What it means to ‘be nice’ online

[UCyborg]

^I guess you could see it both ways.

Although, humans get out of their ways to be shitty to others in ways not seen in animal kingdom (the thing about humans being part of animal kingdom aside).

Offense is often voluntary. Nevertheless, Bob has the right of free speech and Alice can not force Bob to be silent about a topic. Feelings do not trump this fact.

Free speech is one of those rights often only just on paper.

[Mæstro]

The polite way for these respective rights to be reconciled is for Bob to talk about dogs with other, interested people instead, satisfying his need to talk about dogs while respecting Alice’s ultimately stronger need to avoid the subject. Insisting on dogs as a conversational topic to Alice’s face in the name of ‘free speech’ is one of the reasons, politics aside, that so-called ‘free speech zones’, especially online, become the most noxious communities imaginable.

[Moonchild]

Yes, be pragmatic and when you follow a "live and let live" attitude, removing yourself from company you simply can't agree with (and that goes for both Alice and Bob! I've seen too many times people who get upset insisting everyone else having to conform to their sensitivities instead of removing themselves from the situation that upsets them), you automatically are "nicer" online.

Free speech zones are almost doomed to fail because people joining those are generally people who don't understand the need for stepping back from conversations when one simply fundamentally disagrees with the opinions expressed by other participants.

[Gemmaugr]

Of course there is common sense, acting civilized, and normal sensibilities. But I've seen too many times where those have been abused and taken advantage of to impose highly restrictive speech limitations that will be ruled by the shifting emotions of Karens, virtue-signalling snowflakes, and devious trolls.

In Free Speech places, unlike "Safe Spaces", everyone can say what they actually mean and/or excuse themselves (without fear of being censored or banned). Unlike the underhanded ways of the latter, with rule-skirting, circle-jerk mob rule, nepotism/favoritism, bad faith/gotcha traps and fallacies (provoking comments that would catch them in the myriad of rules imposed willy-nilly).

With Bob and Alice, Alice is the one who should be withdrawing from any conversations or places with content she doesn't like to hear. She does not overrule everyone else's free speech.

[Moonchild]

abused and taken advantage of to impose highly restrictive speech limitations that will be ruled by the shifting emotions of Karens, virtue-signalling snowflakes, and devious trolls.

Exactly what I was referring to in my previous post.

Basically in a condensed down way: "If you don't want to see it, don't watch."
If you are (overly) sensitive to something, that is primarily a "you" problem, IMHO. You can "be nice" in that respect by letting others engage in what you cannot without making a fuss.

There is a bit of a balancing act needed when you're talking about (virtual or otherwise) public spaces, of course, where the likelihood is high that random people will come in, but that is a different topic, probably.

[athenian200]

Among my lessons: Socrates is a poor role model. Expounding the truth is not righteous, worthy or fun in itself; it only adds noise. Others are entitled to their opinions even if wrong. Silence is not assent. Feelings might be the point, not facts. Social interactions are not debates. Only trust can change minds. Advice, criticism, correction and challenge only belong if requested; telling a friend in private about nonsense is better.

This is very interesting to me, and I think you have some good points. I'd add is that I think a lot of this is probably contextual. Like, what truth are you considering expounding and what are the consequence of not defending that idea? If I avoid telling a girl that she's put on a few pounds, or I avoid correcting someone's grammar, or tell a white lie about watching a movie with my Mom rather than admit to sleeping in the middle of the day because I don't want a friend to worry about me, then yeah, truth on its own doesn't have much value. But on the other hand... if the truth is that a situation is dangerous and the dishonest person is claiming things are safe, or the untrue thing that's currently believed has the potential to cause harm, either to a person or perhaps to society as a whole, it becomes more complicated and sometimes telling the truth and risking ending up like Socrates can be needed... but probably if you're going to take the risk of being forced to metaphorically drink hemlock, it should be for something important.

In some ways, the story can also be a cautionary tale... telling the truth rather than conforming or at least hiding your dissent with silence or inaction carries risks. That's how I always read the story. Powerful people might not like you if you do it, and they can make consequences for you. In each situation, you have to ask what you're willing to pay for the truth... can you live with yourself if you don't tell it, or if you do? Are there some principles you'd be willing to stand up for like Socrates? He had opportunities to escape, he didn't take them... because he believed in the law as a fundamental good without regard for its imperfection or its use against him, and therefore he was not willing to rebel against it. That was what was always most powerful about the story to me. Not his tendency to value and seek truth per se, but his willingness to accept the consequences when sentenced because of his own moral framework, even when those consequences were literally death.

