BS: How to have a civil debate

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:45 PM

If you don't believe you can learn to play a guitar are you ever going to learn to play it?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:31 PM

No amount of belief can create a fact.

Certainement.

Belief is an essential element in creating all kinds of facts.

Now THAT may be the most completely asinine ststement I've seen on this forum in years - and it has some pretty stiff competition.

Keith take note.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:29 PM

Why is that then, Dick? I am sure we would all like to know of a better way to resolve differences but we have not come up with any better ideas yet. Rather than making the odd cryptic quip maybe you could make a positive contribution that we would all welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:25 PM

This reminds me of a record player whose needle has got stuck.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:00 PM

"No amount of belief can create a fact"

I don't actually that stands up if you examine it too closely, without being heavily qualified. Belief is an essential element in creating all kinds of facts.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: kendall
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:53 PM

No amount of belief can create a fact.

My ex and I had a simple rule for "Discussions". No name calling, no personal attacks, and no "YOU" statements.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:45 PM

I had two absolutely wow 'craft' beers from the beer shop in Ilkely last week but for the life of me can't remember what they were called. Pity really. Means I will have to pop in and have another look ;-)

Where did you end up then?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:30 PM

Dwelling on past threads is a sure route to insanity and one that is certain to lead to the circular arguments that seem to ensue in these situations. I do not think there is any benefit in it but as there are points that I will be taken to task for not addressing I do feel obliged.

Firstly, civility is relative. Whether calling someone a wanker is worse than calling them a Muppet I am not qualified to say. It is my opinion that both are insults but, in the right circumstances, they are not necessarily uncivil. True incivility is a complete disregard of other peoples feelings, not a few choice swear words.

Secondly, I do feel the issue is not so much what is said, but how. There are ways of doing things in a civil manner even when introducing a contentious subject. The best narrators and orators do it well. The worst will not be believed if they said water was wet. I, and most other people I know, will not accept being told something by someone who's opinion fails to generate any respect no matter how much 'proof' they provide. A good navigator of debates knows exactly how and when to change tack. I am not good myself. There are some who are far better but many are so set on their course that they cannot avoid capsizing the thread.

Finally, I have already said where I would go if I felt I was not getting anywhere. If someone was so entrenched in their opinion that it was counter-productive to attempt reason and would not concede the slightest point, then I would take the piss. It is probably wrong of me but I have done it and make no apologies as I will continue to do so. May seem uncivil but, to me, playing games with what other people have said gets what it deserves.

At that point I feel I have said all I need to say about past debacles. If anyone feels the need to dredge anything else up please feel free but I am unlikely to respond. If anyone wants to take the discussion forward rather than back I will be only too happy to oblige.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:20 PM

Thank you Rapparee, for posting your post, in Joe's own words!!!

Regards!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:53 PM

I visited the beer festival on "trade day" and thus did not have to meet with the vast crowds who attend. Lots of decent beer but nothing that made me say WOW!!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:24 PM

even when I am subjected to abuse and ridicule as now from Greg.

Well, ya see, there's yer problem. Its not abuse and ridicule- its fact.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:13 PM

I agree Dave.
In debate and discussion I always read all points of view and respond respectfully, even when I am subjected to abuse and ridicule as now from Greg.

But, on the famine thread, my point that the facts are disputed was proved by quoting historians disputing them, and others saying that theirs was the dominant view.
Where do you go from there?

On the WW1 threads I quoted a number of historians supporting my view, and none could be found disputing them in the last twenty years.
I kept civil in the face of ridicule and abuse, not least from you Dave.

You said you only went on the thread to abuse and ridicule me, and said I should live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 01:17 PM

I do find the 'I am right so I will not brook any other view' attitude quite uncivil. Whether the person is right or wrong. I am not talking, on this thread, about any particular incident or demonstrably right or wrong opinion. I believe in discussing civility we are discussing human nature which most of us could learn a lot about. Not, as Steve has pointed out, incivility as in simple invective or bad language or even, to a certain extent, taking the piss. But simple civility like listening to another persons views and acknowledging that it may have some merit. There are particularly obnoxious views that do not have any merit at all. They are the ones that I will have a go at. Fortunately, they are few and far between and I will always acknowledge that views on politics, religion, economics and all the humanities will be polarised. Whether I agree with another's view or not is not relevant. In this thread we are talking about simple civility and interaction with other human beings.

