
The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes - azuajef
https://stactivist.com/2016/08/01/the-vanishing-civility/
======
andrewbinstock
When I was the editor of Dr. Dobb's, we were very concerned about how to
create a lively discussion forum that was free from jerks and unpleasant
people. Ultimately, we settled on two components: treat everyone respectfully
even those who seemed to be trolling, and delete all insulting posts. This
largely worked. Similar elements seem to work here on HN too. That the
efficacy of this approach is repeatable suggests that the problem exists
primarily b/c sites are willing to put up with bad behavior.

~~~
dang
I'm glad to hear that an experienced editor sees HN that way, and also that
you see evidence of a repeatable approach. Those are good signs.

As I'm sure you know, it's a more complex problem than just being willing or
unwilling to put up with bad behavior. There are costs to addressing it—quite
a few, it turns out, no matter what approach one takes.

Our plan is to move HN toward more community self-regulation. Each step we've
taken that way—e.g. when we added vouching for dead comments—has worked well.
I doubt the community can become completely autonomous (though a mod can
dream), but we're pretty sure it can go further in that direction, especially
if we do a good job of specifying what kind of site HN is, and isn't, supposed
to be.

~~~
enraged_camel
IMO the biggest challenge of self-moderating communities is avoiding the echo
chamber effect: ideas surviving and spreading due to their popularity, rather
than their merit.

I'm curious if you agree that this is a problem, and what your plans are to
address it, if you do.

~~~
ars
You need to moderate based only on civility. And emphatically NOT content
(which slashdot does).

Say something completely wrong, but you are polite about it? No problem, it
stays up.

Say something right, but insult those who disagree? Take it down, even if it's
right and the others wrong.

~~~
dang
That's a fundamental point and one we can do more to clarify. It's in
everyone's interest not to discredit their own argument by going about it
uncivilly.

------
tribune
"Vanishing" implies that there was some Golden Age of civility that has now
gone by. This is not really true.

I would argue that this impression comes from the fact that media options were
much more limited in the recent past, and therefore had to appeal to and not
offend a wider range of audiences than current sources. Watching TV programs
from the 50s/60s, for example, they do seem quite polite and civil. Now
though, options abound. Why should I watch a whitewashed and generic news
program when I can listen to vitriolic talk radio or scroll through my website
of choice and see exactly what I want to see? Not to mention that every
"jerk/bozo/asshole" can pour his heart out online.

The downfall of the previously-more-mainstream Mainstream Media has simply
enabled more impolite and "uncivil" voices to stand out from the crowd (for
better or worse).

As far as personal and professional interaction, the responsibility for
maintaining civility in such environments falls on the individuals taking
part. Don't tolerate bullshit from employees. Be respectful to your
friends/family, and expect the same in return.

~~~
freshhawk
Yes! This is the inevitable outcome of the world of connectedness and giving a
voice to the voiceless that we all wanted isn't it?

It comes off as overly cynical, but this seems to me to merely be the removal
of a veil of ignorance about what people actually think and how they actually
want to behave when they are either anonymous or not present physically (with
the possibility of having their mirror neurons engaged, physical assault, in
person shaming, etc).

If it wasn't obvious beforehand, then it must be obvious in retrospect that a
culture war was the inevitable result right?

While I agree that the responsibility falls on the individuals taking part ...
pragmatically isn't the outrage economy going to work for a long time? And the
physiological tools for encouraging uncivil behaviour just going to keep
getting better for a long time? I have my doubts that any significant
percentage of people will be able to follow that path of individual
responsibility when so many smart people are constantly trying to nudge them
off of it using subtle methods the targets don't even understand.

Calls of "can't we all just get along", whether directed against physical
violence or uncivil discourse, however correct, never seem to do much when the
problem is occurring in a system that benefits from the opposite.

------
mwsherman
A little meta-civility goes a long way, too. If one is inclined to call people
jerks, bozos and assholes, perhaps one is not understanding people very well.

It’s much more effective to work learn about people, their predilections,
biases and experiences. No one is a “checkbox” asshole. Much better to focus
on specific behaviors, instead of writing off a person as a type.

When I see a company describe its “no assholes” rule, I see a company inclined
toward calling people assholes.

~~~
coldtea
> _A little meta-civility goes a long way, too._

Yes, but you can easily blow up the stack with all this recursion, since the
real world doesn't have TCO.

