I would like to request a level of civility in our discussions here.

[ejpoeta]

I go into discussions wanting to read about one thing or another and I get to the comments which somehow seem to have devolved into a name calling session. Look, is there some reason we cannot have differing opinions about things without one being clueless or stupid or whatever other name we seem to like to call each other?

I was just in a thread about the story that zimmerman rescued some people in an accident or something. Yes, I was interested in this story as I hadn't heard of it. Actually this was the second one I had perused as I saw one last night too. Then in the comments I am appalled to see people resorting to name calling. That is not a discussion. When I first heard about it I thought it was odd that zimmerman rescued someone. It seems kind of weird and unbelievable. Folks are expressing their suspicions as is perfectly normal and acceptable. There is no evidence he rescued anyone, and there is no evidence that he didn't. So discuss it. If you think this is a stupid story, then don't go into the thread. Don't waste your time posting in a thread to tell people they are stupid for thinking x or y.

I am sure I am going to get flamed here. This seems to be how things go on this site these days. All I am asking for is some sense of respect for others. We all have different perspectives on things and calling someone names is disrespectful. I understand that things can get heated and we can get upset about things, but discussion is a way to think about a different point of view. Look at something differently than you other wise would have seen it.

[customerserviceguy]

1. Thank you, I agree. n/t

[Half-Century Man]

2. I don't have a problem with the disrespect, but I have..issues

The main problem I have when threads go off in the name-calling/baiting tangents is the incredible waste of time trying to move from actual point to counterpoint.

[handmade34]

27. disrespect is the issue

and I would think we all should be concerned with disrespect... respect is what can hold a community together even when ideas differ... the time wasted by resorting to name calling IS a form of disrespect

[Half-Century Man]

43. Two individuals can say to each other "I think you show no evidence of being able to think"

As unpleasantly as they wish. Who cares. I have personally greatly disliked people I've worked with and still got damn good work done.

When they do it 47 times without bringing anything new to the discussion. That is when I have a problem with it. Express your dislike, and move on. We are here to discuss things with a left/liberal/progressive/democratic slant. We won't agree, we shouldn't agree. We each have a piece of the puzzle and by working together we can get good ideas ready and maybe action taken.

How many of us are active IRL?

[Mojorabbit]

82. In some threads I think it is done on purpose to derail the discussion. nt

[Half-Century Man]

83. I think so as well

Although, I fail to see the danger an online message/discussion board presents.

[geckosfeet]

3. I agree.

But it seems that name-calling for certain groups is acceptable and encouraged. Who gets to decide which groups are to be called names, and which groups are exempt?

[rbnyc]

4. Recently, I posted something...

...that was generally well received, but in no way above criticism. Two people had the same general contention with my post. One person said something like, "Might I suggest...." and made the point. And then went on to describe an area where we had common ground. Her contention was indeed valid, and her style made it easy for me to see that. Later, someone else had the same issue, but basically yelled at me and attacked my character. He self deleted and tried again, but even though I'd pretty much already conceded the point, we were never able to really move away from opposition.

Style matters.

[ejpoeta]

6. so true. if you are trying to persuade someone to your point, you don't want to

say things that will make them stop listening to what you are trying to say.

[cheapdate]

5. It's the unthoughtful, knee-jerk replys

that make me groan. Some people don't seem to reflect at all on the words they're replying to, but rather seem to be replying to things not said.

Lately, I see a lot of this; People who assume that because a person made the argument X, then it must follow that he believes argument Y -- even when the two ideas ARE NOT RELATED.

For example, "Bob" says that the Afghan government may have a problem with corruption. "Mary" replies that Bob must love the MURDER OF INNOCENT CHILDREN!

[emulatorloo]

10. Yes, shoving words into other people's mouths is particularly egregious

When called on it, they either

- deny they did it
- double down and ascribe something worse to you
- come back with "That's my opinion of what you said"

There is a ton of intellectual dishonesty here.

[pipi_k]

20. That, above all else...

is what bugs me the most.

People who are reading their own interpretations...or prejudices...or resentments...whatever...into what they are "reading".

And then attacking based on what they think was said.

And then, to make it even worse, when it's pointed out that they may have misunderstood, they insist that they know exactly what was meant (and nobody can convince them otherwise because have some marvelous mind-reading talent, I suppose) and they get even more rude.

But, that's the way it is in real life, only probably not as often, since it's easier to be rude and obnoxious when one doesn't have to deal with the immediate reactions of his target.

[treestar]

39. Yes. The Snowden threads are full of it

You must be OK with spying on Americans, etc.

