respect their willingness to put themselves on the line.

I hold in some contempt those who seek to in a backhanded way impose their point of view, or minimally constrain others from presenting theirs, in the name of "civility".

I don't believe that was the intent here, but I can see where some might seize upon the opportunity.

There are those that require confrontation. That confrontation needs to be forceful. Our editorial pages and letters to the editor are filled with content by passionate advocates for one point of view or another. Their tone isn't always pristine, their grammar perfect, or their language appropriate. But at least they care enough to get off of their posteriors and express themselves. They are willing to fight for their cause.

I fear we do much harm in the name of civility. Civility cannot be imposed. It has to be embraced willingly. Oh sure, THR members can be tossed. This is not a 1st Amendment protected zone...it's private "etherspace". We post at the pleasure of our host, and need to abide by his rules. But civility still won't be imposed...constraint of freedom of expression will be.

The High Road has an identity that it seeks to maintain. That I can respect. But it's identity is twofold. The same High Road also carries with it a passionate motto of Molon Labe (a decidedly "uncivil" retort to an aggressive tyrant).

Most world views carry with them a message of balance. Whether overt or covert. Well understood in some cases...in others, practictioners attempt to emphasize the "Yin" over the "Yang" or "Yang" over "Yin" depending on their bias (by way of example).

THR has promoted a view which might be described as "Defiant Civility". Let's respect that within reasonable parameters, passionate debate will sometimes be seen by some members as being uncivil. By others, reasonable requests to "tone it down" will be misconstrued as appeasement.

Make no mistake, we are in a figurative fight to the death for values we share in common. Too much civility and there won't be any need for THR. Too little and we disparage the values we claim to hold dear.

If you are constantly using filter workarounds to express yourselves, maybe you need to focus your passion more "eloquently". If you are constantly disgusted by impassioned debate, maybe you need to re-read the Molon Labe reference material by the heritage forum that spawned THR.

http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/molon_labe.htm

Attempting to practice "Defiant Civility" one post at a time...

CZ52'

 

[MountainPeak]

Hell, CZ52, I can agree with your post too. Damn good one, as was the topic post.

 

[joe sixpack]

Very good points indeed, thanks.

cheers, ab

 

[dadman]

Found the newsletter with the "Hammer Down" speech at work the other day.
Good theory, hard to practice.
Hammer needs to be swung once in awhile.

 

[Byron Quick]

I disagree that one cannot passionately defend a cause without being uncivil.

I can confront people without screaming at them or cursing them...even while addressing them as sir or ma'am. I once told a woman that if she ever came in my store again that I would kill her if I could do so. I meant it. I was civil, spoke with a level voice and addressed her as Mrs. and ma'am. She never came in my store again. She had been warned before not to enter as it would be considered trespass. She was not going to be warned again. Son of a gun, without bombast, without cursing, and without boorish behaviour...she believed me as she never darkened my door again.

And the deal about anonymity on gun forums...that's probably a good point. On another board I was once challenged over something I said. Poster said that I would only say it while hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. My next post on that thread had my name and full address. Afterwards, my name was in my signature line on that forum. Since then I have never joined another forum of any description with anything other than my given name. I'm not hiding and I'm not saying anything to anyone that I will hesitate to say to their face...politely.

 

[CZ52GUY]

I disagree that one cannot passionately defend a cause without being uncivil.

Agreed, on an individual basis..."Defiant Civility" is possible.

What isn't feasible is to seek to "impose civility" on a broader population because not everyone is wired the same way. To passionately defend a cause...some actually require the expression of, well...passion.

An "imposed civility" expects a broad population to "assimilate into the continuum" based on "norms of expression". There is risk to that strategy. Either good people assimilate by clamming up, or they get the message that passionate expression of ideas are unwelcome.

THR already has rules...we agree to abide by them when we sign up. My concern is the "can't we all just get along" tone presented by some. These posts blur the lines between compliance with rules we've all agreed to abide by, and the abandonment of posts of passion and conviction in the name of civility. At times they knock on the door of demanding "imposed relativism", which if enforced at THR would be most unfortunate.

Again, civility isn't an end, it's a means to an end. Within the THR guidelines, I believe there is sufficient room to passionately express a point of view without violating those rules. I also believe that THR rules notwithstanding, there are some that would find a "compliant post" to be uncivil.

