Let me be clear: I'm fine with someone attacking my ideas. I welcome the chance to defend them. I'm fine with an acerbic, scathing response. But there's a major difference between wittily being told I'm wrong, and being insulted and told to STFU and GTFO. I feel that kind of base and territorial behavior belongs on other sites, and is antithetical to the functioning of a community such as this.
I also realize this is the internet, and just about anything goes, but given that this is a young community I thought this would be a good opportunity for us to discuss what kind of community we want to become, in terms of how we treat each other online.
So: the field is open. I'd appreciate your feedback. It will help me and others decide if we wish to continue using the site.
Thanks.
Although Hubski enables you to ignore posts that you don't want, there isn't a commenting filter, and it's not something I'd personally like to have. Thus, we are left to a sort of social contract, or at least established norms. Here's my thinking on this: Even if it is explicitly discouraged, some people will be hostile to others. Personally, I have no interest in justification for hostile behavior, original salvo, or in retort. However, as different people will draw the line at different places, control is in the hands of the offended party. Here's my suggestion: If someone offends you, either 1) continue the discussion in a civil manner, ignoring the hostility, or 2) do not reply at all. I hope we can not only make a genuine effort not to engage in hostile behavior, but to also ignore it whenever it occurs. Sometimes it takes walking away for a bit and coming back :), but we should not give hostility fertile ground, especially when it begs for it. I'd like to know what other people think on this, as I might make some changes to the about or faq pages.
The bottom line is Hubski has no down arrows. A "flame war" should end up at the bottom of any discussion with zero points. A useful discussion, on the other hand, will be rewarded. Artifex's original comment had one vote; mine had three. On pure, stupid math alone my diatribe was not viewed as detrimental to the conversation. The minute you start legislating behavior, you will find that people will actively seek out the loopholes that allow them to behave exactly as they want without running afoul of the rules. Artifex is upset that I used the phrase "STFU & GTFO" while steadfastly refusing to see that invoking Princess Bride is rhetorically identical - yet he doesn't want to negotiate his own way out of the argument. I can come up with eleventy-seven ways to metaphorically say "STFU & GTFO." They're each equally offensive. You start throttling behavior and what you will do is train inventive people how to be even more offensive without actually saying "STFU & GTFO" (like "I do no think it means what you think it means"). Far better to recognize that if you're going to be provocative, you will provoke others... and if you won't want to provoke others, try being less provocative.
Uh, I think he was just asking for people not to be dicks. My dad and I argue politics all the time at the dinner table, and when he gets his facts wrong or says something idiotic, I don't tell him to "Shut the fuck up." I think you are completely missing his point (trying to miss it?). Furthermore, it seems that simply having an open discussion with the community about the issue instead of asking Hubski to ban people or implement down arrow so the community could ban people is kind of the epitome of a libertarian response, isn't it? You don't seem very well versed in libertarian solutions to conflict, but hey, that's just how you come across to me, no offense.
No, I'm arguing that there are plenty more ways to say "STFU & GTFO" than saying "STFU & GTFO" and among those are quoting the princess bride and mentioning the dreaded imperialism of government. Just so we're clear - your take on my "rudeness" is the "STFU >FO" aspect? Or something else?
People are generally of the opinion that I crossed it. Yet people are also not denying that Artifex's initial post was also on the other side of that line. So the real question is this: who has the obligation to keep abuse out?
This is simply false. I can defend my ideas very easily. However, I chose not to engage with kleinbl00 because of his tone, his words, and his utter lack of civility and otherwise antisocial behavior. Moreover, even if I weren't able to defend my ideas, we have to ask the question of what kind of community are we encouraging when the mentally strong are allowed to verbally bully and attempt to intimidate the weak into submission? Someone may be wrong, but that, in my opinion, is never a reason to be disrespectful, intolerant, or bigoted.
I think that if you wanted to steer that conversation towards civil, it could easily have been steered towards civil. I think the only reason we're here is because you decided you were going to shut down the conversation by bombast, only to discover that when it comes to bombast, there's always someone more bombastic than you. At least, that's what I intended you to learn. Let's be perfectly clear: you employed the exact same rhetorical devices I did, only you employed them poorly. You're not here because I was rude, you're here because I used your methods with more skill and passion than you did. You're not here because you think this should be some ivory tower of civility, we're here because you decided to splash the pond and are annoyed that someone else cannonballed you. You want to have a civil conversation? Steer things back towards civil conversation. It's not that difficult. If you wanted to have a civil discussion with me, you totally could have had one and you know it. You don't want a civil conversation, though. You want a referee to step in and say I crossed the line. The line is where you paint it. You want me on the other side of that line, make an effort to put me there yourself. As it is, you start throwing around inflammatory statements and I will trump you 10 times out of 10. I've had passionate, intellectual, civil discussions with plenty of people on here - but I'm also really good at shouting down shouters. Your attempt at a "civil discussion" was to counter an Elizabeth Warren quote with a diatribe from the Von Mises Institute. That's like walking into a discussion about Sabra and Shatila with an Ariel Sharon opinion piece. Short of quoting directly from Atlas Shrugged, there isn't much less "civil" you could have done. And I made you answer for it. And will continue to do so, without apology, without remorse, without hiding aggression behind soft, dulcet language. And I would expect anyone who stands behind what they say to do the same to me... not go "whoa, someone brought it back to me, I better go hide under the covers and cry for help."
