What it means to ‘be nice’ online

[Mæstro]

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 post was created by Moonchild’s advice, for I intended it as part of my signature but it renders as too much text on others’ computers. Please consider it as part of my signature.

[Gemmaugr]

What "Being nice" means varies from person to person, the same as feelings and opinions. Which is way too chaotic. It shouldn't be the "one" way to be online. Forced kindness is still tyranny.

Expounding the truth IS righteous. It IS worthy, though it's not always fun, no. It's often a personal sacrifice you have to make. People love shooting the messenger. The truth is never "just noise". Silence is often taken for assent. Feelings should never be the point. Facts should. Finding the truth should. Sharing the hows and why's of getting there. Logic, common sense, the scientific methods.

[Mæstro]

I used to think like that. Being nice always seemed vague, and I only figured out what online etiquette guidelines mean by it within the last year, mostly by painful trial and error. My delay, at first, was simply for growing up autistic at a time when formal education in social skills ignored the internet and I was apathetic to forming friendships in person. Joining communities that promoted a ‘debate society’ mentality, more like what you suggest, delayed me several more years as an adult. Even such a devoted community which accepts a no-punches-pulled approach for itself cannot pretend to more than ‘cracker barrel philosophy’: a favourite Americanism, which I could perhaps anglicise as a noisy pub. My formal education in pure mathematics, logic and theory of science made the difference stark. Just as much, interactions with trusted friends showed how wrong just expounding the truth can be: it is quite often just talking past others. Most people, myself among them as I realised, seek peace and love, not cold handling of ‘the facts’.

[Gemmaugr]

Living your life in fear of others opinion is no way to live at all. If you want to be "kind" and not hurt peoples feelings, you won't be able to say anything at all, because anything can offend anyone. If you don't stand up for yourself and what you know, you'll be keeping silent and assenting to their control over you. I do agree that a no-punches-pulled situation isn't better either, because that often leads to peer-pressure echo-chambers ganging up on dissenters, but at least readers or listeners can weigh all the content for themselves and make up their own mind.

[Mæstro]

I think this very discussion shows how different beliefs can be shared while staying nice.
I did not say anything about fearing others’ opinions. I am only afraid if I hold beliefs which I know others disdain, and even then, I have been happy to discuss where I stand and why for whomever is interested in understanding me, as opposed to wishing to rebut me. Rather, others are disinterested by default, and exposure itself does not inspire interest.

[Basilisk-Dev]

I always thought it meant "don't be an asshole". Before you say something, think to yourself "Would an asshole say this?" If the answer is yes, don't say that thing.

[Moonchild]

My own opinion on the matter is different yet again. But I do agree with Basilisk-dev in that core meaning of it. In general, though, I have always believed it to mean being mindful of others. Maybe it's too mild for what people expect these days where everyone gets offended by everything, but that to me is the extent of it.
If you're being nice just for the sake of being "nice" in spite of facts or circumstances including your own, then your niceness has no value as it is not genuine. Conversely, if you're going just by hard facts without taking the social aspect into consideration, then you should write a thesis, not interact online. Once again mindfulness being the key; being mindful others exist and that those others are not like you. Being tolerant (not necessarily agreeing) when seeing others' opinions. But also not making everything a debate. Sometimes the mere statement of fact "I am not you" should be all that is needed. Accept differences, only making it a point if those differences really go beyond personal opinion or circumstance...

And yes, "don't be that jerk." 😜

[Mæstro]

Moonchild and BasiliskDev are both right. My original statement is meant to offer a more specific guide of what to mind in others, as somebody for whom this was not at all obvious, and specific examples of what a brute might say. The value in being nice is clearer to me after witnessing the effects of so much pedantry, especially my own. Being nice is the condition for peaceful relations, for not having one’s own attitudes attacked. I was slow to realise such attacks had no place. Perhaps others would use civil where i use nice. I think disputes about facts should themselves be avoided when there is an underlying dispute over method or what qualifies as fact. For example, some people, myself among them, believe scientific method is the wrong way to answer questions about human origins. There is no point in me disputing creation and evolution with someone who thinks scientific method is correct here, even if the controversy is ostensibly about facts. Some people within a serious, influential academic tradition reject method altogether, so this proviso could apply anywhere. Moral statements, given the dispute over whether facts and values are distinct, are another good example. Whatever we might think about relativism, the relativist is common enough today we should mind him in our dealings.

[Michaell]

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 post was created by Moonchild’s advice, for I intended it as part of my signature but it renders as too much text on others’ computers. Please consider it as part of my signature.

Wow. When I clicked on this I was expecting some practical tips or discussion about the title. I wasn't expecting abstract philosophy. But if the topic is allowed?

Truth is good, mostly. It can be used to hurt people's feelings though. Typically now on the internet, there are too many soft people who think no one should be allowed to say anything they don't want to see/hear. It isn't noise when it relates to whatever the topic at hand is. And it's OK if it's posted in your own space, like a blog or your social account.

