What is Civility on ILP

If you want to carry the conversation elsewhere I am open to suggestions.

I’ve read you have a forum. Perhaps we could carry on somewhere there.

Had a forum, not anymore.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=192380

Is there any way you could plot the number of threads that have been locked over time?

Sorry for the month+ delay in this response, I discovered this in my saved drafts, written roughly a month ago, but I still think it’s worth posting.

I don’t think that’s the right standard. One way to challenge it is to ask, Can someone make a sound and cogent argument that is “based in hate”? I think the answer is ‘yes’. Imagine someone who argues against Nihilism because they hate what it leads to. Or who writes Christian apologetics motivated by a hatred of sin. In fact, the argument is a form of ad hominem, targeting the person making it and other beliefs they may espouse, rather than the argument they are presenting.

Perhaps I’m reading your comment too literally. And certainly many arguments motivated by hate will in fact be bad arguments, as generally emotive reasoning is motivated reasoning. But strictly speaking, I disagree that motivation from hate is enough by itself to justify an intervention.

Repetition, on the other hand, frequently is enough to justify an intervention. It can be trolling, derailing, generally disruptive to other conversations. But it’s a hard line to police. Let’s say I’ve read Dennett’s Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking and really took it to heart. When I participate in a thread, I recast it in terms of Dennett’s work. That’s likely to be annoying, it might be disruptive/derailing, but it doesn’t seem illegitimate to do so. Furthermore, every truth we ever discover will need to be shared anew with every new human that lands among us. Repetition, within reason, is justified by everyone who isn’t yet convinced.

And importantly, there’s a problem when we say that certain behavior (over-repetition of a stance or mode of thought) is illegitimate, but only when it’s used to express a certain idea. That is a content-based restriction on speech, and I don’t think that suits a philosophy forum.

I think that restriction is appropriate on a gaming site. Hell, I’ve been on gaming sites that didn’t allow discussion of politics, because politics always leads to petty meltdowns. But this isn’t a gaming site, we’re here to support something different. Philosophy is a broader topic, and a site dedicated to it has to be more tolerant of socially unacceptable ideas.

Turd, first I want to thank you for your perfectly civil response.

As for spitting in the face of people you disagree with, that doesn’t seem like an effective way to proceed with a philosophical inquiry, and I’d say it’s no coincidence that it has all but completely died out in the academy. And everywhere else people are trying to accomplish anything.

No. Nor, for that matter, do I reliably practice it. Being a dick to people I disagree with is regrettably satisfying to my ape brain, and I do it often. I’m often a dick to Uccisore, intentionally, in the heat of an argument where we’re both losing our cool – along with all the civility that depends on keeping a level head.

Obviously, Uccisore and I approach discussion differently. We discuss differently, we moderate differently, and as such I disagree with some of what Uccisore does. But a large part of that disagreement is philosophical. Uccisore and I disagree about government on all levels, we disagree about human nature, we disagree about the Good and how to achieve it. So of course we disagree about the best way to moderate a site, or to have a philosophical conversation.

But I know Uccisore to be a good philosopher, to be capable of thinking clearly and articulating his thoughts well, and, crucially for being a moderator, to be able to recognize good philosophy when he sees it. Obviously, my disagreements with Uccisore affect my internal model of him as a person, and I judge him reflexively based on what he says and how he says it. And I’m sometimes tempted to lower my estimation of him based on how he engages. But I also have to acknowledge that some of his most cogent arguments have been delivered like spit in the face.

While civility is good, this site would suck if it were everyone sitting around sipping tea and politely discussing the weather. We should accept a sacrifice of some civility for more substance. If I could wave a wand and make Uccisore not quite so abrasive, I probably would. But if the choice is to take his arguments as spit in the face or not at all, I’d rather keep a hanky nearby.

Civility is also a function of sensitivity,what’s civil and rational to one may not be for another,where objectivity missed its mark, between its intended and actual use. There is sometimes a wide gap between intended meaning and its actual effective reception. Some will even confuse group adjustment on off the mark trolling as forms of hostility

Civility also revolves [for all practical purposes] around what is actually at stake.

It would seem to be easier to be civil about something in which very little is at state. Harder when there is much at stake.

For example, suppose we are having a discussion here at ILP about the use of torture in interrogating prisoners.

It is just an exchange that revolves solely around the arguments used by both sides in making their case.

On the other hand, suppose there is an actual “incident” in which actual prisoners are being held with actual information that could save actual lives.

Suppose one of the lives at stake is someone that you dearly love.

It would seem that human emotional reactions are no less situated out in particular contexts out in particular worlds.

And here philosophers would seem to be no less stymied than anyone else.

This is true, the further question may be, how the importance and context of a situation effects the sensibility/sensitivity of perceived standards of civility, and even inordinately changing the perceptions of those standards?

Thanks for following up.

