Yeah seriously.
This guy just lauded the internet as a bastion of debate, and then in the same breath bemoaned the fact that the dirty proles get to talk back.
It's not a "debate" if other people don't get a say, it's propaganda...
This guy just lauded the internet as a bastion of debate, and then in the same breath bemoaned the fact that the dirty proles get to talk back.
It's not a "debate" if other people don't get a say, it's propaganda...
Civility does not mean blindly agreeing. It means just that: acting civil.
However, what he does argue against is rudeness and insults. Essentially, not debating, but slinging mud.
"Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought."
Simply put, you can act civil even if you disagree. This does provide value. However, when that civility is removed, the results are polarizing.
If you can't see the benefits of civil debate, you are an idiot.
Just to be clear, I did not really mean this:
"If you can't see the benefits of civil debate, you are an idiot."
It was intended to have a tone completely different from the rest of the comment. And so, despite the rest of the comment being sound, this one sentence caused a rift.
So, I did not add it to insult. I added it to make a point, and you highlighted that point so much better than you realized.
That being said, if you can't handle being called an idiot on the internet, you unfortunately probably are an idiot (on the internet).