Talk:Civility

Interested parties
and (if lurking): Since you recently expressed interest in this topic, please have a look at this page. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Hierarchy of disagreement is a strongly contested idea had kept expressing. I am also skeptical of its usefulness and putting it on the page seems to validate it?  20:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can remove that part and rewrite the section if necessary. As I mentioned there, it would be a good idea to move the criticism onto the main page of hierarchy of disagreement. Bongolian (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't remove it yet though I think there's duplicate information involved too, as this article seems to contain more information than in the base article... 20:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I already rewrote it while you were writing your second response. Maybe the rewrite addresses your concern? Bongolian (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 171.33.193.245 here. It's good to have an article about civility we can reference I suppose. Some SPOV wouldn't go amiss in it, as it's a bit of a dry read. Additional things that could be discussed: The risk of a call for civility being taken as tone trolling or manifestation of Very Serious People depending on context and timing of it. (I would write something up myself, but life is hectic...) 82.36.198.177 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You think this article is also a good place for tolerance paradox discussion? 22:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting! Nullahnung (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This page misses the concept a bit. Civility is behavior appropriate for a citizen. That is, civilized behavior, as distinct from the behavior of uncivilized people. It's not being nice, though that's a part of it. The social contract is important, since that's how civilizations operate on a basic level. But tolerance is not civil per se. Civilizations draw distinctions between things that are to be tolerated so that people can get along and things that must not be tolerated so that people can get along. "Rights" tend to be associated with the former and "crimes" with the latter, and where the line is drawn varies somewhat. However, cases can be evaluated with respect to the basic point of producing a functional society. Strict codes of speech in a small group setting can function well, but that tends to cause trouble when applied to society overall. Seeking common ground is an important aspect of civility, but it's also important to recognize that some people's goals are at odds with the functioning of society, and so they should be prevented from messing things up. Keeping the barbarians outside the gates generally involves doing things that aren't nice. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * LGM: Yes, I think the tolerance paradox would be good to add. I think that that idea and opposition against civility could go into into a new section with possible SPOV added.
 * 192․168․1․42: I don't see how one can be civil to someone without tolerating them first. Perhaps you can explain better.
 * I appreciate the comments, but I'd prefer not to be the one writing the whole page so please pitch in if you're so motivated. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When the Vandals are outside the gates with the intention of breaking in and looting the city, the civil thing to do is to bar the gates, launch stones and arrows at them, and pour boiling oil on the ones that get close. Because civility is concerned with behavior suitable for the maintenance of civilization, not being nice. Tolerance is not a virtue in and of itself, but something whose value is contingent on how it affects other goals. So it is civil for fans of the Blue team and fans of the Green team to tolerate their difference of charioteer preference as they go about their business because that allows society to function. It is not civil to tolerate people who poop in the aqueduct because that's a public health hazard. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are describing the paradox of tolerance, which is something that we have already discussed adding. Bongolian (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try getting in to the article as needed, but I'm on mobile a lot, might take a while. 18:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! Bongolian (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"Your idea is wrong"
Calling someone a fuckhead totally can be conducive to the discussion, particularly when their fuckheadedness is the primary obstacle to the discussion among everyone else. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I could possibly see that if an explanation is also given for the fuckheadedness. Could you give an example? Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. How many productive conversations have you had going here and then RobSmith comes along, and then everything stops, do you suppose?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)