> _If one is inclined to call people jerks, bozos and assholes, perhaps one is
> not understanding people very well._

Well, some people legitimately and truly are "jerks, bozos and assholes"
though, some even embrace the jerk ethos openly. If you're addressing them,
it's fair game to call them that.

Except if your worry is that calling them that wont help them change but
alienate them -- but maybe changing them is not the author's goal, but rather
routing around them.

> _When I see a company describe its “no assholes” rule, I see a company
> inclined toward calling people assholes._

That's not the bad thing though is it? The bad thing would be being an
asshole, not calling out one. So, as long as the company doesn't do it to
people undeserving the title...

~~~
grkvlt
The point is more one of framing, not of tolerance to assholes. If you restate
the 'no assholes' policy as a set of positive traits that are to be encouraged
then the framing effect is to cause people to look for those desirable traits
and emulate them. A 'no assholes' policy frames things in a way that makes
people look for assholes, and causes them to think negatively about
personality traits, in terms of not being something undesirable. Instead of
'calling out' people for being jerks, bozos and so on, the idea would be to
talk instead about how they could become better at teamwork, interaction with
others and so on. So rather than pigeonholing them as something undesirable,
you show them they are on the start of a path that leads to improvement.

I think the impact of these subtle semantic changes can be surprisingly
effective, especially because it is all happening at an almost unconscious
level. I also think some of it can certainly come across as a little cringe-
worthy and perhaps rather strained. Sort of like the trend of looking for
_something_ to praise about everyone, and awarding certificates for merely
showing up when that is the only positive thing that can be found. But,
everything can be taken too far I suppose...

------
crucini
This sentence jumped out at me:

>You also have those individuals who are “not rude” but keep telling people to
“suck it up”, to get “their act together” or to believe that disrespect is
just a question of interpretation.

Sounds like the author has a lot of conflicts. Sounds like he often receives
unwanted advice to cool his jets. Talking about "assholes" is somewhat
pointless because conflict is a fact of life, and in most conflicts both
parties consider the counterparty an asshole.

This author doesn't show any philosophy, self-insight or humility; rather he
is surrounded by "assholes" with "inappropriate" behavior. (He keeps using
that word "inappropriate" \- but if people agreed on what was appropriate,
would we still have conflict?)

Here's something I've learned over decades of working with other people: fix
yourself first. Become tactful, adroit and thick-skinned. Recognize that
absorbing the bumps and jolts of social interaction is part of the job,
whether your are a salesman or an engineer. Recognize that the "asshole" is
right in his own mind and may in fact be be right, period.

~~~
mintplant
> >You also have those individuals who are “not rude” but keep telling people
> to “suck it up”, to get “their act together”

> fix yourself first. Become tactful, adroit and thick-skinned

Aren't you just demonstrating exactly what the author was complaining about?

~~~
crucini
Two answers:

1\. Yes. It is not easy to take the advice of "suck it up." But if you are
getting that advice regularly, there's a reason.

2\. Paradoxically, telling people on the internet to fix themselves is the
opposite of fixing myself. Advising tact is not tactful. If I knew this author
in real life, I would probably commiserate with him, give him sympathy and
understanding. Only if he's a close friend or shows signs of receptiveness
would I offer the advice he really needs.

------
jarsin
The biggest asshole I ever worked for had a "No Assholes Allowed" rule.

I came to learn that it meant if you ever say or do or criticize anything this
guy did not like he would label you an asshole and then your career path was
over there if he did not fire you.

It created a culture of the ass-kissers vs the assholes lol.

~~~
coldtea
> _The biggest asshole I ever worked for had a "No Assholes Allowed" rule._

Well, he probably meant "there's only room for one in this company".

------
Animats
Recommended reading: "Assholes, a Theory", by Aaron James. This is a serious
analysis of asshole behavior and why society rewards it. The latter is the key
point. There are benefits to being an asshole in some organizations.

~~~
tn13
I am from India. The a part of transgender community often known as Hijras
come to public places and demand money. Often they touch you while demanding
money else they will simply lift their clothes to expose their genitals. Often
to avoid that touch you end up giving them money.

The technique was further refined by beggar community who will deliberately be
filthy and to avoid their touch you will end up paying the money.

I think assholes benefit from the fear of rest of the people to be civil.

~~~
tdkl
>I think assholes benefit from the fear of rest of the people to be civil.

