Civility: My first comments

For the past week, I've been writing comments on this site. In particular, I've focused on the Courtesy Kos group.

The reason for this is my dedication to making civility a household word. Civil discussion in public squares is what prompted the creation of this country, and is what can return it to being a model for the rest of the world.

But more practically, civility is what allows people to grow. Without calm, careful, amicable, and intelligent discussion, we drive each other into corners and begin to assume that there are "teams" that we are either for or against. As a result, everyone suffers mentally, emotionally, and materially.

When we are at our best, we are more creative, have a thirst for knowledge, enjoy more both the company of others and our own solitude, and end up sacrificing less in order to produce more for everyone.

Many of my first comments here were posted in an attempt to stimulate increased civility on this site and support those who were doing the same. I present them here as examples of what I think civility means. They can be seen after the jump.

On "We're better than rape jokes"

I don't remember how I got here, but I somehow saw this post, read it, checked out Courtesy Kos, and decided to join the site yesterday.

Actually, I get the same thing from the people in the GOP, and even many Ron Paul supporters. I'm either attacked for being perceived as "not limited enough" or for being "too limited".

The fact is that a philosophy of limited governance doesn't mean one specific thing - it simply means putting restrictions on governmental power and operations. The US Constitution was created with the idea of limited government in mind.

There are other people besides myself who are interested in seeing a limited government movement within the Democratic party, as well. We're upset that "liberal" has come to mean "not FOX" and that "social program" has come to mean "spend beyond our means to try something out".

Both Democrats and Republicans have sponsored many of the same destructive policies and growth of federal power that put us in the mess we're in now.

So, I'm used to getting attacked. I'll keep the name, though, and the local government focus that it originally implied.

However, my name could just as easily be "LimitedCorporatism". Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich would approve of both names, I think. They agree with me that unchecked governmental power (through subsidies, lobbyist-driven regulation, revolving door politics, etc.) and unchecked corporate power go hand-in-hand.

Your post is great, and though you mentioned it for a moment, I'd like to highlight that our well-wishes don't just belong with people who voted for Obama, but for anyone who isn't hateful.

Ignorance should be treated like a drug habit - you treat it when the addict will let you help, you don't let yourself get dragged into their problem when they want to lash out, and you don't try to harm them or lock them up when they aren't making the progress that you wish they would.

Statements of hate and wishing harm on others do not only turn people away, create a cycle of hate, and drive worthwhile friends away - they make it easier for you to be hateful in the future.

If ignorance is marijuana, hate is heroine.

http://wiki.answers.com/...

I vacillate about how to treat trolls. Sometimes a well-crafted comment can get them to make their positions, hate, and/or ill intent clear, and thus get them banned.

But several of the posts in this article put political identities in the same group as trolls. Republicans are deserving of vitriol? TEA Partyers can be attacked without caution?

Civility shouldn't just be something that we do with people whom we expect to agree with. Moreover, we should apply the same aversion to stereotyping people by ethnicity and religious background to stereotyping people by political affiliation.

Many in the original TEA party - back in 2007 - were strong proponents of civil liberties and ending war. Some still in the TEA Party movement hold those ideals close to their hearts and are trying to do what they feel is "take back the TEA Party" from outside groups who used money and numbers to change its national goals and reputation.

The same goes for the GOP/Republicans. The "liberty movement" by Ron Paul supporters is just one example of people who have a radically different view of what republicanism is than do party leaders like Scott Walker. Even among Ron Paul supporters there are huge distinctions in political beliefs.

We should be civil and respectful to anyone until they demonstrate that they do not deserve to be included in discussion with us, and then we should walk away from the conversation and ban them as is necessary. Why? Because such a view is for the good of everyone, and regards fairly each person as an individual who deserves fundamental equality.

It's an added bonus that by refusing to expect a fight, we may find points of agreement and build coalitions to accomplish goals that are in our common interest.

If we look at people as individuals, rather than by labels - be the labels self-generated or applied by others - we can create more open, fair, and civil dialogue that can better everyone.

If an individual - regardless of label or affiliation - shows an intent to smear people, generally anger them, or inject personal issues into policy discussion - or refuses to look at information provided to them, is intellectually dishonest, or is generally uncooperative - then it makes little sense to try to engage with that person, and in some cases it makes more sense to try to get them to reveal their motivations, call them out, or ban them.