Firstly, to say I'm tattling would imply a centralized authority. This is not so. This is an online community, and as such, I'm relating my poor treatment at the hands of one particular user (you) in order to see how we as a community can address these things. As we get more users, in particular, reddit refugees such as yourself, these kinds of incidents will grow more commonplace. It is therefore imperative, for the health of the community, that a code of etiquette be advanced (or at least discussion along such lines begins). Moreover, there is a striking difference between bombast and rhetorical flair directed at a subject of contention and ideas, and crossing over the line by hurling insults at an individual. Spirited debate is not the same as cyber-bullying. You crossed over into the latter. Let's be perfectly clear: you employed the exact same rhetorical devices I did, only you employed them poorly. You're not here because I was rude, you're here because I used your methods with more skill and passion than you did. You're not here because you think this should be some ivory tower of civility, we're here because you decided to splash the pond and are annoyed that someone else cannonballed you. You may think you employed some semblance of rhetorical skill, but the fact is you were simply being mean. Let me make this perfectly clear: it is incredibly easy to be mean online. It takes no skill to say that I'm "parroting... simplistic bullshit" and being told to "STFU & GTFO." And I really liked your information on the "Churchill quote" (I know it's not, now). That was good information. But you were so abrasive and self-righteous that it turned me off to anything else you had to say. You want to have a civil conversation? Steer things back towards civil conversation. It's not that difficult. If you wanted to have a civil discussion with me, you totally could have had one and you know it. And I attempted to. You then proceeded to tell me, in so many words, to take a hike. You don't want a civil conversation, though. You want a referee to step in and say I crossed the line. I've already stated that I'm appealing to the community, and not a centralized, unilateral authority. I want the community to come together and collectively decide what kind of tone we want to encourage and employ on the site. I am of the opinion that, if we must be acerbic, let us be acerbic towards ideas, and not at people. Conversely, you would like to be abrasive to anyone you unilaterally deem unworthy, on the face of the matter. I do believe that most members of hubski will share my opinion, as it's well-reasoned, reasonable, and conducive towards the community itself.
"I also realize this is the internet, and just about anything goes, but given that this is a young community I thought this would be a good opportunity for us to discuss what kind of community we want to become, in terms of how we treat each other online. So: the field is open. I'd appreciate your feedback. It will help me and others decide if we wish to continue using the site." That's "deal with this issue or I'm taking my ball and going home." ...user for one day. Your "poor treatment" was me excoriating an inflammatory article you linked, and pointing out that the quote you intended to dismantle an argument had exactly the opposite effect. MAKE NO MISTAKE: Anyone who is a fan of Elizabeth Warren is going to be offended by Libertarian screeds. Perhaps you did not know this. If not, that's your fault. Perhaps you did not know that saying "When, exactly, did doing good for society come to equal paying off a gigantic, intrusive, abusive global empire?" is going to be offensive when we're talking about public works. If not, that's your fault. And should you say these offensive things and then get an offensive response, it is up to you to steer things back towards civility. I said nothing about you. I said nothing about your beliefs, about your statements, about anything you, personally, contributed to the discussion. I attacked the article you linked mercilessly because it is undeserving of mercy. I dismantled your assertion that it was a Churchill quote but I did so dispassionately. Did I use caps? Certainly. That and italics are the only form of emphasis we have here. Meanwhile, the sum total of your response has been "you're a meanie and I'm not going to talk to you." So, what "line" did I cross by "hurling" what "insults?" If your heart of hearts is really that deeply in the Mises.org article, defend it. Regardless of whether or not you think what I did took "rhetorical skill" at least I'm trying to have a discussion. You? You'd rather put wrist to forehead and declare a case of the vapors. Again, I've insulted no one - but I've been called an "asshat" three times now. Are you really trying to suggest this is somehow my fault? You made no attempts whatsoever to have a civil conversation. You demanded an apology. I don't know you, you don't know me. Our first interaction was you throwing up a patently offensive libertarian hit-piece, which I then dismantled - and which you chose to take personally. Apologize? From the minute I attacked your link you've been demanding better treatment of you. More than that, you've been doing so by attacking me. You want a civil conversation? Step back, defend your ideas, and recognize that if you put something forth for discussion, it will be debated.