Just see the Europe.

~~~
tn13
Such comments are heavily downvoted here.

------
MrZongle2
I would add one thing to the author's list of admirable behavior: _always seek
out the truth, no matter where it lies._

IMO a component of the growing toxic atmosphere in public discourse is the
"win at all costs" mindset, that fosters the belief that a little white lie
here and there is justified by the end goal.

~~~
smacktoward
Not all truths are the same size, though. If someone is ugly, telling them so
in conversation is both completely truthful and completely unhelpful.

Just because something is true doesn't mean it's necessary to say it out loud,
or constructive to building a civil, respectful space.

~~~
MrZongle2
Useless but brutally honest truths aren't something we have abundance of in
our society.

We are, however, _drowning_ in possibly-actionable nuggets of data that range
from the somewhat-truthy to the probably-bullshit area of the honesty
spectrum.

That people fabricate -- and worse, _repeat_ without fact-checking -- such
information contributes to the problem I refer to.

~~~
Chris2048
The principle of "fact-checking" has a fatal flaw - it gives power to those
who have time and resources to fact-check, and even more to those that can
_control_ the availability of facts.

Consider information regarding the Iraq war before wiki-leaks - only facts
beneficial to the image of the US military were released.

------
xlayn
I see an exploit of human interactions favoring employers, let me extend, for
example below comment:

    
    
      __derek__ 5
      I attended npm Camp on Saturday, and the tl;dr version
      of their policy may fit the bill:
      > be actively kind
    

now imagine you are paired with 5 other "junior" programmers on trying to get
some project to x state that requires 5 senior programmers.

    
    
      -saying that you require 5 senior, not juniors can be seen
       as non polite.
      -not helping them is not polite
      -go above and beyond to help them while you go the extra
       mile to deliver on time is both polite and altruistic...
       and of course you do on free your extra mile time and
       help the company avoid paying the senior devs...

~~~
MaulingMonkey
> saying that you require 5 senior, not juniors can be seen as non polite.

Depends on how you define politeness.

To me, _not_ saying that you require 5 senior programmers, or more time, is a
form of grinfucking your manager and producers. It is intentionally keeping
them out of the loop, which is rude. It is disrespecting their ability to take
well intentioned, reasonable, important, and professional feedback _as_ fellow
professionals and adults, and ultimately undermining their ability to perform
their jobs. Worse, not properly trying to manage expectations may leave your
coworkers on the hook for crunch and overtime to try and meet said
expectations - which I certainly don't consider "polite"!

This is not to say there aren't rude ways to go about the task of informing
your manager that you're understaffed, over-committed, and dealing with a
unrealistic schedule. You can beat a dead horse, enumerate individual's faults
(perceived or real) instead of focusing on what strengths the team needs (that
it lacks), or whine about your boss's inability to estimate instead of trying
to collaborate to figure out the discrepancy in your estimations, among a
million other possible mistakes.

The trick is to thoroughly internalize and stick to this definition of
politeness.

> not helping them is not polite

Junior programmers can help me get the project done. The trick is to manage
your time wisely. "Let me swing by after I finish up X" \- either they'll
figure it out, or they could really use the extra help. "I forget, does it say
on the wiki?". I _am_ assuming they're trying and have some basic competency
though.

> and of course you do on free your extra mile time and help the company avoid
> paying the senior devs...

Crunching - or otherwise overworking - and burning out would decrease my
overall productivity. It would be both rude and irresponsible of me to allow
myself to be so mismanaged.

~~~
xlayn
Nice response but it's just a game of words just like mine.

>To me, not saying that you require 5 senior programmers, or more time, is a
form of grinfucking your manager and producers. It is intentionally keeping
them out of the loop

This means they in first place took the decision without asking you or without
having metrics, not polite of them.

>The trick is to manage your time wisely

First law of thermo dynamics.. energy cannot be created or destroyed. Politely
I ask you to please complete the work with the assigned resources.

>It would be both rude and irresponsible of me to allow myself to be so
mismanaged.

People who care first about them are called egoistical... on the other hand
they said the first person you should care about it's you.

It's up to you, always.

This is just a point of view, take informed decisions.

------
kstenerud
It's not actually "vanishing" civility. Life has always been that way among
those who live above subsistence levels. Court life in the middle ages is rife
with examples. It's important to realize that these "jerks", "bozos", and
"assholes" are all engaged in political maneuvering. They're playing an
entirely different game than you, and the only way to stop them is to remove
possible political reward for such actions, or at least raise the risks so
high as to not be worth the effort to begin with.