Both silence and inaction are a common form of assent. Just depends on what if anything comes next.

Feelings, smeelings. I wasn't born into this world to make you other people happy. Go do some work outside when the internet upsets you.

Social interactions suck. I can't name 10 people I've ever met that I agree with on most subjects or that I enjoy having discussions with. Anywhere there is no room for debate, I'm gone.

Trust no one, ever, especially corporate and government employees. When you deal with anyone, always stay alert for their mistakes or ineptitude.

There's no point to criticism in private - people never appreciate it.

[Mæstro]

When talking with other friends about it, I realised my statement ‘telling a friend in private about nonsense is better’ is a bit cryptic. I should therefore explain. It is an instance of the rule that:

If what you intend to post will not make a positive contribution to the newsgroup and be of interest to several readers, don't post it! Personal messages to one or two individuals should not be posted to newsgroups, use private e-mail [or IM] instead.

If I read something upsetting and feel the need to say something about it, I should speak with a friend for comfort, or if needed, with whomever posted it or the moderator in private (as encouraged in Moonchild’s guidelines), instead of publicly denouncing it. I am never obligated to justify my beliefs or needs online. The right people will accept them, like how Moonchild accepted my red line in a recent thread. The wrong people should simply be avoided, whether by blocking or choosing other places to interact.

The common advice to lurk before posting also serves this rule, which can only really be followed if the venue describes topics of interest or one has observed which topics tend to come up.

---

I sometimes wonder whether BBS reactions, and by extension Facebook likes and Digg/Reddit votes, evolved in a vain bid to capture the behaviour of people who feel compelled to post ‘yeh i agree lol’ [sic]. For me, things went backwards: reacting on Discord with a X helped me abandon the habit of posting in reply, until I found I no longer needed even that. Having a clear alternative helps get rid of wrong ideas.

[UCyborg]

Living your life in fear of others opinion is no way to live at all. If you want to be "kind" and not hurt peoples feelings, you won't be able to say anything at all, because anything can offend anyone. If you don't stand up for yourself and what you know, you'll be keeping silent and assenting to their control over you. I do agree that a no-punches-pulled situation isn't better either, because that often leads to peer-pressure echo-chambers ganging up on dissenters, but at least readers or listeners can weigh all the content for themselves and make up their own mind.

No way to be kind then. Thinking about it, perhaps it's one of the reasons wars will never end.

I've been censored at least once on almost all regularly visited online spaces.

Wow. When I clicked on this I was expecting some practical tips or discussion about the title. I wasn't expecting abstract philosophy. But if the topic is allowed?

Truth is good, mostly. It can be used to hurt people's feelings though. Typically now on the internet, there are too many soft people who think no one should be allowed to say anything they don't want to see/hear. It isn't noise when it relates to whatever the topic at hand is. And it's OK if it's posted in your own space, like a blog or your social account.

Both silence and inaction are a common form of assent. Just depends on what if anything comes next.

Feelings, smeelings. I wasn't born into this world to make you other people happy. Go do some work outside when the internet upsets you.

Social interactions suck. I can't name 10 people I've ever met that I agree with on most subjects or that I enjoy having discussions with. Anywhere there is no room for debate, I'm gone.

Trust no one, ever, especially corporate and government employees. When you deal with anyone, always stay alert for their mistakes or ineptitude.

There's no point to criticism in private - people never appreciate it.

Yeah, I hate that they're part of human condition. Humans may as well be other species from my POV.

[Mæstro]

No way to be kind then. Thinking about it, perhaps it's one of the reasons wars will never end.

People can be kind if they value peaceful relations. i hold close friendships with members of other faiths and widely divergent politics. In my case, these friendships formed and strengthened despite my old habits, but were supported even more once I abandoned those, without abandoning any of my convictions. If Alice finds something offensive and Bob keeps quiet about it round her, she is not wielding some kind of control over him. Friendly relations neither are nor can be power plays. War is inevitable only if you regard everything as competitive, but existence is no such struggle.

[frostknight]

There's no point to criticism in private - people never appreciate it.

If I think its valid, I am more likely to appreciate it, depending on how crass it is expressed.

But regarding this whole thread, extremism is near the root of the problem. The actual root?

The same reason people acquire endless amounts of money, they want to stroke their egos to feel powerful and that's also why people want to control other people.

No one likes to admit they are wrong and some people refuse to accept they are wrong. Thus denying reality... rejecting reality has to be one of mankind's biggest weaknesses. It highlights how arrogant people can be

[Gemmaugr]

If Alice finds something offensive and Bob keeps quiet about it round her, she is not wielding some kind of control over him.

She absolutely is. Let's showcase this by having Alice be offended by being wrong. Now Bob can't utter a word that would go against her. Bob is now putting her version and reality and truth above his own.