'I am right and I can prove it' is a challenge. 'I believe I am right because this is my understanding but I am happy to take on other views' is an invitation to share knowledge. I know I react better with the latter and I suspect many other people do to.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 01:01 PM

It might be because they are right, know they are right, and can prove it.

Or, it might be because they are ignorant, uneducated, irrational, pigheaded, and think that belief equals proof.

I hope you recognise yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 11:18 AM

people are so entrenched in their views that to even attempt a rational discussion is in itself counter-productive.

It might be because they are right, know they are right, and can prove it.
In that case, whose is the incivility?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 10:59 AM

Of course it's counter productive Kevin. Or at least it would be if this were a moderated debating forum.

But it's not.

So all bets are off and until moderators understand that, bigotry and hatred will get the usual contempt from decent people (and me. I was called indecent the other day, and on reflection, given the joke and audience, I was guilty as charged.)

Did anybody notice the "you lot" by Keith? The charge has morphed into "gangs" now. Of course, my faith in human nature overall means it's one hell of a gang that he gets paranoid about....

Only historians eh? Don't judge others by your own limitations Keith, there's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 10:18 AM

Well said, Kevin, and in the spirit of this thread. I think there are some good reasons reasons for being dismissive, sneering or downright hostility in some cases but you are quite right about it being counter-productive. The reasons I would, and have, resorted to such tactics are where people are so entrenched in their views that to even attempt a rational discussion is in itself counter-productive. There is a point where you realise that you are banging your head on a wall and you either cut and run or make your feelings well known. The former is the right option but, sadly, we are all only human and a good cussing can sometimes make us feel better even if it seems to be irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:50 AM

There's a danger in making sneering comments about people we disagree with. Stuff like "I'll pay to fumigate the forum when he's gone". It doesn't matter if we have what seems to us excellent reason for feeling that way. It's counterproductive. When Gordon Brown sneered at Gillian Duffy as "a bigotted woman" all he did was make her a national treasure, and encourage people to overlook reservationsthey might have about some of the views associated with her.

Often people seem to think that courtesy in the context of controversy is a kind of hypocrisy, insincerity. It isn't. It makes it possible to focus on the real points of difference rather than on posturing and slapstick.

And it's important to be quite rigorous about looking at what we post. Too easy to start a post sincerely going on about how important it is to stay calm and reasonable, and a paragraph or so later fall ito lashing out at someone with whose views we are at odds. That's why it's so important to look critically at what we have written before posting. Which is a lot easier to say than to do. Too often my own typing errors indicate that I haven't done it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:08 AM

Neither at first, Fishermens club for starters then who knows. I meet up with one particular mate most Thursdays and we tend to sample pubs we do not normally frequent, just for a change of scenery.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:03 AM

Black Horse or Elsinore?

and don't call me shortly... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:56 AM

I'm off for a beer shortly I'll answer your questions later if that's OK

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:52 AM

Did you mentioned making beer as well or did I dream that? If you did, how did that go? I went to Olympia on a trade show for a computer company once. Probably one one of the occasions when there is as much drinking as at a beer festival and far more bollocks talked! I don't remember much about it... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:44 AM

BTW - I am beginning to get a better handle on 'meta'. I guess discussing the argument itself is a better example of meta than the original concept of discussing how to argue. Is that correct? If so, I don't really see a problem with it but I am always happy to learn about why others see it as an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:43 AM

Fact 1. I went to the Great British Beer Festival

Fact 2. The Champion beer this year was Cwtch from the Tiny Rebel Brewery

Who can possibly object to facts that are provable??

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:33 AM

So, the facts are:

1. Keith responded to my statement.
2. As far as I can see that did not warrant any further action. Apologies if I was wrong.
3. I responded to a completely unrelated comment from someone else and 4. I am then accused of being uncivil.

I am having some difficulty understanding what seems to me that leap of logic. Maybe someone can explain how small talk has suddenly become uncivil? Can anyone from the moderation team confirm that thread drift is no longer permissible? PM would be fine and I will keep it confidential as I fully understand that moderation policy is not be discussed in public.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:27 AM

Hey, it's not me, it's him!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:21 AM

You were quite deliberately stifling debate if not deliberately working to close the thread, which I doubt.