HN has largely been successful in this endeavor through a mix of technology
and culture. You can't get rid of it entirely, but you can certainly subdue
it.

------
rsp1984
_Straight to the point. My colleague clearly and succinctly explained why an
inappropriate behavior occurred and what motivated him to respond._

If this happens visibly to the team it is likely that the person behind the
behavior will take this as an attack, especially if he/she is a _true_
asshole. Not good for long-term working climate. Also, it has a flavor of
"white-knighting" oneself if it's done in front of the team.

A more diplomatic and expedient approach would be

a) Approaching the person behind the behavior in private and letting him/her
know that such behavior isn't tolerated. And

b) approaching the targeted person in private and assuring him/her of your
support in case it happens again.

~~~
dsp1234
Note that as a general adage, this is "praise in public and criticize in
private" (which doesn't just go for managers/higher ups).

But it's not bullet-proof. When the criticism is private, there is no signal
to the rest of the group that the behavior in question is not appropriate. The
person being criticized certainly isn't going to say anything. This can lead
to the situation where the behavior by one person is stopped, but as a whole
it continues due to the fact that there is no social signal to the rest of the
group to stop.

So, as with many things, there is no clear cut approach that works all of the
time. Knowing when to signal something publicly or privately is a skill like
any other.

~~~
Mz
Once in a while, when I am in particularly good form and the stars align and
so forth, I can deftly help the offending party out with explaining why their
behavior is problematic, why it isn't getting the results they want, and some
alternate approaches that would work better for them. I do so with witnesses.
They do not feel attacked and everyone gets the memo that there are better
ways to do things.

However, this can also go very badly. But I am mentioning it to note that
there are alternatives to the two scenarios posited of either criticizing
privately in order to protect the offending individual's ego or criticizing
publicly so everyone gets the memo that the behavior is not a good idea. If
you are careful and acting with good intent, sometimes you can protect the
person's ego while publicly commenting on the fact that the behavior in
question is not desirable.

There are other ways to give push back as well that actually moves the needle
and doesn't just change who gets crapped on.

------
WheelsAtLarge
I'm a true believer of monkey see and monkey do. Unfortunately much of our
entertainment deals with the ugly side of human nature. The most popular
comedies deal with insults and getting back at people. You can say the same
for other forms of entertainment. This includes what goes by as news. Yes,
NEWS. I understand that it's make believe and it happens to others but lines
are crossed that where there for a reason.

You might say that all of this does not effect you but if you see it enough it
becomes ok to do.

We need to think about what's civil and live by that. There's a reason why
codes of conduct are created. Mostly, they don't appear because some person
wants to impose rules. They happen because enough people feel that too many
crossed the line and it's best to let people know what's acceptable.

~~~
mratzloff
I tend to agree. For example, I know some parents who could always tell when
their son and daughter had watched The Disney Channel at a friend's house. For
days afterward their kids would be sarcastic and obnoxious—imitating every
tween show on that channel. They weren't allowed to watch the channel in their
own house for that reason, because it had such a negative effect on their
behavior.

~~~
kagamine
I thought it was just me being a horrible father. I have noticed this in my
own children too. They come back as different people from the neighbor's house
where they watch TV they aren't allowed to watch at home. Using vocabulary,
including in the past some swear words that I know they did not learn at home
(bi-lingual household, I never swear in the local language). I just ask them,
"why are talking that way? Where did you learn to say that?" and then tell
them "Civilized people don't speak that way".

I really cannot stand the Cartoon Network and most TV aimed at children. The
standards are very low. And quite a lot of seems to be adults testing to see
how much adult humor they can slip into a "Kid's" show.

------
HillaryBriss
"People like bullies." \-- Daniel Kahneman

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/05/british-
voter...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/05/british-voters-
succumbing-to-impulse-irritation-and-anger---and/)

------
DHMO
I think this is great. People need to be aware of toxic behavior.

That said, though, I am often bugged at work because I am both an introvert
and need to isolate my environment by wearing headphones. My team and others
make assumptions that I'm unfriendly. It's frustrating and I've just started
to go along with it and agree, "Yes, I'm wearing headphones because I am
trying to shut you all out." The truth is, I am not mean, but I enjoy my alone
time and need quiet to be productive.