What we settle for… live and let live? “Spit in face”? Hope your immune system is stronger than mine, cause a hanky doesn’t do it.

We could be sitting around sipping tea and talking philosophy too. “If” that is what he’s talkin? I thought it sounded more like politics and my dick is bigger than yours. And you want call that philosophy?

Whistles blown, flags down in the backfield; looks like it could be offensive holding.<<

I’ve done this IRL, and on multiple occasions it’s ended with everyone standing up and shouting and, yeah, getting a little spittle on each others faces.

Look, the founder of Western philosophy was put to death for what amounts to ‘doing philosophy’, right? We know going into this that the conversations that go on here are going to strike a nerve, it’s effectively by design. The standard can’t be that when someone has a nerve struck, they’re red carded (if you can abuse my hanky metaphor, I can abuse your sports metaphor :). If people get impassioned about philosophy, and they say “look you jerk, you’re wrong because XYZ”, that’s rude and uncivil and ceteris paribus undesirable, but still often tolerable if XYZ is a real meaty response to whatever that jerk said.

And again, I agree that civility is better, and that calling someone a jerk or spitting in their face imposes a real cost. Calling someone a jerk or spitting in their face is not philosophy, so to the extent someone does it, they are tautologically diluting any philosophical conversation. Ceteris paribus, it should be avoided. But that’s not the end all and be all of a philosophical conversation. Good philosophy plus bad manners is still good philosophy.

Context is crucial. But equally as important [from my frame of mind] is the extent to which our own understanding of any specific context is intertwined in the manner in which we have come to understand the world around us — as this pertains to our interactions with others out in any particular world.

Why are some more civil than others in reacting to different sets of circumstances? How is this too largely just an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which our own personal experiences have shaped and molded “I” subjectively/subjunctively into a particular set of reactions?

Bound to history, bound to culture, bound to a particular set of relationships, bound to a particular interaction with a particular constellation of information and knowledge.

In other words, bound to one actual human existence rather than another.

Is there enough continuity here so that folks who deem themselves to be rational human beings are able to engender an argument that is said to encompass an optimal understanding of civility? Or, instead, is it more reasonable to presume that at best we can only encompass civility in a democratic framework whereby different political factions will ever vie to establish “here and now” behaviors that are said to be either more or less civil.

Or, if the behaviors are deemed to be uncivil, still justified in terms of the necessity to achieve any particular ends.

and politics, arguably good or bad + ban manners, is still bad manners with some spit in the face. :shrug: Could someone point me in the direction of his “good” philosophy? I am curious what that looks like.

I will, but I worry you’re confusing “good philosophy” with “philosophy I agree with”.

Recently, Generation, Tradition, and the Far Right was a good piece of social theory. His respective discussions of sex and race in the Feminism is Horse-Shit thread are good. His economic criticism of basically every economic proposal I’ve put forward has been sharp (especially wealth tax and basic income).

Less recently, my early arguments with Uccisore played a significant role my intellectual development, and so will always hold a special place in my heart (see lengthy threads here and here).

You can worry. Likely not misplaced. If I were a philosopher. :shrug:

I may/do? owe you an honest thought. Thinking.

on the first count:
Far too convoluted by subjectivity to be an effective argument, yet intelligent enough to have an affect.

I am a slow thinker. I do not believe I have used the “I’ve been on this planet for X so I should know” argument. How long you have been “around” is a part but only a part. There have been many that have walked this planet for what we experience as “a long time” that haven’t garnered any real benefit in wisdom or knowing as result of simply existing. A person’s time on this planet is no assurance of wisdom or intellect gained. To claim as much is a form of misdirection and an effort toward manipulation. Not representative of a pursuit of truth but an endeavor to advance a personal agenda. (the loosest definition of politics). By the example; of his argument, anyone who has been on the planet longer than he (which includes me) should trump (as in card games, not political figures) his thinking if one were to think reflexively. Being older then he does not “trump” his thinking, yet he seems to using the presupposition in the opening paragraph of his argument you linked to as indicative in his defense.

You have asked if I am able to recognize it? Can I see a valid argument that is beyond my own opinion? There is a reflexive nature to this question that I haven’t been able to shake. If this is the criteria on which I am judged, has the criteria been applied as judgement objectively and reflexively?

Members and moderators should be measured at least by the same yardstick reflexively. I might argue, moderators, even more critically.

You asked for some of his good philosophy, I think that is good philosophy even though, like you, I don’t agree with it, and I think there are ways to criticize it. It’s thoughtful, well-reasoned, novel, challenging; it’s well-written and it’s worth reading and turning over in my head. Even where I find it fails to make the case, it is a challenge to articulate why. I understand the topic better for having read it, even though I didn’t agree with or adopt the conclusions.

That’s good philosophy, as I understand philosophy.

Sure. As you were.

What about those that pretend to be civil holding only the facade thereof? What about those people?