Respectful Discourse

The cornerstone of rational discussion, whether it's over entertainment or politics, is mutual respect between members of the conversation. I think most everyone can agree on that.

The thing is, in online conversations and real conversations both, people have a tendency to treat third parties with less politesse.

When a third party and/or the ideas of a third party are being discussed, it seems that people are even quicker to trot out the ad hominem attacks and condescension than when discussing each others' ideas, and are less likely to get called on it.

How is it any different to say in a discussion: "Well, I'm not surprised that X said that. After all, X is just an inbred, gay, Commie Nazi jerkwad, amirite?" than to say: "Well, you're just saying that because you're an inbred, gay, Commie Nazi jerkwad."?

It's a lot easier to marginalize the opinions of those you disagree with when you automatically assume that their actions are the result of stupidity/ignorance/prejudice/whatever. It's also easy to get away with when you are discussing those opinions not with the one who holds them, but with someone who shares your opinions.

However, this is just as damaging to rational thought and discourse as engaging in ad hominem attacks on the person who you are discussing things with.

So, here's a challenge for anyone interested (have a cookie for reading this far, by the way). For the next week (or longer, if you've a mind to):

1) Whenever discussing something, treat everyone you talk about as though you were talking with them.

2) When discussing another person's views, no matter how antithetical they are to your own, give them the benefit of the doubt. Assume they reached them rationally, with good intentions.

3) Treat every idea or action you discuss as one to be reasonably considered. Even if it's something you personally think is insane, don't just go: "Well, that's crazy, and X must be an idiot and an asshole just for having thought of it." Instead, seriously point out why you think it's inconceivable.

4) Assume that the person or idea being discussed has honestly good intentions. Don't just automatically assume that they're out to destroy your way of life, or are acting out of malice. Look at what they might be trying to achieve, why they think it is constructive, and respond rationally based on those considerations.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that everyone you disagree with is a reasonable, good-hearted, honest person. Some people really are, stupid, malicious assholes. However, I am arguing that it is best to give those who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, if you just assume that anyone who disagrees with you must just be a dumb tool, then I hate to break it to you, but you're the one being irrational and prejudicial.

EDIT: To elaborate and broaden this a bit here is an essay from Barry Eisler on productive argument versus nonproductive argument.

What other rules/guidelines might you say are important to rational argument?

edited 9th Feb '11 6:14:23 PM by Wanderhome

Is this thread intended to be a discussion?

Edit: Now I can see a discussion.

edited 9th Feb '11 6:14:53 PM by Grain

Yeah, there was at least one question, and I'd hoped people would respond.

Okay.

Honestly, I think you're expecting a level of rationality that just doesnt exist in most people.

I'd say for respectful discourse, you shouldn't even take the person into consideration at all, just the argument an sich. I'm reminded of the argumentative tactics tier picture, but I can't seem to find it.

No doubt you've heard the saying about arguing on the Internet and competing in the Special Olympics. Usually, in online "discussions," there is no context, the participants are anonymous, and there's no expectation that anyone's mind will change on any topic. I can't remember once seeing a post in which someone said, "Oh, now that I've studied your sources and heard your side's arguments, I believe as you do."

My posts, if it's not obvious, implicitly begin with "I think" or "I believe" or "I have studied the situation carefully and come to the conclusion that." I would hope that most people operate on the same principle. I am careful not to confuse the messenger with the message, or respond irrationally to irrational arguments, or pretend that my words will change anything.

Having said all that, I can't and won't respect the arguments of someone who has obviously refused to learn the basics of history, science, economics, politics, or whatever field is under discussion. An opinion without any supporting evidence is inherently based on faith. When that becomes obvious, I know that the situation can only get worse, so it's time to move on to another topic. Again, this is my belief, not a reflection on anyone else. I respect other people as people, even if I don't respect their opinions.

What Insanity said, I think. You have to take the person out of the picture and just deal with the argument itself. I think that's the most respectful thing to do. However, it can be difficult, of course.

Here's the thing 'tho. Ideas have consequences. And those consequences should be brought up and debated! But for some reason a lot of the time people think that's disrespectful. They act like ideas and concepts and even actions live entirely in the abstract, and to bring up the real-world ramifications of said ideas is somehow unfair. It's not. In fact, that's where we should start.

I always assume good faith before a conversation begins. To be honest, most times when I disagree with someone, it's not because I think they want to hurt people, it's that they are thinking about the above, thinking about things entirely in the abstract and not thinking about the real-world implications of what they are saying.

I would go on to say that respectful discourse breeds respectful discourse. I find it easy to discuss a lot of rather inflaming matters online with people here, because, for the most part, people in here discuss things rationally, intelligently (sometimes, a bit above my head...) and respectfully. When I go to certain websites that have a debate occuring in the forums or in the comments, I generally read them and it automatically inflames me because of their derogatory, spiteful, ignorant and trollish talk, which, then causes me to say things like "OH YEAH? WELL FUCK YOU, YOU PORCINE SON OF A FAT-TITTED WHORE!"
Here, I don't know. You guys are respectful, and I feel that it creates some sort of pact of honor between the oppositions, that once breeched, clearly labels the one who began being disrespectful as in the wrong. Just my thoughts.

I would go on to say that respectful discourse breeds respectful discourse.

It's less breeding, and more that respectful discourse tends to seek out other respectful discourse.

You can be a shining voice of reason and politeness on Youtube comments all day, but I assure you it will accomplish approximately jack and shit.

You're absolutely correct, and I think I got my verbiage a little confused when I was furiously typing. I think I started to list towards what you are saying in my second paragraph, in that respectful dialog creates a kind of closed circuit where it honors the opinions and points of the other speakers, which, they in turn, return to the other side of the dialog.