Some would argue that was his error and he should have fought harder or recruited help rather than accepting the system, even if it risked legitimizing the fears and assumptions of those who opposed him. Others think challenging authority and questioning everything openly was the error and he should have had the sense to see it coming and keep his mouth shut. Still others see him as a martyr for his ideas and believe he choose to die to preserve his philosophy, avoid tainting his legacy with rebellion and show his students through his death the accusers had made false assumptions about him and his moral framework. It's kind of like an ancient Greek version of the story of Jesus, really... similar questions about whether dying for your principles to fulfill a law or code of some kind is more noble, or fighting and becoming what your accusers called you in response to their actions is braver and more heroic, and accepting death in a system rigged against you is cowardice. Like many things in philosophy, a lot of it comes down to context and perspective.

I would tend to agree others are entitled to their own opinions, and have generally always believed that... the hard part for me to accept at times has been that many people will not grant me that consideration and will not allow me permission to have my own opinion. There are many spaces in which everything you articulate must fall within a moral framework held by the person "in charge," or the majority of the community. Sometimes this moral framework will be at odds with your values to such an extent you have trouble not violating it on accident when speaking, and feel disgusted or angry at having to follow it... that leads to questioning whether you should persist or find another space. I try to be considerate of others feelings and opinions, but that's often not enough... many people have rigid moral frameworks and will explode on you if you express anything outside of that framework or make it too obvious you don't share it, even if only in subtle ways.

There are people in the world who will ask what you really think about something solely to get you to give them ammo to use against you, because they sense your opinion isn't what they think it should be, or that coaxing it out of you might make you unpopular with others and give them a chance to defend a popular perspective, thereby enhancing their social standing and diminishing yours. Really, social skills are not fun... I would say for most people with Asperger's or who are on the spectrum, the safest thing to do is avoid causing conflict. Follow scripts and try to fit in as much as possible, don't draw attention to yourself. The more off-script you go, the more trouble you'll be in and the more you'll attract opportunists who know how to capitalize on the situation. Maybe if you get experience, you can figure out where the lines are with a given group of people and let your guard down a bit, but in most cases you'll just want to figure out who holds the most power and influence in a group, who falls in line with who generally, what the most influential person/people's standards are, and try your best to stay within that influential moral framework and avoid upsetting them. Basically, an example of this... when writing essays as a student, a tactic I used was to try and infer as much about the teacher's values and expectations as possible, and always try to write something that appeals to their sensibilities as much as possible... not necessarily because it's what I think, but because it is more likely to get me an A.

I guess the uncomfortable implication of the strategy I use to live my life (outside of the digital space anyway) is that it means... essentially, you wind up living as if the truth is localized and largely dependent on power dynamics, changing depending on who you are around and whose will is strongest within the context of that group. You can start to lose sight of your own perspective, become unsure what you really think at some point if you do it too much, or just worn out from having to live at odds with your own internal compass to follow an ill-fitting external framework defined by others with more power. It's a practical answer... but not a very satisfying one and likely has some negative long-term implications even if short-term it can avoid a lot of trouble.

Anyway, sorry that post went on longer than I expected... I guess it sparked a lot of thinking on my part. Hopefully you aren't bothered by the wall of text, LOL.

[frostknight]

Freedom of opinion entails the right to reject (what others believe to be) reality. Harassing others for their beliefs, even if they appear frankly dotty, is not very nice.

My point was that rejecting reality leads nowhere good. Freedom of opinion has its dark side. You can believe the wrong thing or the right thing.

Hell, you can be part of a cult and believe everything you do is right. People who are in a cult should be harassed for their beliefs honestly to some level.

With words only of course.

But yeah, if you keep doubling down despite reality, you should not feel good about yourself. I live in USA where over 30^% of the country believes fascism is cool and they worship their leader like he can do no wrong.

That is unacceptable on multiple levels.

My point remains, opinions can be destructive if they are based completely on lies.

[Gemmaugr]

I live in USA where over 30^% of the country believes fascism is cool and they worship their leader like he can do no wrong.

That is unacceptable on multiple levels.

My point remains, opinions can be destructive if they are based completely on lies.

Speaking of believing something that is untrue... ..

--

It would have been nice to not go into specifics or current day politics, but your example is a case of the exact thing you speak of.

Just because you don't like a president doesn't mean he's a fascist. That's not what fascism means at all.

Fascism is a function of Marxism (look up Giovanni Gentile and who his inspiration was), which itself is a function of Left Hegelianism. It's what all Communist and Socialist countries turn into. One party, one leader, controlling/consolidating all corporations "for the good of the population" as to have "workers" control the means of production (but someone's got to "arbitrate"). Ultimately, they won't allow anyone to say they're wrong, and start censoring (and worse) people. They're even famous for perverting and twisting words and meanings (People's Democratic Republic of etc, Anti-fa, etc). They're also huge on propaganda. Painting their rivals in a bad light, and trying to frame them for things they didn't commit.

[Mæstro]

Athenian deserves a proper reply later, but I am quite busy today and cannot spare the strength needed for that. I hope to return to this sometime in the next few days.

My point was that rejecting reality leads nowhere good… if you keep doubling down despite reality, you should not feel good about yourself… opinions can be destructive if they are based completely on lies.

