Comment by pfortuny | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfortuny | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think you are mistaking politeness for 'sweetness'. You can be perfectly polite and at the same time perfectly clear. Politeness in a conversation is the art of being clear without being offensive to the other person.

In your example, someone advocating racism can be countered by stating clearly and simply the historical, anthropological and economical reasons why racism is wrong.

Politeness implies reasoning. An internet discussion is not war, it is a conversation. Whenever you leave politeness aside, you have lost. Always. (Obviously, this is my way of seeing it).

In your example, any pro-racist argument is by itself both impolite (because it insults persons straightaway) and wrong (for many reasons). It is a no-no in any case. If you fall on the same side of the wall (by being impolite) you are placing yourself at the same level and your "reason" is lost to the reader.

You can say: "racism and eugenics have lead mankind to the Nazi extermination camps" and being polite.

To repeat myself: politeness is not lack of clarity. It is just the way to properly oppose wrong ideas without harming people defending them. At the same time, it protects your argument.

Perhaps a more cogent axiom is to reason ethically rather than aim to maintain politeness. That has the added effect of distilling whether the audience is someone that can be reasoned with and large subset of polite etiquette is encapsulated within the constraint of ethical reasoning. If that was followed it would help maintain a decent signal to noise ratio as well.

I think you are using the word "polite" to refer to the Christian ethic "don't judge others". As widespread as it is, that ethic should not get to rule discourse without justifying itself. And in practice it is almost always hypocritical: those who violate this dogma are usually castigated, thereby violating the rule they dogmatically insist upon.

I see no reason why we should refrain from morally evaluating what others say, whether that evaluation be positive or negative. In fact, I think it leads to a great deal of evil to not so evaluate.

We should morally evaluate what others say, certainly: as a matter of fact, that is what we do to have an opinion in ethical questions. I do not think I advocated the opposite. What I opposed was attacking the opponent, instead of the ideas.

It's possible my criticism isn't aimed at you, but at those who get angry and start screaming "be polite" or "be tolerant of others" when their views are morally evaluated.

In any case, based on my experience they are at least fellow travelers, cowardly hiding behind "be polite" while suppressing rational dissent.

I understand now your comment and tend to agree with you. However, as you say, that is not properly "politeness" but simple fear, as you say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com