OT: Online Civility

[Hoss]

This is human nature. It's a big part of the strife we see in the world today, and getting back on topic of ONLINE civility, is particularly important in the online world because we can easily wall ourselves off from other packs into an online world where everyone we interact with is part of our own pack. And it coarsens us to remembering that the other packs are--in fact--human beings with hopes and dreams and well-reasoned opinions, even if those opinions differ from our own.
 
All the dreams of the internet age are dashed on these rocks. The idea that instant global communication would BREAK DOWN barriers rather than making it easy for us to retreat into our own little walled fortresses surrounded by people like ourselves is gone. We are supposed to be getting better; we're actually getting worse.

I don't know how to fix it... Which is extraordinarily depressing, because I look around at the world and see these factors getting increasingly worse, and can only imagine it's going to lead to a very dark place.

Depressing...and depressingly astute IMO. I am convinced that the explosion of mass communication over the past 25 years, and exacerbated over the last ten by social media, is going to be the downfall of this country for the reasons you state.
Tribalism runs amok...and maybe worse. You will often see persons of the "other" political persuasion described in terms that make it seem as though the author considers them a different, and lesser, species. While largely true in the individual case of Entropylipithicus, as evidenced by the cyber version of clicks and whistles that pass as his posts, the overall implications for the rest of us sapiens are dark and troubling.    

[OrangeAfroMan]

I rarely pronounce "awry" the right way the first time. Force of habit from childhood.

I don't think I've ever seen that word before now.  Heard it plenty of times.  Hmmph.

[ELA]

I rarely pronounce "awry" the right way the first time. Force of habit from childhood.

That's one of those I was embarrassingly old before I put together.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I've made the argument several times that humans are basically pack animals, who pretend to reason. Boy, it pisses people off when you say that. But I think it's largely true.
People like to be a part of something. 

Yeah, I've found that people from many different walks of life get pissy when it's suggested we're "merely" just animals.  It infringes on their religion and, I guess, makes them feel less special.
I wish the loudest blowhards would be dropped out into nature with nothing, a la "Naked and Afraid".  They'll be quick to knock the greatness of humanity off it's pedestal.  Tip-toeing around, struggling to even function after only 2-3 days.  
If often wondered what it would be like and the thing that would make me quit isn't the hunger or the failed shelters or dangerous animals...it'd be the gnats in my ears while trying to sleep.  It would drive me insane and I'd tap out.

[betarhoalphadelta]

I'm not sure if things are getting worse or if what is worse is simply more visible.

I wish I could just assume things getting more visible... 
But I actually think that social media is making this worse, because people are sharing things to their entire online universe that they would only share in close company before. And they're often doing it not in long-form debate, but in catchy memes that completely remove all nuance of a topic--so people increasingly think nuance doesn't exist. 
As if we weren't already in a sound-bite, tl;dr culture, social media and memes have made it worse.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Yeah, I've found that people from many different walks of life get pissy when it's suggested we're "merely" just animals.  It infringes on their religion and, I guess, makes them feel less special.

I get that aspect of it, but I coming at it from a completely different angle. Not that the "animal" portion is the key, but the "tribe/pack" aspect is the key. 
People like to feel like they're actively running their lives, their opinions, their emotions. They like to think that they're doing it based on logic, and reason, and good sense.
Yet people generally have the same religion as their parents, and all think their religion is the "right" one. People same political stance as their peer group / socioeconomic group / location, and think they came to it honestly instead of by assimilation. 
Do you think it's a product of reason that Berkeley is very liberal while Omaha is very conservative? Or do you think that people grow to emulate the politics of those around them to avoid rocking the boat and feeling ostracized? I think it's the latter...
People have a conceit that they are the product of the reasoned mind, when in SO many cases they're products of their tribe/pack. People don't like being told they're not in control. But the VAST majority really aren't.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Yeah, we want credit for all the good we exhibit and produce.  The idea that 98% of it was out of our hands to begin with and that the 2% we may be responsible for is just well-disguised herd mentality doesn't really allow any room for a stroked ego.



btw, social media has changed everything.  Used to be, there were 3 or 5 or 20 arbiters of knowledge out there to expose yourself to.  They were the stewards of what was important and what wasn't.  Now there are 30 million stewards and it's all deemed important (enough) to share.  There was a bell curve of validity back then as there is now, but now it's impossible not to get mired in the sludge.  

[Honestbuckeye]

Very good observations throughout.

I often wonder what is chance versus what we actually control.  Feels like there is plenty of both.

There are things about our world and people that I really like and feel are improvements in our evolution. But I also feel ther are people that do things because they have no accountability for what they say or do, and obviously social media really enables that. And it really makes me want to turn and look the other way, and hope it goes away.

What if we had to live up to what ever we claimed on social media?  Would it change what people say?

