Civility and topical diversity

[marshwiggle]

People have often expressed concerns about the tone of discussions here and whether or not they are sufficiently civil. I have recently become aware of the importance of the range of topics discussed in that regard.

It's well-established that civility is greatly improved when people see each other as human beings, and it suffers when people see each other as one-dimensional based on views expressed. For this reason it's very valuable for a variety of topics (including many which have little or nothing to do with academia) to be discussed here. Personally, people with whom I have expressed strong disagreement on certain topics, have made contributions which I greatly appreciate in others. Among other things, that is a reminder when discussing something on which we disagree to try to show the respect that I have for their insights on topics where we agree.

So I don't know that I have any sort of question, and this may seem like a kind of obvious anaylsis, but I guess I would say that I think the "light touch" of the moderators here coupled with the wide-ranging discussions is far more productive and even conducive to civility than a heavy-handed approach with topics more limited, where there will be more consistent "alignments" along a smaller range of discussions.

[mahagonny]

Civility is essential. Otherwise, people will just go ahead and tell you what they think of you. We can't have that.

[polly_mer]

I would be more in favor of civility if it weren't so frequently used to mean 'shut up with your actual knowledge'. 

I'm happy to discuss opinions at length that are based on the same fact set and truly are opinions where a variety can exist.

I'm much less interested in talking at length with people who think their assertion that 2+2=17 is somehow worthy of discussion.

[Parasaurolophus]

So I don't know that I have any sort of question, and this may seem like a kind of obvious anaylsis, but I guess I would say that I think the "light touch" of the moderators here coupled with the wide-ranging discussions is far more productive and even conducive to civility than a heavy-handed approach with topics more limited, where there will be more consistent "alignments" along a smaller range of discussions.

I'm not sure. I'm generally pretty skeptical of Millian approaches to speech, partly because I think that the loudest voices, regardless of their number or actual representation in a conversational context, tend to carry the day and inform the character of a place, with subsequent chilling of the perspectives they don't represent and on the participation of new voices. Where The Fora in particular is (are?) concerned, I don't know.

I'm not sure I have a good sense of how things are working out here. It might be useful for us to get some feedback, however--perhaps here, in this thread, or via PM, if that seems preferable. If that's a discussion people would like to have, I could collect PMs and post them anonymously, for those who would like a say but don't wish to have their moniker attached to it.

[mahagonny]

Civility is what keeps higher education running. It's certainly not respect and relationships. Not when people want to cancel your course and income the same day they're supposed to begin, so theirs can be guaranteed. So, insist on civility, by all means, if it's obvious you're not earning good will.