Civil Discourse

I’m interested in having polite but open discussions that help people learn new things and see new perspectives, with a focus on the United States and its place in the world.

Unfortunately there are many ways people communicate that do more harm than good. If your comments or contributions resemble those, don’t expect a response.

· First, violence and threats of violence targeted at individuals or their families are never acceptable.

o If you think someone is a criminal and think they should be tried and if convicted executed, make sure you include the trial part and a presumption of innocence in your statement.

§ Even better, name the part of the legal code you think they violated in a way that describes all required elements of the offence.

o At the same time, it is ok to speak ill of the dead based on their statements and actions. If they died violently that isn’t a shield for their past deeds. You can still disagree with or criticize them without justifying or condoning the violent act.

· If you are using a name or term to refer to someone, it should have a clear and widely accepted definition. It is best if it is something they would use to describe themselves.

o Some popular terms like fascist, socialist, and terrorist are frequently used in cases that don’t meet that standard. If it isn’t clear and the person wouldn’t accept the label, then provide the definition you are using and evidence justifying your use.

o If you are just trying to be derogatory, using a term like libtard or bible thumper, that isn’t helping anything either.

o When in doubt, use their actual name/title and describe their actions/statements, then let the reader decide on the label.

· Don’t use logical fallacies.

o Unless the point you’re debating is that something is unprecedented or breaks from historical norms, whataboutism isn’t helpful. Two (or more) wrongs don’t make a right. If we allow history to dictate when moral or legal behavior isn’t needed, we’ll never improve as a society.

o Criticize arguments and criticize evidence when you have facts that challenge it, but ad hominem attacks rarely help. See above about name calling and below about motivations.

· Be clear when you know someone’s motivation and when you’re making assumptions.

o If someone has clearly stated why they are doing something you can attribute that to them.

o If you think you know why they are doing something, add a qualifier so everyone knows it is your opinion then provide evidence supporting your assumption.

o Great saying – never attribute to malice what can best be explained by ignorance. (call this Hanlon’s Razor, Heinlein’s Razor, or just common sense if you want, but remember to apply it.)

I believe in continuous learning, from the good and the bad. If the bad comes up, I’ll try to learn from that and add it here.