4 ms·
It's far too common for civility to be lost in an online argument. A platform like Debubble may do well to include a reference to Graham's hierarchy of disagree
by doc_gunthrop 6y ago
It's far too common for civility to be lost in an online argument. A platform like Debubble may do well to include a reference to Graham's hierarchy of disagreement[1] to keep a debate from going off the rails.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graham's_hierarchy_of_disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graha...
- Pfhreak 6y agoCivility is often used as a cudgel against the disadvantaged. Maybe someone lacks the upbringing, or is experiencing emotional distress, or had difficulty articulating their ideas for any reason. While I agree that avoiding ad hominem attacks is good, I don't feel that emotionally charged arguments are bad, for instance. It's super important to be specific about what 'civil' means, who gets to define it, and who gets to decide when their opponent is being 'uncivilized'.
- doc_gunthrop 6y agoCivility in this case would refer to where the argument being made can be classified in the hierarchy of disagreement. The closer to the top of the pyramid, the more civil the debater's stance.
- concordDance 6y agoI've never seen emotionally charged arguments result in a change of view, just new enemies. Emotionally charged arguments also seem to always involve rhetoric rather than logic.
- Pfhreak 6y agoI've seen it all the time. If someone is in pain, for instance, I've seen tons of people stop and say "oh shit, I didn't realize how much this hurt you". We're social creatures built to respond to joy, anger, pain, grief, etc. Trying to cut them out of a discussion means that emotional people aren't allowed to participate when they, in fact, may have the most important voice to listen to.