This is exactly right in my opinion.
What are your thoughts on these matters?
The people we interact with on SI are just as real as they are when we interact with them in other mediums. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, teachers, brokers, retirees, and businessmen. They are principled; they are unprincipled; but they are the same authentic people they are anywhere else, regardless of what aspects of their character are revealed here. Certainly we expose different aspects of ourselves in a bedroom than we would on SI or in the supermarket.
It seems to me that anyone attempting to dehumanize people while they are posting on SI are doing it for psychological reasons divorced from any rational argument. It is likely, for instance, that they might be trying to insulate their feelings from unprincipled assaults by the pretence that the people are not "real", but in the process they would be demonstrating the very type of incivility they meant to condemn.
It is obvious we are all authentic. If there were no self there could be no basis for assessment or judgement, no ground for accountability, morality, or justice.
It is universally recognized that individuals have IDENTITY. Thus did we sign contracts with SI to secure our rights as persons and to commit to the rights of others.
The fact that people may be unprincipled or uncivil on SI does not make them any less real. They have a self and these are authentic expressions of that. But it is indeed worrisome that they are the same people we interact with in our community where they are more prone to censor their behaviour in the furtherance of their self interest.
It is worrisome because the black/white, for/against style of thinking which I have read here from the last few days (in particular Wednesday or Thursday, I believe) indicates that any future dictators, or megalomaniacs, or pretenders to the throne of totalitarianism have an "army in waiting".
Have we really made such little progress? Is this "thin veneer" literally so very thin, after all?
I read your interchanges across the way from those days and must offer you my sympathy for the frustration you must have felt; which brings me to this point: Would it be worthwhile to create a thread where basic parameters of civility are enforced by exclusion of violators? I do not say "parameters of opinion"--I say: CIVILITY. The real purpose of free speech is to protect opinion...not to protect uncivilized behaviour.
One hates to muzzle free speech in any way; but it seems to me that monitored threads are private gatherings, and thus are subject to the expectations of the participants.
I would be interested in such a thread where real people can thrash out real differences without being muzzled--but without being subjected to trash talk either; where the exercise of fair comment and varied expression is not overly impaired or restrictive in latitude.
I have had little time to touch base with people lately. Actually, none. But I would like to connect with Poet, E, Karen, Lazarus, and others to see if there is enough interest for a group of "anchor tenants" of various political stripes, world views, etc. I would know if a co-ordinated effort could be undertaken for developing a thread protocol.
There are a plethora of threads on SI and it does all become cumbersome and unwieldy. Besides, there are people like yourself who seem comfortable in discussion of a wide range of topics regarding most anything of general human interest, and whom could benefit from a forum where people are not allowed an absolute latitude in language and conduct. This latter is a delicacy of thread protocol which might best benefit from your particular ability to temper language to soften judgement. A precisely worded thread introduction would be of paramount importance.
I am here for the day and night, and will try to hunt down E and Poet. I would not want to infringe on threads which are still active, but it is an idea which is needful finally to look at, I think. |