[cheapdate]

59. Yes. One of the great benefits of DU for me

has always been learning strong counter-arguments to various and sundry questions of politics, government, society, public policy, etc. DU has been an invaluable source for solid counter-arguments and alternatives to conventional wisdom.

But the Snowden threads are a good example of the breakdown of that process of rational debate. I've withdrawn from all Snowden threads, because, apparently, I hate freedom, or something.

[deacon_sephiroth]

7. thus I no longer log in

I still come here for news and to read a few opinions, but it's been over a year since I logged in or left a comment. Hidden amongst even the most prolific of posters on this site are vicious mean-spirited bullies like any other corner of the internet. They're not worth my time or my comments, so I comment no more.

(Also, discrimination and abuse of atheists was joyfully upheld in the crappy DU jury system EVERY TIME. So clearly my kind aren't welcome around here anyway)

[ejpoeta]

8. I am sorry to hear that. I see it all the time too. Actually, I went away for awhile and came back

recently to look around. I do reply to posts but it just seemed the vitriol has gotten worse.

[JNelson6563]

9. +1

Well said.

Some had a lifetime spot on the mod team and boy did it show! Sadly many who serve on juries do not even try to be objective. At least with the jury system you have a chance of getting six grown ups who are objective. A slim chance but a greater possibility than when it was the mods.

Julie

[derby378]

81. My wife (ChickMagic, RIP) was a staunch atheist who did her best to keep that in check

Sorry about the negative experiences you've had on DU - some of us have been trying to bring an end to it, but it's hard.

[datasuspect]

11. welcome to the world wide web

discussion forums have been a sewer since the mid 90s after the aol and compuserve n00bs flooded the networks.

and not just some, but ALL of them.

this stuff has been going on since USENET and before.

[zipplewrath]

16. Since before the internet

I can remember my early days of USENET, and the old folks then commented that it was pretty much the same in the pre-internet days when folks dialed in to "bulletin boards" of various sorts. The honest truth is just hang around the "water cooler" of your work place and you'll find fairly similar behaviors. True discussion of view points is rare. Mostly it consists of either "declarations", not meant to be opposed, or snide comments meant mostly to enforce conformity.

[datasuspect]

24. we can go all the way back to scribblings on truck stop bathroom stalls

i see internet discussion forums as a digital equivalent.

[rrneck]

57. This was lately translated...

It says, "Thag has hairy palms."

[valerief]

12. Your poutrage is duly noted.

[emulatorloo]

14. So I take it you are just fine with RACIAL PROFILING.

Nazi-wannabes like you make me vomit.

[oldhippie]

28. LOL!

Good one!

[LearningCurve]

53. This one made me laugh

It ambushed me, being so far down from the comment.

[valerief]

69. Irony noted. nt

[villager]

76. "Poutrage" being exactly the kind of snide language the OP was talking about

Thanks for the object lesson!

[Dawgs]

13. Sorry, but I prefer the 'non-civil' discussion.

One of the reasons I have always loved the Internet.

[Dawgs]

37. Would alert your post, but as I said, I'm not afraid of these types of comments.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. Apparently, somebody is.

[oldhippie]

48. Good Lord!

Could the jury actually have been that dense as to not get the point?

Edit to correct typing.

[TreasonousBastard]

49. Amazing, isn't it?

[Agschmid]

63. People don't seem to read the posts around the alert.

[WinkyDink]

15. Here's your first mistake: Writing "DON'T."

[99Forever]

19. Good luck with that.

And btw, "civility" is in the eye of the beholder.

Is it "civil" to insult people's intelligence with made up facts? Do absurd "arguments" deserve "respect?"

I am sorry friend, but the simple truth is that all opinions are not equal. Some come with not-so-hidden agendas attached, most of which are not in the best interests of We the People. That pisses some of us off, it's called caring about real issues above personalities. If that offends you, I have no suggestion as to how to remedy it.

[pipi_k]

26. I think it's possible

to disagree or point out facts without being obnoxious, no matter how absurd those facts...or "facts"...might seem.

Because, in the end, how we treat others isn't a reflection on them. It's a reflection on us.

And I'll tell you what...I'm much more likely to listen to/believe someone who can refute even the silliest argument with civility than someone who has to resort to sarcasm and put-downs to make a point.

There are a few here who no doubt have some really good points, but who seem to have a problem with being civil. Once I see that happen, I ignore everything that person has to say.

Nastiness earns my disgust, for whatever little it's worth.

[99Forever]

78. The problem you and the OP don't seem to get...

... is that you can't control others. No amount of self-righteous badgering and browbeating will change that. Whether you or I are disgusted by what someone says, in the end, probably means very little to them. (Heck, for some of them, that is exactly what they are aiming for.) That is the reality of the internet.

