Civility has become a cult.
Mods on modern websites (including Reddit and Lemmy.world) are forced to maintain courtly behavior instead of deciding who’s the asshole. They will protect any cautious troll who can politely phrase ‘you’re subhuman and also secretly agree with me’ but jump on the obvious reasonable response: “Fuck off.” Even when that curt dismissal is followed by an explanation of how a comment was dishonest and manipulative, you said the no-no word, so only you get the boot.
And that boot will tend to be as heavy as possible, sometimes instantly permanent, because god forbid anyone learn anything. You keep permanently banning these trolls, when they can get a new account in minutes, and they keep coming back within minutes? Wow, it’s almost like you’ve given them no reason whatsoever to stick out their ban and keep that username. Spritzing them in the face with a three-day time-out works better. This is basic Skinnerian conditioning - immediate reliable feedback is internalized and shapes future behavior.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s not all that far from the truth. Calling out asshole behavior on certain communities has to be done with so much civility its as if you’re just “agreeing to disagree”. The courting of the fanatics on both ends of the spectrum is just allowing propaganda to flourish.
EDIT: To be clear, when I say assholes I mean the trolls who are knowingly and intentionally dismissing in your face evidence and trying to push some kind of narrative they feel is justified, no matter how heinous.
“Calling out the asshole,” is a self-righteous way of saying, “flipping the bozo bit.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozo_bit#Dismissing_a_person_as_not_worth_listening_to
It does not add anything to be uncivil when calling out someone who might be a problem. That person is not the only audience. It still reflects poorly on one to act poorly, even if one convinces oneself that they have a “really good reason” to be an asshole to an asshole. And it assumes one’s own infallibility.
Some people might like to see it and upvote it, but that isn’t helping the interlocutor’s implied intention of improving discourse. It’s just creating a dunk culture.
When you see someone acting poorly, it’s not at all clear calling them an asshole is a better strategy (even for one’s own wellness, let alone that of the community) than assuming, hey, this person is in a shitty mood, and probably having a bad day; a compassionate person would offer them some help or at least attempt to be understanding.
It’s hard, I know.
An asshole isn’t someone who disagrees with you in this case. Maybe I should have pointed out that I’m talking about the trolls that exist here who are just assholes. It’s someone who is intentionally and knowingly spreading out misinformation or cherry picked quotes and events to further an agenda. Someone who dismisses what they don’t like to hear so they can stand some “authoritative moral high-ground” that they’ve made up. I’ll edit my comment to better reflect what I was trying to say.
And it assumes one’s own infallibility.
Ridiculous absolutism.
Nevermind the cases where gentle understanding was offered, and deeper clarification attempted, and yeah no it turns out some rando sounds like an asshole because they are in fact an asshole. You’re treating any judgement as intolerable egotism. You expect perfection before anyone’s allowed to reach a conclusion. In illustration of the original point: fuck that.
Difficulty doesn’t matter. Blunt callouts serve a distinct purpose. When ideal discourse has already broken down, because someone’s comments are not just factually wrong but morally wrong, the continued appearance of polite debate grants legitimacy to dangerous nonsense. ‘It assumes one’s own infallibility’ is on the near end of that failure mode. You don’t have to be flawless, to be right about something. Even if you’re wrong in this case - oh well! Learn! Be better next time! You don’t have to imagine yourself incapable of making a mistake, to spot and name some really clear cases of trolling and bigotry. Or any number of things people will deny and squirm away from and clutch their pearls over, no matter how gently it’s made clear that they did it and you saw it.
This is one step short of ‘just because you disagree.’ The universal effortless dismissal of criticism.
And on the receiving end - getting called an asshole doesn’t stop you from making your point, if you’ve got an actual point. I should know. This attitude comes from entirely too much bickering against unreasonable people in their own boltholes. A pile of downvotes and harsh language won’t turn the Earth flat. If you would like to offer endless patience and comforting words in the face of such pluripotent denialism, by all means, go ahead - but it doesn’t fucking work. Denying them respect is half the battle toward deplatforming their disinformation.
I mean I get what is being said, but the way they phrased their thesis sentence is sooooo far from reality, the point is totally undermined. Civility is clearly at an all time low.
Well, that’s not very civil of you.
I have enjoyed physical relations with the woman who gave birth to you on a number of occasions.
Much better, thank you.
You’re welcome.
What, did he crawl back in?
Yes. It was a mess down there.
ha ha?
I think it’s a bit strange that we call everyone a troll these days though. Since when is it trolling to just state your opinion? Trolling was supposed to be when someone intentionally posts something to upset someone else.
It’s very hard to actually know the difference unless it’s a stupid poster who does it over and over again.
I don’t call everyone a troll. I didn’t call you a troll, or Sundial, or jerkface, or PugJesus.
I disagreed with mindbleach, but he didn’t call me a troll, nor me him. I think it’s potentially possible that we’re discussing actual trolls, in this conversation.
Are you sure you didn’t make up an imaginary scenario in your head where “we” call everyone who states their opinion a troll?
Disagree on the spritzing - perma bans from individual communities cause significant inconvenience to users.
Agree on the civility. Fuck civility politics.
Yes. The ending part was the only part I disagreed with.
I think changing the dynamic, so that it’s explicitly understood all around that being on the network is a privilege, would do a lot to improve this. Right now it’s a little incongruous, because having an account is an entitlement, but then you’re trying to claw it back after the fact and tell people there are rules they have to follow, and so of course they’re going to dispute with that idea. And then, trying to tell everyone they have to be “civil” to all the other users, toxic and nontoxic, only makes it worse, because it makes it harder to self-correct the toxic users within normal interactions inside the community.
How long do y’all think a three-day time-out lasts?
I’m reminded of a scene from a show I’m watching, The Orville. I just watched this episode last night so it was fresh in my mind.
It’s one of the reasons I’m glad I left Reddit behind about a year and a half ago.
In spaces that are both liberal and political (or adjacent to politics) I’d say he’s correct, but generally I’d say a cult of toxic positivity would be a bit more broadly applicable.
