5 ms·

As crazy as it sounds I’d actually like to make the case for a lack of civility. Civility is an artificial construct designed to preserve personal relationship

As crazy as it sounds I’d actually like to make the case for a lack of civility. Civility is an artificial construct designed to preserve personal relationships. You want to say ‘X’ but instead you say ‘Y’ because your relationship with the person in the conversation is as important to you as the ideas being exchanged. But HN isn’t necessarily like that. HN is supposed to be about the ideas themselves. So as long as someone’s expressing actual ideas (as opposed to ad hominem insults) I’m not sure I see the need for civility. Moreover there’s a reason not to have it. When I post on HN I’m trying to convince people to adopt my opinion. Knowing how passionate people are about the opinions that oppose mine is a helpful in formulating a strategy to defend my own thoughts. It’s an indicator of not only how ingrained the opposing ideas are but also tends to give insight on whether the opposing ideas are based on rationality or emotion. So the vitriol actually serves a purpose that civility does not. I realize a lack of civility can chase some people away and that’s probably the only good argument for it. But if we all just got over it and accepted the internet as an uncivilized place I think we’d be taking a step forward in the exchange of ideas.

frossie 16y ago
The problem with vitriol is that it becomes performance art. A review trashing a movie is a lot more entertaining than a civil one; but people can forget that the real issue is how to see a good movie. Why should I be more likely to adopt your opinion because you are driven to anger to express it? I don't know you. Your anger holds no reference point for me and therefore is of little value. Your best way to convince me is to make sense. Exchange of ideas is hardly incompatible with civil discourse.
- dejb 16y ago
  In the case of HN I don't see a problem with vitriol being rewarded more than politeness. Generally it seems there is already a strong bias towards civility in terms of voting. Just as insults don't add to the discussion neither does apologising for merely disagreeing with a point of view.
asdflkj 16y ago
"When I post on HN I’m trying to convince people to adopt my opinion." That might be your problem right there. When I post on HN, I try to move the discussion closer to truth, which is often not the opinion I started with.
- _delirium 16y ago
  A lot of things we discuss here don't have "truth", though, or at least not a truth that can be established with available information. Whether it's pros/cons of different tech lifestyle options, or pros/cons of different programming languages, a lot of it is informed opinion that ultimately comes down to arguing a lot of subjective points.
  - asdflkj 16y ago
    Tech lifestyle options and programming languages are topics where plenty of objective truths can be established. Why else would anyone want to waste air and keystrokes? Do a thought experiment: come up with a topic that is purely non-objective. Now observe that your topic is 100% bullshit. Subjectivity is what people hide behind when for whatever reason, they are tired of being intellectually honest. Subjectivity/ideology is to our age as religion/morality was to the Middle Ages. Edit: When I say "objective", I don't mean "certain". That might be one reason people like subjectivity so much. It allows them to feel certain where looking at things objectively would make them feel uncertain. Evolutionary psychology tells us that certainty is often adaptive in and of itself, so this is just yet another case of our evolutionary legacy subverting our search for truth.
    - rick_2047 16y ago
      Do a thought experiment: come up with a topic that is purely non-objective. Now observe that your topic is 100% bullshit. I would like a shot at it. I have been discussing this with a lot of people. The question is: "What exactly is reality?" Now this may seem bullshit at first. "Come on reality is what we can see and prove", "reality is what is 'true'", "I know it is real when I see it". These are some of the very diverse answers that I get to such a question. My personal take is, that we define something as real when a mass majority starts to believe in it. Everyone has his/her different take on if something is real or not. But for ages every body "knows" that something is real when an authority gauges what the masses believe and declares it "real". For example 1500 years back every body "knew" earth is the centre of the universe, why? Because the church said so. They also knew that earth was flat. why? Because the earth said so. We also "knew" that the electron is a particle, why? because some scientists said so or some of the experiments (which were then proven wrong) said so. So tell me, why is it that something is real once and not after some time. So isn't reality a subjective thing? Now this may sound BullShit to you but makes sense to me.
philh 16y ago
> expressing actual ideas (as opposed to ad hominem insults) I think this would be a reasonable working definition of civility. Semantics aside, I agree with you except about the vitriol. It's an arms race: if vitriol gets you taken more seriously, people are going to be vitriolic whether they feel it or not. And then when it really matters to them.... (And eventually the ideas get drowned out by the take me seriously! metadata.)
bediger 16y ago
I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that the opposite of "civility" is not necessarily "vitriol". Lots of forms of incivility are orthogonal to vitriol, trolling for example.
sunir 16y ago
That is not true at all as any reading of any place on the Internet will attest. Uncivil comments are not arguments, they are attacks on the social status of the victim. Arguments are usually civil (and signed) so they can be heard (and build social status for the speaker).