[H2O Man]

21. "Intolerance betrays

a want of faith in one's cause." -- Gandhi

Recommended.

[GeorgeGist]

70. Intolerance of what?

Pedophilia? Greed? Slavery? Lactose?

[Lancero]

22. Your putting things lightly...

I'll put them harsher and truer.

A good portion of DU has started to embrace Republican ideals - That is, constant bickering with each other, and choosing to call people names whenever they say a viewpoint that they don't agree with.

[CTyankee]

23. I have been close to giving up on DU, and I've been here since Oct. 2004. In fact, I credit DU and

Stephanie Miller's radio show for keeping me from a deep funk after Kerry's loss.

But now I watch what I post and expect the worst. I hate to think that we have to be monitored like kindergartners, but I am beginning to wonder...

[riqster]

25. Don't give me that, you snotty-nosed heap of parrot droppings!

Oh, you wanted an argument? I'm sorry, this is abuse! You want Room 12-A, just down the corridor."

(CF Monty Python)

But seriously, sometimes it does seem as though we are stuck in that sketch.

[L0oniX]

40. Please try not to piss off the stupid asshole moronic sociopath immature Paulbot asscarrot trolls.

Sorry ...not enough room to list all the typical insults.

[Coolest Ranger]

29. this is also why I don't come on any more

the name calling, the insults, the homophobia on here is what drove me away. I recently came out to DU as being gay and I had three people jump on me for my sexuality. They offended me big time. I still lurk from time to time but until things change I won't be logging in as much

[heaven05]

32. oh

there are a lot of pretend progressives on this site. A lot of racism, homophobia and just pure bigotry disguised as faux liberalism. Yet as wanting as it leaves one it's one of the few left. Sardonicky is a good one.

[RobinA]

66. Gotta Disagree

I have gone looking, and found, forums that still contain intelligent conversation among actual liberals.

[heaven05]

67. gimme

[libodem]

35. Sorry Ranger

That's awful. I wouldn't expect that here. My assessment of my self is that I believe in tolerance and acceptance of peoples preferences.

Yet I have said stuff that was misconstrued and had me labeled as not generally supportive. People read stuff in and sometimes when I reread and reflect I see what they mean. I adapt. I seriously have never meant to offend. Sometimes I have. I'm sorry.

[Agschmid]

64. Sorry for that, it's not fair.

I am out gay man and I have not experienced that here. I would encourage you to come back and either alert on those posts or ignore those posters. I find DU to be a welcoming community so far... But I don't go to certain parts often.

[Savannahmann]

30. To a certain extent I agree. With Reservations

When someone is merely putting out discredited information, and has a long habit of doing so, then it is far more difficult to maintain a civil tongue, or fingers on the keyboard. It is sort of like when you meet a Holy Roller. You know the type, if you glance about and say it's a nice day, they tell you how God made this day just for us. After a few hours, or days, you turn and your patience has snapped. They may be nice but I'm sorry, but God did not design the crack in the sidewalk for one daisy to sprout up to inspire me. The crack in the sidewalk is a normal process of entropy and given time, the sidewalk will crumble to dust.

So when you come here, understand that there are histories. I have my issues with certain posters. I call them the apologists, or defenders of the faith. I am always arguing that we should be better than we are. We should strive to be the best we can be, not just less evil than the Republicans. That is not something I want in the history books a century from now. The Democrats at the beginning of the 21st Century were not quite as evil as the Republicans. Yet many of the apologists would be perfectly satisfied no matter what the Democrats do, or what program they support.

I will become more dismissive with them with obvious reason. I am a Democrat, and if you give me a choice, the Democrat is the way I will choose, but I am a Liberal too, and I will always push for more from my party. It isn't enough to win elections, we must strive for more. We must demand more, and when our elected leaders reach that goal, we then strive for even more. We can never rest, never give up, and never be satisfied that it was good enough. Because good enough means we are just slightly less evil than the Republicans, and that is unacceptable.

So I become more dismissive towards them. They do so towards me. It is not that we are generally uncivil, but each of us is firmly rooted in our own beliefs. Civility depends on a number of factors, and all opinions are not created equal. Imagine if someone came on here and began posting about Eugenics, the completely discredited scientific theory of the 1930's and 40's? We would deride them without mercy, and with good reason. That theory is absolutely disproven, and discredited by history. It would be the same as claiming the earth was flat at this point. People who post such nonsense do not deserve to be treated civilly. They have earned the derision they shall get.