Also, a lot of times, I've gotten frustrated with the leadership in the
companies I've worked for over the years. Not every company- about half. And a
lot of times in the past, I would vent to co-workers about this. I'd also be
honest in reviews and surveys describing in detail what had been done
incorrectly.

I don't think of myself as toxic, but because I've been so persistent at times
talking about someone else failing to do their job correctly as a leader,
people see me that way and as a pessimist.

I'm aware of this and have made attempts to be more optimistic. It has really
helped out, but it's still tough. I often realize too late that I'm being down
on something, even as I try to imagine a future where everything gets better.

I don't think I'm a jerk, bozo, or asshole, and I don't want to be any of
those things. But, I also just want to be allowed to be who I am. I'm not
always going to be sunshine.

------
youngButEager
The problem with calling out 'jerks, bozos and assholes' is contextual --
social norms/what works in NYC is quite different from small-town Indiana for
example.

Two ways to handle someone you think is being a 'jerk/bozo/asshole': 1) what
percentage of their behavior is 'bad behavior'? 2) what is my threshold
percentage for what _I personally_ consider bad behavior?

After I got married and witnessed PMS in action, the proportion
good/proportion bad became essential.

The same is true at work.

And there _is_ no OBJECTIVELY jerk/bozo/asshole behavior. What you think is
jerk/bozo/asshole may not even CHART with what your boss, friend, family
member think is jerk/bozo/asshole behavior.

If I hire a sales guy who blows away the next 10 sales guys but 25% of the
time he is reported to be a jerk/bozo/asshole I'm NOT firing him/her.

This is life and people have different psychological makeups and histories.

If you're going to set your "tolerance level" for bad behavior to, say -- 5%?
10%? at home, or in the workplace -- you'll meet highly effective people who
add value to relationships and businesses who will make you unhappy.

They're out there.

"For better or worse." "Take the good with the bad." "Lighten up Francis."

~~~
jonahx
> you'll meet highly effective people who add value to relationships and
> businesses who will make you unhappy.

Sure.

> "For better or worse." "Take the good with the bad." "Lighten up Francis."

That depends on what you want out of life. Leaving money on the table for the
sake of happiness is perfectly reasonable too.

------
mjevans
I want to inline a linked reference and provide a summary as a form of
protecting the reference against link-rot.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule)

Their unpleasant behaviours were catalogued by Sutton as The Dirty Dozen:
(Robert Cipriano (2011), "No Jerks Allowed in This Department", Facilitating a
Collegial Department in Higher Education, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN
978-1-118-10764-5)

Insults

Violation of personal space

Unsolicited touching

Threats

Sarcasm

Flames

Humiliation

Shaming

Interruption

Backbiting

Glaring

Snubbing

~~~
throw12912
The problem with this list is that there are vastly more refined ways of being
an asshole, which no list can catch.

So these coarse lists are often suggested by the refined assholes so that no
one can call them out.

Civility is a very powerful weapon of keeping power structures in place.

~~~
bittercynic
Civility can also be a powerful weapon in dismantling corrupt power
structures.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi)

------
gozur88
Is there really less civility today, or have people redrawn the boundaries of
civility such that other people's opinions are more likely to fall outside its
bounds?

~~~
coldtea
I think today we are much more casual. In the past it was more common to be
much more professional and civil, at least in certain white collar
occupations.

Now a lot more "personal expression", including assholery, is allowed and
tolerated even.

Consider propellerhead programmers in the 60s with pocket protectors and all,
and modern brogrammers.

------
overgard
I used to work with this guy that was a prick to almost epic levels. We'll
call him "Richard", because he was a Dick. (Not his real name of course)

Most assholes are subtle, but somehow this guy kept his job despite being,
basically, a monster.

A few of the things he did:

\- Once, he kicked over a trashcan and stormed out for the rest of the day
because I checked in a visual effect he didn't like (.. even though he
approved the code review and it was trivial to disable).

\- Another time, he very authoritatively started inventing policy around
branching. (Keep in mind, he was nobodies boss). When one of the senior
engineers politely asked him if that was from our boss, or just something he
wanted us to do, he incoherently started shouting and, once again, stormed
out.

\- Every scrum, he would pounce on even the smallest misstatement to "correct"
people (even if they weren't wrong). When it came to be his turn to give an
update, he would condescendingly give the most terse eye-roll of an answer he
possibly could, as if the entire thing was beneath him.