What I am presenting (hopefully with a "compliant post"), is a dissenting opinion regarding the "Civility Bandwagon". I believe that some issues should make our blood boil. I think that within THR guidelines, there are times to vent, rant, or to confront a post one disagrees with on a topic that comes up.

Because of the embracement of "relativism" and a Family Feud style philosophy that some members may experience (e.g. "good answer" regardless of quality), they may find it discomforting to have someone call them on an issue. Our community needs to resist the patterns I've observed elsewhere to make sure that THR members don't attempt to "assert a right to not be offended". Some folks will be offended on occasion because good people will sometimes disagree. Beyond that, a population the size of THR will not be 100% comprised of good people.

"Defiant Civility", yeah, I can agree with that. Civility for it's own sake, I respectfully disagree.

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

 

[Byron Quick]

Tell me this: would you consider Sir Churchill's defense of the British Empire to be passionate or dispassionate? I do not believe a human being can approach an issue with more passion than he displayed. Find one instance of incivility. Of ill manners.

Once again, civility does not mean you agree with what I believe. Rather, it is how you choose to challenge my beliefs and how you proclaim your own. It certainly does not mean being politically correct.

A person can be a paragon of belief in God, country, the flag, mothers, and apple pies and be, at the same time, an ill mannered cad. It totally depends on how he chooses to express himself. The reverse is also true, a person can be a poor excuse for a human being and be a civil person.

Civility is how you express yourself rather than what you express. It is how you do what you do more than what you do.

And while it is not possible to impose civility on a broader population, it is possible to choose which members of that broader population with whom I associate. Those who are incivil are not welcome to discuss issues in my living room.

This is Oleg's living room.

THR is not attempting to impose anything. Rather, it is allowing the broader population to cull itself by its actions...or in this case its words. It's not our choice. Since they know the prequisite requirements...it is theirs.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Hey Byron,

If Churchill had used a "Cheney phrase" to retort to a political adversary, or had responded to a media question with a "Theresa quote", would his accomplishments as a leader be any less important to the 20th century? I submit that the substance of his accomplishments are the measurement of the man, that the civil method he used to communicate them are to his credit, but the order of precedence in evaluating Sir Winston is substance first, style second.

I believe that an individual can be the model of decorum, and can still be a despicable human being (or facsimile thereof).

I believe that people have differing opinions of what is and is not civil discourse.

I believe that neither Byron, nor CZ52GUY, nor Oleg (nor did Churchill for whom I have great respect) have a monopoly on values or optimal expression thereof.

I believe that a broad population of individuals (which THR includes) can have a range of passions and methods of expression thereof.

I believe that one man's flamefest maybe another man's civil discourse. That's why we have mod's to arbitrate the published standards.

I believe, and I'm vigorously advocating, a bias that wherever possible, we give the benefit of the doubt to the individual THR member while using the guidelines published as the standard.

We don't need 10,000 Byrons, or CZ52GUYs, or Olegs. We need to have the population of THR behaving within the published guidelines...which allow for passion to be expressed without some imposition of Byron's view of optimal approach to discourse, or CZ52GUY's, or even Oleg's.

If Oleg wants to narrow discourse and method of expression, it's obviously his right. It's his house.

With respect, but without apology, I advocate a broader definition of "Defiant Civility" within the published guidelines, because I don't pretend to impose my view on all that I encounter. I assert the privilege as a guest to express that view within THR commitments I have made in collaboration with the Mod's who arbitrate those standards (assuming moderator concurrence, whether that may offend some or not). I cannot guarantee how others will react. I cannot promise that I will never post anything that someone somewhere may take offense to. I can control how I present my position and am committed to upholding the commitment I made when I signed up.

We have guidelines, let's stick to them. Let's not try to create 10,000 THR robots that don't speak their mind for fear of offending or being considered "uncivil". I've seen civility misused as a constraining influence on candid discourse. I'd hate to see that happen here.

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

 

[Byron Quick]

Once again it's not about offending people...it's about how I express that offense.

I'm quite sure that many Republicans on this board as well as the few Democrats here have been quite offended by my views on Republicans and Democrats. That has nothing to do with civility and is quite within THR guidelines.

While I have not done so, I could, with my views, greatly offend our religious members whether they be Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, animists, or atheists. I would do so with civility, of course.

Personal attacks on other members are forbidden, of course. Even if delivered with civility as in: (This is an example and is NOT directed at anyone) Sir, were your father and mother acquainted? etc. That would pass the civility bar. However, it would go down in flames as a personal attack.