This is speculation which, as we have seen before, is the cause of so much nastiness on threads. Opinions and speculation can be disputed. Facts cannot. Neither do I see small talk as stifling, but that is, of course, only my opinion and you are welcome to dispute it. Small talk will often find that common ground that the opening article speaks of. Music, beer, weather, holidays, anything. They are all part of what and who we are and the more we discover about each other, the better we will get on.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:17 AM

Dave, my post of 20 Aug 15 - 04:18 AM quoted you and responded to your statement.

Raggy responded with a comment about beer and you joined in.
Most uncivil.
You both behaved exactly as you did on the Famine thread to stifle unwanted discussion that was not going well for you.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:12 AM

The revived Irish famine thread was allowed to continue for seven days.
When a gang of you withdrew from the discussion and started posting about beer and weather instead, it was suddenly closed.

You were quite deliberately stifling debate if not deliberately working to close the thread, which I doubt.
Either way it was most uncivil behaviour in a serious discussion of a grave issue.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:10 AM

Keith A made a statement that did actually warrant an answer Gnome - instead of that we got comments on beer festivals

Sorry, Teribus, but I cannot find where that happened. I cannot find a question by Keith addressed to me and the only time I have mentioned beer festivals was in answer to Raggy's comment about Olympia. Is on this thread? Can you point me at it please so, if what you say is true, I can correct the issue. If what you said is not true can you tell us why you said it?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:09 AM

I'm sure they do, Teribus, but it's hard to pin that one on any particular person or any particular post. As for addressing what has been said, that can be done civilly or uncivilly in equal measure. Perhaps stripping away aggression from responses would help. What is said quietly and without bluster can be cuttingly effective. Nothing personal, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:01 AM

Deliberately getting a thread closed with a deluge of inane comments about the weather, to avoid being proven wrong, is uncivil.

Sorry, but that is just speculation. As we have just been saying, no-one but the moderators know why threads are closed but I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with any inane comments. Nor does anyone but the poster know exactly why some comments are made. I cannot speak for anyone else but I have never made one single comment to get a thread closed. Apart from asking the team to close a thread I had started because it had got out of hand. But that is a different kettle of fish!

I refer back to the original linked article and would suggest that a civil debate will stick only to facts that have been thoroughly vetted as true.

I am more than happy for anyone to discuss the weather or beer on here. In a civil manner of course.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:00 AM

That's fine, Rapparee, except that it is abundantly clear that the bulk of what you posted, the unemphasised bit, is nothing like what happens here. It would be a simple enough matter to ensure consistent identities, by making all posters log in before posting and by insisting on unique usernames. This requires little or no overseeing on every other forum I'm on: the software takes care of it. I know that anonymous guest trolls are not the only problem, but they are a very large part of it. It's all about ethos, after all. A few rotten apples and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:59 AM

Re post of 20 Aug 15 - 06:57 AM


See, there he goes and when his posts are deleted and threads closed he mewls on about the mods being anti Brits.

"Oh to see ourselves as others see us"

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:53 AM

The Champion Beer, Cwtch, came from the Tiny Rebel Brewery.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:53 AM

How to have a civil debate or a civil discussion - address what is being said. If you make a statement and that statement is challenged then address that point without getting personal.

Keith A made a statement that did actually warrant an answer Gnome - instead of that we got comments on beer festivals - hardly civil

Unfortunately Mr Shaw people also post here after umpteen pints down the pub and end up spouting remarks they must surely regret on reflection later.

As to discussing events in history that predate those taking part in the discussion then it is both logical and reasonable that historical works and articles relating to the subject under discussion form a large part of the basis for that discussion.

Another point is the scatter-gun approach of those who when they obviously are losing the argument resort to throwing baseless accusations about as a sort of smokescreen to withdraw behind and when called to back those accusations up resort to total silence.

I would predict that this thread too is bound for closure.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:51 AM

It is 6 years or so since then though, Rap, and things have changed considerably. It remains to be seen if it is for the better or worse but, at the moment, it can seem to be on a downward path. I know about the none discussion of moderation policy and, for those that need to know why the previous thread was deleted, I can only suggest you contact 'the management'. No point in speculating on here and, I suspect, if the reason were to be given publicly it would not change anything anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:48 AM

I thought the word "historian" meant a bit more than just "anybody at all."

So do I.
I have always been careful to explain what I meant by the term, and have only referenced eminent professionals.

When discussing history, you have to refer to the people who research and write it.
That is not being uncivil.