"Now, I think there is a different set of rules for your fellow kossack. This is where I am more pragmatic in my view of civil discussion. We are the community that forms the very lifeblood of this site -- without us, this site dies. Farther than that, we are allies in the ongoing ideological "war" between progressives/liberals/democrats/radicals and conservative/republicans. We need to be as tight knit as possible. And I am not saying that we should be marching in ideological lock step all the time -- disagreement is necessary sometimes. I am saying that it is hard to be an "ally" with someone if you are at one another's throats all the time. How are we supposed to be effective, as a community and in a larger sense a political force and social movement, if we are constantly going after one another, and forgetting our real target."

When I step back and examine this statement, a few things pop out to me. Tell me if I'm misreading you.

1) The assumption that there are two teams in a broad war - one called P/L/D/R and another called C/R.

2) Dissent should be discouraged in order to create a "tight knit" front against the 'opposing team'.

3) You view DK as a political vehicle for a specific ideology.

My questions, assuming the possibility that my observations are correct.

1) What about instances where some members here have more in common with some who self-identify as Republicans? For example, a sub-set of self-identifying Democrats who are equally as focused on internet freedom or repealing military interventionism as are a sub-set of Republicans.

2) What would you say to those who point to research that shows that civil dissent creates better decision-making in the long run?

3) What would you say to those who disagree with your perspective on what the ideology of this site's aims looks like? What if your view is in the minority?

One last question:

What do you think the purpose of this website/community is; to elect people who are opposed to the GOP platform, to elect people who are in line with the Democratic Party's platform, or to elect people who have policy positions that are believed to move the country in a better direction than it currently is going?

All of these questions are genuine questions. I'm not being sarcastic or trying to bait you into anything.

I like to include a general statement of intent (or non-intent, in cases like this) on posts that could be misinterpreted, in order to try to prevent conflict.

Trying to legislate morality rarely goes well, and trying to police morality just about always ends badly.

I make a distinction between legislating and policing morality on the one hand, and creating rules and guidelines that point to ideal behavior on the other. The reason for having rules and guidelines is to be able to point back tot hem and say "We've all been given advance notice of what's generally acceptable" when issues of major conflict come up.

I'd argue that rules and guidelines should not only be made for the sake of administrators to hold members accountable, for example, but also for members to hold administrators accountable, and for all to hold themselves accountable.

In fact, if I'm right, many laws originated in England not to help the king govern the people, but to help the king govern himself and to give the people a neutral authority to reference.

In other words, the way to see rules and guidelines, I think, is not as fundamental restrictions to be enforced, but moral reminders of what behavior everyone in the community - from the most powerful to the least - aspire to.

And when things get nasty, those rules and guidelines are not absolute shackles by which to chain people, but a frame of reference for what decisions community members should make to resolve the problem(s).

By being examples of good behavior, and by outlining "good behavior" in a document that anyone can access, a community can create a good culture - and it is that culture that will eliminate what is undesirable, not the document's contents as such.

We should keep in mind that we're not dealing with words in a comment box (or article box) - we're dealing with people. And as with all decisions involving people, you should try to get to know someone before deciding how to respond to them.

I can also empathize with your experiences. As an independent, a politically left-leaning individual, and someone who favors a limited government view, a former Christian evangelist, and a current agnostic atheist, I've been attacked by people from just about every camp - both when I was part of their circle and when I was an outsider.

So often, people have different ideas of what words mean - even when someone uses them as self-descriptions. It's also easy to misinterpret others and make assumptions. Communication is far more difficult than we tend to think of it in general in our lives - much less in the heat of the moment.

Looking at someone's past posts can offer highly valuable insight into what they mean by what they say, and what background they're coming from.

I don't know that I've ever had a Quaker in my family, but those three questions sound very familiar from when I was younger.

I've spent most of my time thinking about what's really worth considering true and what's really necessary since I started my quest to discover a "true" religious teaching several years ago. As I spent more time in college and more time in personal reflection those pursuits have only become more important.

And since I became an atheist, researcher, philosopher, and someone with unusual political beliefs, it's become all the more important to take great care in what I present and how I present it - even when that information is 'true' and 'necessary' - as I try to persuade people to see my side of things - because I get little leeway from people who haven't had my experience with certain subjects.

Communication is a very difficult thing - far moreso than I think most people recognize - and it starts in one's own head.