Even if not going to that extreme, Alice could decide to be offended by anything at anytime, like children, animals, weather, relationships, and huge swaths of everyday topics would be taboo.

War is inevitable only if you regard everything as competitive, but existence is no such struggle.

All existence is struggle. Such is nature. It's eat or be eaten.

[frostknight]

Even if not going to that extreme, Alice could decide to be offended by anything at anytime, like children, animals, weather, relationships, and huge swaths of everyday topics would be taboo.

That just means she is extreme or being extreme.

[Gemmaugr]

Even if not going to that extreme, Alice could decide to be offended by anything at anytime, like children, animals, weather, relationships, and huge swaths of everyday topics would be taboo.

That just means she is extreme or being extreme.

Not necessarily. It depends on what you mean by "extreme". I've met someone who was offended/triggered by Classical Music.. If you'd call that extreme too, what wouldn't be extreme in your mind?

[frostknight]

Not necessarily. It depends on what you mean by "extreme". I've met someone who was offended/triggered by Classical Music.. If you'd call that extreme too, what wouldn't be extreme in your mind?

Possibly, I thought you meant anything at all without any reason. Thats what you seemed to suggest in your previous message.

But yeah, in this context, it could be preferences as well.

You did mention something about rejecting reality in that message prior also.

Those who reject reality might as well be on shaky ground because that's what it does to your mind if you keep pushing it there.

[Mæstro]

She absolutely is. Let's showcase this by having Alice be offended by being wrong. Now Bob can't utter a word that would go against her. Bob is now putting her version and reality and truth above his own.

I should say that he chooses not to go against her, for he values her feelings more than winning a debate. Both know where the other stands, and if Alice changes her mind, Bob is willing to discuss it, but assuming Bob is truly in the right, bringing it up again would just be pearls before swine. Respecting others’ beliefs does not mean adopting them for oneself, but striving to avoid or settle peacefully any disputes which might rise from the break.

Even if not going to that extreme, Alice could decide to be offended by anything at anytime, like children, animals, weather, relationships, and huge swaths of everyday topics would be taboo.

Offence is often involuntary. In any case, people possess the right to erect such boundaries, ie conditions for permissible social dealings, to protect themselves, and need not justify them to others. It follows from the rights to free association and health, which includes psychical health. Maybe a hound mauled Alice as a child, but in any case, if she does not wish to discuss dogs, Bob has no right to force the topic on her.

All existence is struggle. Such is nature. It's eat or be eaten.

As the ice begins to thaw, the trees have just begun to bud and the shoots have begun to sprout from the earth. Have they tooth or claw to redden? Does the vegetable kingdom struggle? The lily happens to be my favourite flower. There are many reasons for this, but I think you can tell which I have in mind here.

Those who reject reality might as well be on shaky ground because that's what it does to your mind if you keep pushing it there.

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. Remember, you are never the first to tell someone weird or different that he is so.

[Gemmaugr]

I should say that he chooses not to go against her, for he values her feelings more than winning a debate.

Offence is often involuntary. In any case, people possess the right to erect such boundaries, ie conditions for permissible social dealings, to protect themselves, and need not justify them to others. It follows from the rights to free association and health, which includes psychical health. Maybe a hound mauled Alice as a child, but in any case, if she does not wish to discuss dogs, Bob has no right to force the topic on her.

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.

As the ice begins to thaw, the trees have just begun to bud and the shoots have begun to sprout from the earth. Have they tooth or claw to redden? Does the vegetable kingdom struggle?

Yes, it does. The crown of trees obstructs access to sunlight for saplings growing underneath it. Saplings which would take nutrients (from decomposed animals and insects) from the larger tree. Some trees even have toxic spores or sap to obstruct the growth of saplings around it. Trees in turn are preyed upon by insects and mushrooms (some trees work in symbiosis with other kinds of mushrooms though), which rot them and the fallen tree starts the cycle of access to sunlight and nutrients all over again.

[Moonchild]

Offence is often involuntary.

I have to disagree there. Upset can be involuntary, but offence isn't. There's a reason why English explicitly states that offence is "taken"; offence doesn't "happen to someone" and is never "given" or "inflicted". In my experience, offence taken is a result of choice of the observer of an action and is never causal in and of itself. You can be upset and bothered by something and you can express your displeasure and give a strong response without being actually offended.

All existence is struggle. Such is nature. It's eat or be eaten.

That's a rather narrow view of existence and nature, in my opinion. If that was the case, if everything was always a struggle, you would never see predator and prey share space without inevitable death (I've seen plenty of that sharing in my life). Sure, the view is correct if there is a strained system or if circumstances are harsh, but in most cases nature will choose peaceful coexistence if there is no pressure. Nature is about balance more than anything; about feedback systems, about reason over hard rule.