Deliberately getting a thread closed with a deluge of inane comments about the weather, to avoid being proven wrong, is uncivil.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:44 AM

Joe Offer, 2009 (you can find the source yourself):

At Mudcat, you are free to say pretty much what you like - as long as people know who you are. We review and control all Guest messages, but we generally do not review the content of messages posted by people with consistent identities. We do respond to specific complaints about personal attacks or outright racism, but we try to allow this community to regulate itself by nonaggressive self-policing. We figure that as long as people in this community are known by consistent identities, most people will behave in a civil manner - and those who do not behave will not earn the high regard of their fellow participants, and they may learn to behave in order to win that esteem. It also requires the community to learn to tolerate or ignore minor misbehavior, and not to allow it to ruin the train of discussion. It doesn't always work, and we do have to intervene at times; but in many ways, it works amazingly well.

We fully realize that this is not the way that most Internet forums work, but we rather like it this way. Monitoring the content of messages posted in this forum would be an arduous, tedious, arbitrary, and near-impossible task, so we focus our editing on ensuring the identity of posters.

As stated above, we do not usually allow Forum discussions of Mudcat policy; but we are happy to discuss policy matters by personal message or e-mail, because private communication allows us to give an honest response.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket crossing his fingers
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:56 AM

Please please please? I'll pay to fumigate the forum and get the cleaners in when you've gone.



"The only evidence comes from historians"

I thought the word "historian" meant a bit more than just "anybody at all." I do try to dumb down, I really do but the dim intellect of those with reactionary views of any flavour just prevent normal people from taking these debates seriously. I'm no Einstein but lowering your debate to such a level isn't something 90% of us on here should be doing just to accommodate suspect ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:49 AM

If people were to remove the image they have of others and actually listen to what they are saying rather than instantly being against it, it may help considerably. There are those who, no matter how much you listen, still talk rubbish but there are occasional gems amidst the detritus.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:48 AM

On the Guardian website when a post is deleted they leave the name in place, but replace the post with "This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs."

I'm very doubtful about the suggestion there's a "Brit-hating" rogue moderator around. Maybe it's truue that posts that don't merit censoring get censored, but I've never had a post deleted so far, to my knowledge, apart from in that deleted thread. Maybe I've just been lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:22 AM

I should have said that if this really gets to one, then one really ought to get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:19 AM

Kevin, were it just aggressive and ill-mannered stuff that got squished it would be more understandable. But, like lots of others, I've lost perfectly reasonable posts just because they were in threads, commonly started by Brits, that the moderators took against. Deleting threads that contain thoughtful and measured posts is offensive behaviour. And the fact that the mods are volunteers, etc., doesn't absolve them from behaving appropriately. But if this really gets to you, you really do need to get a life. Just remember that hardly anyone out there is actually listening.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:52 AM

I cannot envisage any circumstances in which it can be right to retrospectively delete a thread, as opposed to deleting particular posts which might be libellous or disclose stuff that shouldn't be disclosed, such as private information.

Some forums when deleting posts leave the "name" of the poster but indicate the post has been removed. That seems like good practice to me.

A meta discussion as I understand it is, for example, when we back off from an argument, and try to explore why it is it is getting heated. For example in a domestic setting you realise that the main reason you are rowing might be because your blood sugar is getting low, and you need a bite to eat.. Going meta can be very helpful, though we need to recognise that it can be seen as infuriatingly evasive. In the Mudcat context it can make a lot of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:51 AM

Skipton beer festival did not have that many but it did have a stag party dressed as wrestlers having a whale of a time :-)

May I draw peoples attention to the points about sticking to facts, not using inflammatory language and finding common ground.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:33 AM

"When discussing history, the only evidence comes from the historians."
Now there's a way to conduct a civil debate!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:32 AM

I went down to Olympia last week for the Great British Beer Festival. Over 900 beers, ciders and perries!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:18 AM

end up arguing over who has scored more points via quotes from 'reliable sources'.

If that is directed at me, I refute it.
It is reasonable to support your case with evidence, but obviously it cases resentment by those who have none to present.

When discussing history, the only evidence comes from the historians.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:17 AM

Good article DtG (apart from the spelling mistakes!) - sums it up perfectly.

Not in favour if wholesale deletions of threads. Is it not possible to delete an individual comment deemed too offensive to stay, but leave in its place "comment deleted"?
This is what several of our newspapers do in their comments sections.