It is so easy for mankind to proclaim how others should act, like, dislike, pay for, contribute too.....but I wonder if it would be different if those who say those things had to back it up with their own money, or religion, or behavior or whatever..

When it comes to politics, I have neither the desire or ability to change anyone’s mind. I just want to respect the other opinions and have mine respected.

My worst peeve are those who resort to violence or intimidation over basic differences of opinion.

[Cincydawg]

It's all like football - that tipped pass was intercepted, or fell on the turf, that QB spotted a receiver breaking open, or he didn't, the referee saw holding, or he didn't, the guy fumbled because a helmet hit the ball just so, or it didn't.

[Cincydawg]

This is a bit OT, if the link works, thought it was neat:


https://www.facebook.com/limacompanymemorial/videos/1617706745001871/UzpfSTE1MjQ2MDQ0NzE6MTAyMTIxNTMyNTg2OTY0MTg/

[Anonymous Coward]

@Hoss  and I are good friends off the boards… (on the boards I hate him..heh).  We disagree politically...  But not in the sense left or right… or D vs R.   We have our leans but most of the time, when you actually have the discussion, there is more overlap in opinion than disagreement.  And that disagreement usually is around how rather than what.   For whatever reason, we’re both fine with the other not agreeing.   If anything I think we appreciate not agreeing.   Echo chambers are boring.  But because we know each other and give each other enough crap… our ego’s are not involved.  It’s ok to evolve an opinion based upon what the other said.  It’s ok to be wrong because you lack information.  It’s also ok to appreciate a point of view due to a different experience.  But mostly, Hoss knows I'm right..

Our culture, at least on twitter, FB or message boards, ego’s get in the way....   It’s about being right more than discussing.  A disagreement means someone is insulting you…  and discussions turn into demonizing because it is easier to dismiss you due to a moral flaw than it is to engage in understanding and finding a middle ground.  

JMO... but I see a big difference in how people interact between friends and on message boards...

This was very nice and insightful. A common error I think people make is that "I believe something good and therefore those who disagree must be bad." There are several logical mistakes there, and despite my optimism about most things, the prevalence of this on all sides sure can be depressing.
It isn't popular, but I tend to veer hard in the opposite direction -- that there are zero good or bad people. Just people. Being people. Acting in predictable ways based on their order of events since leaving the birth canal. Such that, today, or at any point, each of us has our ratio of good or bad (occasionally horrifying) behaviors. But that's about how we animate, not about who we are. That contrary to most identity teachings, we are not our actions. And though bad-behaving people often deserve to stop being trusted (because bad patterns are nevertheless real), no one is technically irredeemable.
I have no interest in being a cultist and am not trying to convert anyone to my side. And yet I do feel like several categories of problems could be improved if "My opponent is a bad person" became extinct for whichever reason, and my reason is because bad people don't exist in the first place.

[MrNubbz]

 And yet I do feel like several categories of problems could be improved if "My opponent is a bad person" became extinct for whichever reason, and my reason is because bad people don't exist in the first place.

You haven't been reading the Unabombers Manifesto again have you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't been reading the Unabombers Manifesto again have you?

That's certainly the most logically extreme and rare case. And still: Just a person. Whose behaviors happen to be horrifying. People like that are never worth trusting. And always worth punishing (because societal standards are essential).
But they are also a somewhat predictable product of their environment (whether deterministically or probabilistically):
For this, imagine a hundred or ten-thousand people who grew up in loving families in healthy communities in a thriving era, never abused, and even add that none of them are ever taken in by manipulative role models with hateful things to say. Now, watch as they grow up. How many of them turn out totally normal/healthy (in that meh/fine/good/great range)? ...
Now, take those people you imagined and put them all in shitty families, in damaged communities, in an era of fear or deprivation, and perhaps even with dangerous role models, and watch how they turn out. The same people, born with the same human potential, same brains: Except this time the same cohort is worse off. It's predictable that they'd finish less normal/healthy (fewer of them in that meh/fine/good/great range).
Of course, I have to admit I don't know how large the cohort needs to be before horrifying behaviors in the second group start leading to, well, murder. But it's certainly more likely for them than for group #1.
Again. Still horrifying. Still essential to punish. But even in this rare and extreme situation, I believe it's still behavior. Not an inherent thing about the person. That many people may be so far gone (prone to bad behavior) that they are realistically beyond saving, but nevertheless no one is technically irredeemable.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that irredeemableness is key. If the way you use the terms "good person" and "bad person" for Joe Schlub changes every day based on whether Joe acts good or bad, then you're largely agreeing with me because you are just judging his behaviors ... except you may have the habit of equating that with who Joe is.
But that's not how most people use those terms "good people" and "bad peoples." We usually use them as tidy bins to place a person and then never switch them in or out again. And it's that usage that I'm saying isn't real. Is illogical. That irredeemableness doesn't exist.