Posted by Larry Hoover on October 23, 2003, at 8:24:18
In reply to Re: civil alternatives, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2003, at 23:19:22
> > Tabitha described an hypothetical situation, e.g. "the email contained obscenity and violent imagery". As that language is descriptive, not judgmental like "nasty", would the descriptive terms be acceptable to you?
>
> > Is a statement like "I know that (situation X) is false" an acceptable alternative to describing the situation as lying?
>
> Those are better, at least. It's hard to be definitive without a context...Thanks for making this effort with me, Bob.
Unfortunately, I'm still unsatisfied.
It still seems as if your answer is, "Not this. Probably not that." I believe that if someone uses descriptive language, that there is no labelling, accusing, or putting down occurring. Simply, this is what happened. Good, bad, or indifferent, this is what happened. I can't see that ever being uncivil, unless it crosses into another category, such as foul language.
Let us consider an hypothetical posting reading, in its entirety, "I am uncomfortable communicating with X, because I received a private email from X which contained profanity and a threat against my wellbeing."
Is that uncivil? If it is, could you please suggest something that you would accept?
> > Would posting a copy of the hypothetical email (edited to block unacceptable language) itself be seen as uncivil?
>
> Would it be with the permission of the author of the email?It might arise that there was a debate that was of the form "Did not" "Did so", and the email itself might be the only evidence available. I'm just trying to find the comfort zone in a difficult scenario. One, which I might add, faces us right now.
> And what would be the point of the above? Might there be other ways to accomplish that?What other ways? You don't have to give ten examples, but please give one.
> > No one was mentioned by name. How could anyone feel accused?
>
> If no one's mentioned by name, then lots of people may feel accused...I think that's a straw man argument, Dr. Bob. The statements that you focussed on were contextually self-limiting.
Anyway, so is the issue the use of words like "lying"? Just that plain and simple?
> > My gut reaction is that people want to feel safe, and your intent is to keep things emotionally safe, but there is a lack of congruence between the concepts. People are not feeling safe, and when they try to discuss it, they get banned. It's not working.
>
> It may be because someone doesn't feel safe that they post something uncivil, but (1) that doesn't make it more safe and (2) there are civil alternatives.
>
> BobI have studied the links to past discussions, but I remain unsatisfied that I understand what you consider to be a civil alternative. Simple examples would be very helpful to me (and others, I'm sure).
Thanx,
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:266922
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20031008/msgs/272217.html