frossie 16y ago

The problem with vitriol is that it becomes performance art. A review trashing a movie is a lot more entertaining than a civil one; but people can forget that the real issue is how to see a good movie. Why should I be more likely to adopt your opinion because you are driven to anger to express it? I don't know you. Your anger holds no reference point for me and therefore is of little value. Your best way to convince me is to make sense. Exchange of ideas is hardly incompatible with civil discourse.

dejb 16y ago
In the case of HN I don't see a problem with vitriol being rewarded more than politeness. Generally it seems there is already a strong bias towards civility in terms of voting. Just as insults don't add to the discussion neither does apologising for merely disagreeing with a point of view.

asdflkj 16y ago

"When I post on HN I’m trying to convince people to adopt my opinion." That might be your problem right there. When I post on HN, I try to move the discussion closer to truth, which is often not the opinion I started with.

_delirium 16y ago
A lot of things we discuss here don't have "truth", though, or at least not a truth that can be established with available information. Whether it's pros/cons of different tech lifestyle options, or pros/cons of different programming languages, a lot of it is informed opinion that ultimately comes down to arguing a lot of subjective points.
- asdflkj 16y ago
  Tech lifestyle options and programming languages are topics where plenty of objective truths can be established. Why else would anyone want to waste air and keystrokes? Do a thought experiment: come up with a topic that is purely non-objective. Now observe that your topic is 100% bullshit. Subjectivity is what people hide behind when for whatever reason, they are tired of being intellectually honest. Subjectivity/ideology is to our age as religion/morality was to the Middle Ages. Edit: When I say "objective", I don't mean "certain". That might be one reason people like subjectivity so much. It allows them to feel certain where looking at things objectively would make them feel uncertain. Evolutionary psychology tells us that certainty is often adaptive in and of itself, so this is just yet another case of our evolutionary legacy subverting our search for truth.
  - rick_2047 16y ago
    Do a thought experiment: come up with a topic that is purely non-objective. Now observe that your topic is 100% bullshit. I would like a shot at it. I have been discussing this with a lot of people. The question is: "What exactly is reality?" Now this may seem bullshit at first. "Come on reality is what we can see and prove", "reality is what is 'true'", "I know it is real when I see it". These are some of the very diverse answers that I get to such a question. My personal take is, that we define something as real when a mass majority starts to believe in it. Everyone has his/her different take on if something is real or not. But for ages every body "knows" that something is real when an authority gauges what the masses believe and declares it "real". For example 1500 years back every body "knew" earth is the centre of the universe, why? Because the church said so. They also knew that earth was flat. why? Because the earth said so. We also "knew" that the electron is a particle, why? because some scientists said so or some of the experiments (which were then proven wrong) said so. So tell me, why is it that something is real once and not after some time. So isn't reality a subjective thing? Now this may sound BullShit to you but makes sense to me.

philh 16y ago

> expressing actual ideas (as opposed to ad hominem insults) I think this would be a reasonable working definition of civility. Semantics aside, I agree with you except about the vitriol. It's an arms race: if vitriol gets you taken more seriously, people are going to be vitriolic whether they feel it or not. And then when it really matters to them.... (And eventually the ideas get drowned out by the take me seriously! metadata.)

bediger 16y ago

I agree with you, but I'd like to point out that the opposite of "civility" is not necessarily "vitriol". Lots of forms of incivility are orthogonal to vitriol, trolling for example.

sunir 16y ago

That is not true at all as any reading of any place on the Internet will attest. Uncivil comments are not arguments, they are attacks on the social status of the victim. Arguments are usually civil (and signed) so they can be heard (and build social status for the speaker).