For the record, I have a dog in this fight. I can certainly be acerbic - and worse - at times. Usually when I'm not well - but that doesn't justify it.
An argument stands or falls on its own merit - not on what creeps the opposition are, not on what soandso believes that has zero to do with the point, and not on what someone in your favorite blog said, no matter how pithy.
The idea behind Freedom of Speech wasn't to let every blowhard have his day - that's just part of the price we pay for free speech. The idea was to promote and protect civil, public discourse. To let all sides have a voice in the matter - not merely the ones in power or favor.
Tweb has always been rough and tumble - and that's okay, to a point. But it shouldn't be so hostile that we can't discuss our disagreements.
Lately, we've all gotten pretty bad about this. It's hurting the site - but more importantly, it's hurting us.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Not everyone who takes a position you dislike is evil. Not everyone that questions a position you hold dear is out to ruin America.
Challenge, debate, discuss, argue - but don't deride, intimidate, dismiss, or inflame. Riposte is fine - as long as everyone is playing by the same rules. Otherwise, it's just glorified name calling.
And seriously, no one can answer twenty different people in one thread - and they shouldn't have to - knock off the dog piling.
There are some people that just can't argue with each other - when you know you're one of them, let the thing go. I KNOW how hard this is - really I do - but trashing each other accomplishes only bad feelings.
Okay, so why is this in civics? Because that's where it belongs. The thread topic is Civil (Public) Discourse - what are the principles and what should they be?
An argument stands or falls on its own merit - not on what creeps the opposition are, not on what soandso believes that has zero to do with the point, and not on what someone in your favorite blog said, no matter how pithy.
The idea behind Freedom of Speech wasn't to let every blowhard have his day - that's just part of the price we pay for free speech. The idea was to promote and protect civil, public discourse. To let all sides have a voice in the matter - not merely the ones in power or favor.
Tweb has always been rough and tumble - and that's okay, to a point. But it shouldn't be so hostile that we can't discuss our disagreements.
Lately, we've all gotten pretty bad about this. It's hurting the site - but more importantly, it's hurting us.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Not everyone who takes a position you dislike is evil. Not everyone that questions a position you hold dear is out to ruin America.
Challenge, debate, discuss, argue - but don't deride, intimidate, dismiss, or inflame. Riposte is fine - as long as everyone is playing by the same rules. Otherwise, it's just glorified name calling.
And seriously, no one can answer twenty different people in one thread - and they shouldn't have to - knock off the dog piling.
There are some people that just can't argue with each other - when you know you're one of them, let the thing go. I KNOW how hard this is - really I do - but trashing each other accomplishes only bad feelings.
Okay, so why is this in civics? Because that's where it belongs. The thread topic is Civil (Public) Discourse - what are the principles and what should they be?
Comment