\- At a certain point, he just stopped showing up regularly. He'd maybe appear
two out of five days of the week. Which meant three-out-of-five workdays were
great! Despite this, he would get upset about not being consulted on decisions
by people that actually did work daily... even though he wasn't there.

\- When he did show up, for the last six months or so he was employed there,
instead of working on our product, he would take his laptop, co-opt the empty
front-desk, and work on his own startup. (Luckily, he would still take the
time to tell us the work the rest of us were doing was not to his liking).

\- One time, when me and my boss were bouncing some light-hearted banter back
in forth, he immediately jumped in and started attacking my boss, which turned
into a shouting match between them and he ended up storming out early...
again. (notice a pattern here?)

\- Once, we had to pack our desks and move around some office furniture for
some office construction. Being that Richard was a Dick, he decided not to
show up for this, so his colleagues had to pack his desk for him. After three
hours of heavy lifting, our boss decided to take us out for lunch. ... And
suddenly, Dick shows up. Team player.

That's actually the tip of the iceberg with this guy. I never thought much of
the no-assholes-rule before (though I was familiar with it), but now I'm
pretty much adamant that I won't work with people who think being an asshole
is ok, even if it just comes to tolerating misbehaviour.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Why was he kept on board for so long? With that much abuse I'd make it clear
to my superiors that someone like him needs to have his future with the
company reevaluated.

~~~
overgard
In a weird way, I think it was just a quirk of circumstances. We were a small
team in a satellite office of a much larger company, which generally meant we
were financially stable but otherwise disconnected from the rest of the
company (no HR present or anything like that). So when someone misbehaved, it
was sort of a "what happens in vegas stays in vegas" kind of thing, IE, as
long as your shenanigans don't have ramifications outside of the group we'd
keep things in the family.

I think because it was such a tight knit group, there was more tolerance than
there would be in a more detached professional setting. I think this guy also
got a lot more slack than he deserved because he was young and talented, so
people chalked it up to immaturity.

That might be overcomplicating things though. I think when it came down to it,
our boss was basically a nice person who didn't really _want_ to fire anyone,
and there was no pressure to, so he'd procrastinate it, and the rest of us
didn't really _want_ to see him fired, at least to the extent of outright
advocating for it, and so it just sort of kept going until he finally left to
do something else.

------
orionblastar
Wow hard to avoid negative people in the workplace and public. Jerks et all
usually get what they want because agressive people are rewarded by management
as getting stuff done through other people. Sometimes they become managers and
supervisors.

Sort of like in high school the bullies and popular kids get what they want
and the school does nothing about them being jerks to other students.

------
Mendenhall
Moderators just need a 1 click button that bans the account and deletes all
their posts. 1 moderator could get rid of hundreds of accounts an hour. I am a
huge fan of the banhammer with no warnings. Rules should be posted and those
not following get banned. No one has time for that nonsense IMO.

~~~
krapp
Plenty of imageboards have that feature. It doesn't tend to lead to higher
quality content or a better community, though, it just leads to sockpuppet
accounts, shitposting (because no one has any reason to invest themselves
beyond the most superficial level) and mods with Napoleon complexes.

~~~
Mendenhall
Do you think part of the "mods with Nepolean complexes" often happen because
they are not paid ?

I think mods need to get reviewed and logs looked at as to why they deleted
accounts etc. To me a mod deleting things that shouldnt be is a rogue
employee. Personally I am part of some very heavily moderated forums and I
really enjoy them. I find people invest because they appreciate it being
looked after and not a childish troll fest that muddles finding good posts.

~~~
krapp
I think it's less the lack of pay as a lack of maturity, although getting paid
might help them take their jobs a bit more seriously (assuming there's enough
money to make that worthwhile.) A lot of fault lies with the administrators or
whomever selects the moderators, who themselves may not be willing or able to
act impartially or reasonably.

A lack of transparency in the moderation process can protect moderators from
the social consequences of. Having known moderator accounts (not necessarily
linked to user accounts) and a public mod log might make it more difficult for
moderators to feel their position puts them outside the community.

And I think reversibility is important as well - nothing a moderator does
should be destructive, as far as the database is concerned. At best, they
should be able to flag posts and users for review later. I would even go so
far as to suggest that mod actions which aren't approved get automatically
reversed after a certain amount of time.

------
philjackson
Is the irony in the title intentional?

------
current_call
This is so badly written I'm having trouble finding a way to explain it
without resorting to nitpicking. The essay starts with respect, decorum, and
civility, but only discusses civility. Almost every special term is stuck
between scare quotes instead of being explained. It's so bad.