I don't much care for offending folk without what I consider to be good cause. But if you want to do so and it is pertinent to our board, is delivered without personal attacks, and is civil... offend away.

I believe that an individual can be the model of decorum, and can still be a despicable human being (or facsimile thereof).

I believe I stated the same in my previous post. I choose not to associate with either despicable human beings or with otherwise praiseworthy folks who cannot converse or debate in a civilized manner.

I believe that people have differing opinions of what is and is not civil discourse.

Civil is defined in the dictionary as is discourse. Our opinions in the matter are immaterial as is our differing opinions on the color of black, whether gravity will truly make things fall, is the sky blue or green, or a legislature voting to make pi equal to three. In many areas, opinion has no relevance. In fact, it becomes akin to relativism when used in such areas.

Ever heard that only the ill educated resort to vulgar language in confrontational debate? 'Tis true.

 

[orangeninja]

Preacherman.......great post. I haven't participated in certain types of threads after participating in certain threads that have not gone so well. I pretty much stick to hardware now.

One side effect of the uncivility I have experienced here is that I no longer participate in get togethers with the DFW Shooters group. Not because they aren't a great bunch of guys, they are, but because there is potential there for uncivility to carry over into real life. Sad to say this is more of my wife's call than mine since she constantly worries about that type of stuff, but all it took was her reading one of the less civil threads.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Hey Byron,

I don't much care for offending folk without what I consider to be good cause. But if you want to do so and it is pertinent to our board, is delivered without personal attacks, and is civil... offend away.

I have no desire to offend for the sake of offending. I do expect that by taking strong positions, or at times confronting those that do, I will cause some to unintentionally be offended. That is the nature of debate. My concern that is in my experience...in the name of civility, debate has been constrained to the point where only a privileged protected few are allowed to communicate their views, and others with views which are politically incorrect are stifled. I'd hate to see that happen at THR in the name of civility.

I believe I stated the same in my previous post. I choose not to associate with either despicable human beings or with otherwise praiseworthy folks who cannot converse or debate in a civilized manner.

The interpretation of "civilized manner" is at the core of this discussion. From your posts, you have a very specific view of what you consider "civilized". That is certainly your right to hold that opinion. In your role as moderator (and not just you specifically), I'm concerned that a very narrow interpretation will only lend itself to a narrow portion of our population. I also take a different position on the relative merits of civility vs. substance. I admire the otherwise praiseworthy "civility challenged" far more than the well mannered serpent.

Civil is defined in the dictionary as is discourse. Our opinions in the matter are immaterial as is our differing opinions on the color of black, whether gravity will truly make things fall, is the sky blue or green, or a legislature voting to make pi equal to three. In many areas, opinion has no relevance. In fact, it becomes akin to relativism when used in such areas.

I've found the dictionary to be a poor guidebook to reading into the intent of communications of men and woman I've encountered, especially when written content is reviewed without benefit of verbal intonations or body language. You believe that civility is as easily defined as 1+1. Civility and the intepretation of the actions of others is not a mathematical equation. Your suggestion that it is so I contend is factually incorrect. Relativism is a world view that suggests that all world views are morally equal. Opinion and good judgment in the application of standards is more art than science. I don't equate giving someone the benefit of the doubt with an acceptance of inappropriate behavior and did not intend to project that point of view.

The original post is labeled "Why we need civility on THR".

I contend what we need is to adhere to the written standards we all agreed to, but to avoid hypersensitivity or to unduly constrain healthy debate.

Ever heard that only the ill educated resort to vulgar language in confrontational debate? 'Tis true.

It's been my experience that the level of education one has doesn't necessarily correlate to the choice of language used in a confrontational debate. Similarly, given the 1000's of "very civil" despicable characters in this country that generally start of their poisonous speeches with "my good friend...", I'll take the "salty substance" over "slimy civility" any day ...but that's just me...

Regardless, I think that our discourse has been conducted in a civil manner and the value proposition of "dictionary imposed civility" vs. "benefit of the doubt standards application" may have been educational to some members.

Do we need civility on THR? I suppose we do if we are to retain the forum as named.

Is civility narrowly defined and end in and of itself? I respectfully associate myself with those who have offered a respectful dissent.

I guess that makes me a member of the "loyal opposition" .

Stay safe,

CZ52'