The Problem With Civility

First off, I don’t know the avatar of Armando.  I haven’t read posts or comments by that author elsewhere, and I don’t come to this discussion with knowledge of any history.

Secondly, I come to blog discussions with the notion that I will only be able to get an approximation of the meaning and intent from the author’s message due to the limitations of the medium (no ability to see visual nonverbal cues, to understand the context of the author’s comment, etc.).

Thirdly, I come to blog discussions with my own set of filters, limitations and unique perspective. Messages from others get to me only by coming through those filters.

As a result, I have to come to discussions with some degree of tolerance of ambiguity, the assumption of trust, and the genuine desire to engage in discussion and debate which will move the argument or thesis forward.

To that end, I went back to re-read the definition of civility, and I discovered that there are many, and that they apply to different contexts.

To the extent that civil discourse means politeness, well, that does have some import because some compensatory mechanisms are needed for the limitations described above.

But here’s my perspective:

I personally value the inherent worth and integrity of every person.  It’s the personhood and not the person’s actions that are inherently worthy.  To that end, I try to use respectful terms when referring to people – because I inherently respect them for being

I will use the most precise language I can to argue a point – facts, logic, reason and congruency. In doing so, there is no need to attack the personhood of anyone.  The facts speak for themselves.  The logic, reason and congruency builds the argument and strength.

If the merit of an idea is strong, why distract or detract from it by inserting extraneous diversions of insulting someone else? Doing so actually weakens my argument, as it diverts attention away from the point of discussion.

It’s at this point that I have re-read Armando’s post and thread comments. I think that perhaps, Armando is conflating the emotional reaction to an idea or argument with the person who is presenting it.

Civility can be passionate; it does not attack personhood.

Civility is built and sustained on trust and respect; it does not attempt to stifle reason, logic, science and fact.

After all of this, may I suggest that perhaps Armando is seeking confirmation that passion and emotion are not to be stifled?

Civility, by its nature, is intended to liberate and further argument. Its when labels and epithets are flung at the personhood, instead of at the weakness of an argument, that incivility occurs.

Ergo, “I respect you, but I do not respect the weakness or fallacy of your flawed argument.  Here’s my evidence,” is the mantra of civility.

“Fuck you,” in and of itself is uncivil.

“Your argument is fuckery, and here’s the evidence,” is civil.

As a mere mortal with limitations of perception, intelligence and reason, but with a desire to learn, to support my fellow human, and to live in a society – to some extent communally, I want to make sure that my words are used to their best effect.  If I spend them attacking the personhood of others, I take away from achieving that. If my personhood is attacked, I feel real harm – a betrayal of trust, and I will likely withdraw or engage in defensiveness instead of furthering discussion around the merits of an idea.

/civility clarification

Finally, Armando uses needy language throughout the post and the comments.  I perceive, although I don’t find objective evidence for it, that perhaps he is lacking trust from and for others. If so, that would be a very insecure perch from which to engage in debate and discussion.

The use of epithets can be quite effective when used to amplify or color a point.  However, their overuse becomes numbing and can also be off-putting.  Since this is antithetical to the goal of advancing an argument, it may be useful to look at one’s intentional use of those terms and use them with intention and care. Otherwise, they may simply be shiny objects attempting to hide the weakness of an idea or argument or terms used to confuse holders of divergent views – cheap shots, cheap tactics.

Civility could be debated ad nauseum, but I think that Buhdy has already addressed it fully, and that this discussion is moot.

“Be excellent to each other.” Buhdydharma.