Nitpicking Time

 _Respect, decorum and civility are not only disappearing from the political
discourse._

Why mention respect and decorum if the essay is only about civility?

 _It is also about the public and private interactions among workers of the
so-called “knowledge economies”, which include scientists and entrepreneurs
(or their wannabes)._

Interactions are between people, not among them. Saying interactions are among
people makes them sound like the aliens from They Live. It isn't important to
specify private and public. Nobody would have assumed this was only for public
interactions or only for private interactions. The phrase "knowledge
economies" shouldn't be quoted; it should be explained.

 _Robert Sutton’s The No Asshole Rule defines the..._

There are more scare quotes instead of explanations for terms and there's
another unnecessary distinction in parentheses. Nobody would have assumed only
non-verbal or only verbal.

 _This type of behavior is not only inappropriate and unfortunate. It can have
negative consequences on individuals, organizations and societies._

Saying it can have negative consequences is not the same as saying it does
have negative consequences. The gap between the two is so big I could ship oil
between it.

 _This “way of life” can be witnessed in physical and more virtual settings,
including emails, discussion forums and social media._

More pointless scare quotes. The phrase "more virtual settings" is terrible.
Just say online. Even better, don't say talk about physical and online
settings. Here's an example, "These attitudes can be seen in person as well as
in emails, discussion forums, and social media." That's much clearer.

 _I have encountered a good number of “polite” and smiling fools, who have
mastered an astounding capacity for incivility._

There's another scare quote. This one is used correctly, but scare quotes are
awful anyway. This is another clunky sentence that's hard to follow. This is
my attempt, "I have met many polite people that are still very uncivil."

 _Civility means bringing discussion of problems to a ground where people
emphasize arguments and the evidence to support or refute the arguments..._

 _Civility also requires (and benefits from) conversations that are based on
facts or reproducible observations..._

These next two paragraphs start with a different version of the same sentence.
This sentence defines civility and could replace both paragraphs, because
neither paragraph helps clarify the sentence. The rest of these paragraphs is
confusing. The other sentences give civility several different meanings
instead of one specific meaning.

 _This is actually too important to let a few noxious people to hijack public
or more circumscribed interactions for their selfish gains._

I didn't realize I had something to gain from being rude.

Hopefully, everyone here didn't need any of this pointed out.

~~~
coldtea
> _Why mention respect and decorum if the essay is only about civility?_

Because respect and decorum are part of the total package of civility, even if
we can nominally separate them.

> _I didn 't realize I had something to gain from being rude._

Ethically maybe not, but being rude etc can (and has traditionally been) used
to one's advantage. E.g. it can fence off people from one's territory, it can
intimidate people into giving one what he/she wants, it can make you accepted
into a higher echelon that pisses on subordinates, etc.

------
agjacobson
Well, bless your heart!

------
jbmorgado
Actually I see the present problem as exactly the opposite.

More and more we live in a culture where people think it's their right to feel
offended and for anyone saying anything that makes them fell that way to just
be shut up by someone (some faculty department for instance).

It is becoming basically a Politically Correct culture of censorship and we
keep seeing opinion texts (just like this one) that appeal to that censorship
like if it was a good thing.

I don't see it as more and more people becoming jerks, I see it as more and
more people becoming thin skinned.

~~~
GVIrish
> More and more we live in a culture where people think it's their right to
> feel offended for anyone saying anything that makes them fell that way to
> just be shut up by someone (some faculty department for instance).

Um, it is someone's right to feel offended, you can't control how anyone else
feels. Now others can determine whether someone taking offense at something is
reasonable in the situation, but people have the right to feel whatever they
feel.

Now sometimes it becomes problematic when people who feel offended attempt to
shut down discourse, that much is true.

> It is becoming basically a Politically Correct culture of censorship and we
> keep seeing opinion texts (just like this one) that appeal to that
> censorship like if it was a good thing. I don't see it as more and more
> people becoming jerks, I see it as more and more people becoming thin
> skinned.

Or maybe there are whole groups of people who had to accept unkind behavior in
the past in silence, who now are demanding better treatment. Women in the
workplace have had to (and still do) put up with all manner of misogynist
nonsense and more women and men are saying this is no longer acceptable. To
that, some will complain that things are becoming too 'PC' but the fact is
that poor behavior that was tolerated in the past is no longer tolerated.