[mountain grammy]

34. Well said, Savannahmann.

[joeglow3]

31. I will call out crap when I see it

The idea that a woman would intentionally roll a car with her kids in it to help out Zimmerman's reputation based on the fact that she had a relative who retired from the police force in the 70's is so obscenely ignorant that I will call these people out. This is not a difference of opinion. It is a tin foil hat wearing loon and I will not allow our side to be made to look like a bunch of birthers.

[heaven05]

33. anything

with zimPIG the murderer involved raises suspicion. I have looked for photos, police reports? Nothing, nada, zero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The people on here who want to give zimPIG the benefit of doubt in this garbage story by and large supported his contention of self-defense against a kid armed with skittles. Pitiful. No leeway on supporters of racist murderers.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Someone actually said that?

[one_voice]

65. No one is questioning the accident...

it's Zman being Johnny on the spot.

It's the rescue that's being questioned.

I don't think that's tin foil hat stuff, considering the way law enforcement acted with Zman.

The accident was real and not staged, it's the rescue that smells.


edited to add: maybe I shouldn't say no one, cuz I'm not 100% sure, most of what I read questions the rescue.

[onlyadream]

36. Agree

I get nervous posting on DU, not knowing the wrath I will incur. Shame.

[mountain grammy]

38. Good post and I agree, but, honestly, I don't see such widespred inciviltiy here..

Yes, there's more than there used to be, but it's far from the norm.

I'm here for the news, human interest, and commentary. I read almost all the comments on any thread that interests me, and most are good, whether I agree with them or not. My mind has been changed more than once with the wealth of information I find here, and isn't that the point? Either I can stand by and support my opinions (beliefs, whatever) with real life facts or I have to open my mind to other facts. That's what I constantly tell right wingers who usually mumble "fuck you" and walk away.

Sometimes, I dig in and stand my ground even when faced with a barrage of "facts" and we may never agree, but, if you vote Democratic, I'll love you anyway.

[oneshooter]

41. Even democratic gun owners?

[mountain grammy]

54. I'm a Democratic gun owner, so, yes!

[heaven05]

50. I

like you.

[mountain grammy]

55. and I

like you too!

[snooper2]

42. If somebody says the Sanford Police department staged a rollover with kids involved on a busy hwy

We are going to snark them, and call them stupid...Well, not directly, but there are subtle ways


If you start talking about the spirit world and woo and "they recording all my phone calls ma!" you should expect to get called out. There are enough ignorant humans on this planet we don't need more propagation of idiocy here.

[TreasonousBastard]

44. Well, here's one presumably legitimate story about it...

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19758908&ref=http://news.google.com/

This is largely about the family refusing to talk about it because of the hysteria surrounding Zimmerman.

I've refused to get into the thousands of Zimmerman threads because they all make little sense. Those who hated him before the trial paid no attention to any testimony during the trial if it didn't agree with their predetermined opinions. Those on his side the same. This has been noted elsewhere and seems to be how it works in highly public trials-- you had to either love or hate OJ and love or hate the verdict accordingly . Never reflect and try to learn "why" the verdict. And never, ever, even suggest that you may possibly have been wrong.

Long before these boards I, like some others, were on Usenet froups and I saw lives ruined and even one suspected murder took place. All over some bullshit political point. This here is really light action.

The enemy is not the internet, but it is us. Pogo knew that, but the word just hasn't gotten around. At our best we are a magnificent species capable of godlike greatness. But we rarely get there-- we prefer to wallow with our basest instincts doing nothing but causing trouble and not even getting decently paid for it. We do it just for fun, or because we don't know any better.

So, no, some of them will not be nice and we just have to deal with that. Some of us are driven by our own issues, prejudices, and life experiences and will not budge an inch. Some may couch it in terms like "progressive" and it may even imitate progressive ideals, but it is still an ideology and is not to be questioned or discussed.

And, well, some people are just plain stupid, even on our side, but I guess that's not their fault.

[heaven05]

51. oh please

the pot calling the kettle......geez And a lot of people on this site judged zimPIG innocent before the 'facts' were known from this sham trial. It turned out the way they wanted. So be it. ALL who supported him are the same as him. I can come to no other conclusion.

[TreasonousBastard]

62. Huh? I'm missing something here.

[Logical]

47. The jury system is a joke. That is most the problem. n-t

[PasadenaTrudy]

52. Every time I come on DU

I'm asked to serve in a jury, and it's always regarding the issues you've brought up. C'mon people, grow up!

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Being victim of constant abuse

Most of them are on ignore...I don't expect civility on DU. Nor do the owners care.

I come here because of the friends I got. The rest...I suggest you use the ignore list.

This place is worst than HS...including bad principals.