The problem is that any belief can be held come what may. The discussion veers here into questions of proper method, the nature of truth and adjacent philosophical topics. Many people even deny the existence of objective reality. Ultimately, opinion is diverse enough that everyone can find someone whom he believes in good faith to be dead wrong, but that someone might be acting in equally good faith in coming to those beliefs.

People who are in a cult should be harassed for their beliefs honestly to some level.

How many former sectarians have freely changed their belief due to social harassment? How many more sectarians have instead withdrawn further, hardened by persecution, having confirmed the world will hate them for their beliefs?

[Gemmaugr]

How many former sectarians have freely changed their belief due to social harassment? How many more sectarians have instead withdrawn further, hardened by persecution, having confirmed the world will hate them for their beliefs?

In this I will agree with you. Those directly confronted will seldom, if ever, become introspective. Most change come from within. That doesn't mean the confrontation is meaningless however, as people can indirectly come across some bit of information or said previous argument at a time that they're more receptive. The confrontation can also serve as a warning example to those going down the wrong path. Deprogramming isn't heard of as much today as it was back in the 80's and 90's, but it's a good endeavour.

[frostknight]

Ultimately, they won't allow anyone to say they're wrong, and start censoring (and worse) people. They're even famous for perverting and twisting words and meanings (People's Democratic Republic of etc, Anti-fa, etc). They're also huge on propaganda. Painting their rivals in a bad light, and trying to frame them for things they didn't commit.

He has been trying to censor his opponents, so... your completely wrong. Brendan Carr has been trying to do this for him

Its a cult

How many former sectarians have freely changed their belief due to social harassment? How many more sectarians have instead withdrawn further, hardened by persecution, having confirmed the world will hate them for their beliefs?

Fair enough, you are probably right. Its really a bad design in humans that people when they are wrong and some attacks them over it they defend themselves rather than accept the truth.

it is simply awful.

[Gemmaugr]

Ultimately, they won't allow anyone to say they're wrong, and start censoring (and worse) people. They're even famous for perverting and twisting words and meanings (People's Democratic Republic of etc, Anti-fa, etc). They're also huge on propaganda. Painting their rivals in a bad light, and trying to frame them for things they didn't commit.

He has been trying to censor his opponents, so... your completely wrong. Brendan Carr has been trying to do this for him

He hasn't. Disregarding this cherry-picking, that alone doesn't make it Fascism, but showcases another fallacy (Reductio ad Hitlerum).

[frostknight]

He hasn't. Disregarding this cherry-picking, that alone doesn't make it Fascism, but showcases another fallacy (Reductio ad Hitlerum).

Yeah no... the late show with stephen colbert was cancelled so that CBS could get a merger approved by the FCC. So you are either not telling the truth or are unaware of stuff.

Trump wouldn't have allowed Brendan Carr to approve it otherwise

Btw, Jimmy kimmell's show got cancelled once for the same reason but because of people boycotting based on this, they put his show back.

So yeah.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me sad

EDIT: I just realized I am wasting my time trying to get you to understand. People in cults never change easily...

I don't wish to waste my time on toxic cult like people for very long. I give up.

[Gemmaugr]

Yeah no... the late show with stephen colbert was cancelled so that CBS could get a merger approved by the FCC. So you are either not telling the truth or are unaware of stuff.

Trump wouldn't have allowed Brendan Carr to approve it otherwise

FCC has been handling media with mergers and the like since 1934. You're making a fowl (and foul) out of a feather.

EDIT: I just realized I am wasting my time trying to get you to understand. People in cults never change easily...

I don't wish to waste my time on toxic cult like people for very long. I give up.

Speaking of nice. That's not very nice at all.. I thought we we're having a cordial discussion (and no, it's not always sea-lioning or JAQ'ing). You were the one who brought all this up in the first place..

[frostknight]

FCC has been handling media with mergers and the like since 1934. You're making a fowl (and foul) out of a feather.

Okay, so your a trumpy I got it. You know what i mean. The only reason that the merger was approved was because trump can't take criticism and tried to get the FCC Brendan Carr to get late night hosts fired. I guarantee that if colbert didn't get fired that merger wouldn't have gone through.

Sorry but your on my last nerve. I don't tolerate cult-minds. People who refuse to acknowledge reality.

Speaking of nice. That's not very nice at all.. I thought we we're having a cordial discussion (and no, it's not always sea-lioning or JAQ'ing). You were the one who brought all this up in the first place..

I didn't ask for your opinion. I only stated my views.

Btw, there are three things I hate, people who don't care what the truth is, cult-minded people, (ie facts don't matter) and fascists.

feelings are not facts. I am seriously considering evasion.

The evidence is out there that this president cannot handle criticism. If you don't realize he can be that petty, you are either lying or culted.

I think its better if I mute you at this point. I have seen no evidence to contradict this so far.

[Moonchild]

Official warning. Know when to stop a certain tangent.