Same deal with race. A few decades ago it was ok to refer to a grown black man
as, "boy" in any context. It was okay to disparage other races openly at home,
at work, in public, now it largely isn't. Some will cry 'Censorship!' or
whatever but the fact is that social norms of decency are relegating those
attitudes to history. The people complaining are the ones who refuse to accept
that those attitudes belong in the past.

~~~
Noseshine

        > Um, it is someone's right to feel offended
    

Well, doesn't that mean then other people have the right to say whatever they
want even if others feel offended?

Which means we don't need to have this discussion and just accept both the
offended and the assholes.

This argument seems to me to lead nowhere, unless you say being offended is
okay, offending is not. Which I would find quite disturbing, not just because
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey) would vehemently agree but because it seems
wrong to me.

~~~
GVIrish
No, it just means that you can't control how something will be received and
that sometimes people are going to have an negative emotional response to
something benign or well-intended.

Now, whether someone should change their behavior to suit the sensibilities of
the offended is the question. The answer to that question is basically what
social norms are. It's a moving target that evolves over time and across
segments of society, so there's no foolproof way to always know where the line
is.

But as long as someone cares to understand, learn from, and empathize with
other people more often than not they'll have an idea of what is appropriate
and inappropriate. The asshole is the person who either doesn't care, or
chooses not to understand or take stock of the reactions of others, and as
such is waaayyy over the line for decency.

> This argument seems to me to lead nowhere, unless you say being offended is
> okay, offending is not. Which I would find quite disturbing, not just
> because Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey) would vehemently agree but because it
> seems wrong to me.

In the case of Turkey and some other parts of the world, we're getting into
the territory of the government punishing people with dissenting opinions or
criticisms. My take would be that someone has the right to feel offended, but
the government should not be in the business of punishing the offender when it
comes to speech, political views, etc.

So someone can express utter disgust with the AKP and call Erdoğan a dictator
in waiting, which would offend many of his supporters, but that shouldn't
result in punishment/imprisonment.

~~~
Noseshine
Since you feel you had to reply with

    
    
        > Um, it is someone's right to feel offended,...
    

it certainly shows that you dispute the right of the person to say what he had
to say - so my point stands. If you accepted his right as well you would not
have felt it necessary to make that statement. As I said,

    
    
        > Which means we don't need to have this discussion and just accept both the
        > offended and the assholes.
        > This argument seems to me to lead nowhere...
    

I see you arguing for _one_ side's right to speak their mind only.

Either you see their right as more important, or your post is completely
unnecessary and you could just have let everybody say whatever they felt like.

~~~
GVIrish
> it certainly shows that you dispute the right of the person to say what he
> had to say - so my point stands.

You're reading stuff that simply is not there. Nowhere did I say that someone
did not have the right to free speech, and I spoke to exactly that point RE:
Erdogan/Turkey. Not arguing against free speech, just saying that whatever
someone says, one cannot dictate how that speech will be received.

The parent post seemed to be arguing that the problem is that too many people
are thin-skinned and they don't have the right to be offended by the
statements/actions of others. I disagreed with that point.

~~~
Noseshine

        > You're reading stuff that simply is not there.
    

Well, so are you? Please read what I wrote. You are missing my point.

    
    
        > The parent post.... I disagreed with that point.
    

Exactly. How about the right of OP to say whatever he feels like? Your support
for "free speech" (the one in quotes) is selective.

    
    
        >  Nowhere did I say that someone did not have the right to free speech
    

Except you don't want OP to say what he did.

------
dschiptsov
That's just street/slums/ghetto behavior. Such heavy selection pressure
selects the most adaptive and the most lucky (on the contrary to the popular
misconception that the strongest and the smartest are selected). One could
find a whole countries with this kind of society - Russia and some African
states are good example. Highest level of corruption and crime produce such
street-gang social norms.

Such practices are plainly stupid and based on misconception and uneducated
common sense and primitive memes. Every serious professional athlete will tell
you that too much stress and pressure will dramatically diminish one's
performance and health instead of making one "stronger". Relaxed self-control,
proper habits and just enough of exercises will do.

Any highly such competitive and stressful societies of assholes and jerks
characterized by high turnaround, very short lifespan for participants, high
injury and mortality rates, and hence adaptations, such as earlier
reproductive age, smaller body sized, quicker but lower quality development,
etc. It is just biology.