[carolinayellowdog]

60. stalking and harassment directed especially at you, Catherina and Cali

When you have people on ignore but they continue to jump into threads attacking you, that's pretty disturbing, but I'm glad you don't let them stop you. What disturbs me far more is that the same progressive DUers who are stalked and harassed here by "centrists" are singled out on an avowedly "conservative" site dedicated in large part to attacking DU. They're proud in announcing that they are here making mischief under different usernames.

Just how many of the "conservative" creeps on that unmentionable site are also "centrist" harassers here? Not a large number, surely-- but how many posts are they responsible for? A lot, I suspect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Oh some of us have suspicions

Of their identities. As in actual user names.

But the owners don't give a shit.

[rrneck]

58. The ends don't justify the means.

Some people are so invested in their ideas they will do anything to push them. Not a few become so narcissistic they don't care if others agree with them or not. And still others don't really care about anything but themselves and whatever they get out of hearing people agree (or disagree) with them on an anonymous message board.

You just have to take it for what it's worth. If you fool around here too much you lose all faith in humanity, probably because the nature of the place strips most of the humanity from the participants.

[UTUSN]

68. R#47 & K for, it's startling to see gratuitous f-bombing, like their opinions are so sterling that

they have the right to BLAST anybody else.

And what's unsettling is how a segment supposed Dems expends way more energy attacking other Dems here than attacking wingnuts.

And what's surprising is how one (me) can attack named personalities in the news, and their followers here don't respond with reasoned defense but rather with personal attacks on one: As in, "A" attacks "B" and "B" 's followers attack "A" totally personally.

Another phenomenon: The "talking points" attack. Acting as if they PERSONALLY KNOW this fellow member, ascribing and projecting blanket, broad brush motives to the OPINION.

And the irony: Attackers claiming to be so Lib, screaming SHUT UP SHUT UP like O'LOOFAH, not seeing that differing opinions are a hallmark of Lib values.

[LWolf]

71. In this era of the jury system on DU,

personal attacks are okay. Example: it's fine to call DUers who disagree with you "trolls," as evidenced by a post I alerted on this morning. Alerted, not for content, but for the personal attack. Not directed toward me.

As one jurist put it: "Please, give me a break...is this a discussion site or the kissy face place?" Apparently, personal attacks and juvenile name-calling are an accepted form of discussion.

And the jury I served on today? No explanations given for why half of them left a clearly homophobic post up.

In this era of DU, it's not civility that is enforced. Enough DU jurors, like B-37, render their verdict based on their bias rather than the rule of law.

[chimpymustgo]

74. I personally think there's WAY too much alerting going on. We should be able to

intelligently discuss our differences, without constantly yelling, Mommmie, he/she hit me!

Much of the alerting I see is very much based on political differences.

[JVS]

75. I agree. It's pretty obvious that a lot of alerts are attempts to silence people for their ideas...

and not about civility.

[LWolf]

79. I agree that alerts should not be about political differences.

Intelligently discussing those differences, though, means that one can discuss them with civility. THAT'S what alerts should be about. Unfortunately, there is enough incivility to keep jurors busy.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

72. kick again

[jazzimov]

73. Agreed! Also, I'd like to see some fact-checking

I see far too many posts spewing RW talking points that are simply untrue.

Alas, I see that your call for civility has brought on some most uncivil posts.

[ZRT2209]

77. good luck - but there are so many crabasses here

[PD Turk]

80. oh yeah?

well...

[arely staircase]

84. I have been trying personally

in fact just tonight I had a very civil discussion with someone I normally wouldn't on a subject we are often at odds on. it is a little harder, but worth it.

[backscatter712]

85. As long as paid shills, Caver trolls and their sockpuppets are allowed here, civility won't exist.

They're purpose here is to disrupt.

Those firing off the sheer volume of NonSense we've seen here in the past few weeks about Snowden and the NSA alone is clearly doing it for a living.

[rl6214]

86. Well said, too many people here playing gotcha

Too many people here not willing to discuss, just wanting to attack those with differing opinions.

[mick063]

87. The discourse matches the state of the union

As it should.


Democracy can get ugly. The more Democracy is challenged, the uglier it should get.

A knock down, drag out, brawl is probably much needed.

[liberal_at_heart]

88. that's what the ignore button is for, and I'm not kidding. I still have people I disagree with

I do not have on ignore but people who only want to insult and bully in order to try and convince people their point is valid and the other person's is stupid. Those people get put on ignore. Conversation actually does get pretty civil when you put the bullies on ignore.

[Corruption Inc]

89. Here's a quote that describes why it'll never happen

“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

― Eleanor Roosevelt