Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

N1KF · 2017-01-18 05:56:41

In the IRC, I was having yet another debate with somebody in the IRC. This time, it was about whether or not acting in a condescending manner to others is bad. By "condescension," I mean insults, mocking somebody's intelligence, or unneeded aggressiveness.

I believe that treating others with a good level of respect is a Good Thing. We're all humans going through personal problems so why make it harder for others? If you treat others nicely, it may inspire them to do good themselves. Of course, this won't work for some people. If somebody is a stinker, you need to speak out about it. They may not realize they're being toxic and try to improve. If somebody actively makes your life worse and takes no effort to improve, they aren't worth your time. While I imagine this may get you into trouble, I think it's worth it if it helps the world become a better place.

Also, if you want to make a point to somebody, speaking condescendingly will make people defensive. The more you try to intimidate somebody, the more they will back away from you. Meanwhile, if you treat them with respect, they will treat you with respect. If you're trying to teach somebody that "the real world" is tough, that's not the best way to go about it. You can get your point across without speaking down to a person. That's why parents who use that method are considered abusive. Even if you're worried about their first experience to "the real world," do you want to be that person to reveal to them what "the real world" is like? Why not be a person there to comfort and give advice when they actually do experience those types of troubles?

A person in the IRC seems to disagree with some of my opinions however. It seems that the standard for politeness in western society seems to be going even lower and lower, as it's often considered just a regular thing that regular people do on some parts of the Internet. What do you think?

Tomahawk · 2017-01-18 17:52:44

This isn't a debate; of course it isn't acceptable. I don't think anyone non-toxic would argue that it is.

hummerz5 · 2017-01-18 18:11:27

Tomahawk wrote:

This isn't a debate; of course it isn't acceptable. I don't think anyone non-toxic would argue that it is.

OK Mr. No-Condescending, what are you doing now?

Is it not condescending to abruptly write off a well-explained inquiry with such disdain as "of course not!" -- Furthermore, what right is it of yours to immediately discredit the opinion of someone "toxic"? How can you say they ARE toxic without being condescending?

I like the parallels here

Different55, N1KF, sthegreat

Insanity · 2017-01-18 18:53:04

Of course it is acceptable

respect isn't deserved until it's earned

XxAtillaxX

Anatoly · 2017-01-18 20:37:55

hummerz5 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:
This isn't a debate; of course it isn't acceptable. I don't think anyone non-toxic would argue that it is.
OK Mr. No-Condescending, what are you doing now?
Is it not condescending to abruptly write off a well-explained inquiry with such disdain as "of course not!" -- Furthermore, what right is it of yours to immediately discredit the opinion of someone "toxic"? How can you say they ARE toxic without being condescending?
I like the parallels here

Rekt,

Ratburntro44

N1KF · 2017-01-18 21:27:47

Insanity wrote:

Of course it is acceptable
respect isn't deserved until it's earned

Of course it isn't deserved because if we looked at ourselves and others realistically for everything we do we'd hate everybody. I believe there's a need for positive behavior in the world whether or not it's rational, which includes giving other people a base level of respect. All good behavior requires discipline.

I would rather other people not speak down to me or others with condescending comments, so why should I do the same to them? Am I above them? No, I'm not, so I shouldn't act like I am. It's basic Golden Rule logic. I suppose this wouldn't apply if you don't care if people speak down to you, though.

Tomahawk · 2017-01-18 23:58:28

Gee, where do I start?

hummerz5 wrote:

OK Mr. No-Condescending, what are you doing now? Is it not condescending to abruptly write off a well-explained inquiry with such disdain as "of course not!"

OK Mr. Quite-Possibly-Condescending, this well-explained inquiry had two well-explained paragraphs explaining why being insulting/condescending is wrong, followed by the implication that because someone on the internet disagreed this somehow creates a debate. By writing the implication off with disdain, I show absolute support for the OP's opinion and deny the opinion of the person on IRC who disagreed with him. There was perhaps disdain towards that stranger for his largely unshared views, but if you thought there was any towards N1KF then what I wrote and what you read were two different things.

hummerz5 wrote:

Furthermore, what right is it of yours to immediately discredit the opinion of someone "toxic"?

Furthermore, everyone has the right to immediately discredit an opinion, whoever it's held by, because by definition opinions are subjective things which can be disagreed with. Are you denying my right to an opinion?

hummerz5 wrote:

How can you say they ARE toxic without being condescending?

Are you proposing I never apply a negative attribute towards someone in the danger of being condescending? The irony here is that being condescending in your crusade against my perceived condescension should - by your own argument - cause you to evaporate into a cloud of hypocrisy and invalidate everything you've said.

Insanity wrote:

Of course it is acceptable
respect isn't deserved until it's earned

You're toxic.

Fite me hummerz.

hummerz5 · 2017-01-19 00:33:11

Tomahawk wrote:

OK Mr. Quite-Possibly-Condescending, this well-explained inquiry had two well-explained paragraphs explaining why being insulting/condescending is wrong, followed by the implication that because someone on the internet disagreed this somehow creates a debate. By writing the implication off with disdain, I show absolute support for the OP's opinion and deny the opinion of the person on IRC who disagreed with him. There was perhaps disdain towards that stranger for his largely unshared views, but if you thought there was any towards N1KF then what I wrote and what you read were two different things.

"Quite-Possibly-Condescending" yeah that probably was. Anyone who storms into a situation guns blazing probably isn't giving the other person/people their due credit. And yes, I failed to connect what he was actually talking about to what you said. Now, it very well may still be condescending, but not egregiously so, considering my "large paragraph vs short rebuttal" doesn't apply

Tomahawk wrote:

Furthermore, everyone has the right to immediately discredit an opinion, whoever it's held by, because by definition opinions are subjective things which can be disagreed with. Are you denying my right to an opinion?

Very true. I meant to aim towards the whole "ad hominem is bad" approach, but i used the word "opinion" so you're right.

However, I still would find it disagreeable in a person if they automatically reject a person's views without even considering them. At that point, it's no longer rejecting the subjective item but rejecting the object -- the person.

Tomahawk wrote:

Are you proposing I never apply a negative attribute towards someone in the danger of being condescending? The irony here is that being condescending in your crusade against my perceived condescension should - by your own argument - cause you to evaporate into a cloud of hypocrisy and invalidate everything you've said.

First of all, I only disappear (and even contradict myself) insofar as I claim condescension is bad. Since I never went that far, it's the classic "I'm rubber and you're glue" except it's actually sorta true.
"Are you proposing I never apply a negative attribute"
I don't know, that's entirely your case to decide. I'll provide a suggestion: no one said you cannot apply internal labels, but purposely extending these labels to others ("haha ur [negative quality]!") goes beyond what's acceptable.
However, that includes part of my answer to the question you need to ask yourself. You have not rebuked it, truly.

Your question "never apply a negative attribute in the danger of being condescending" is a loaded question, implying that you believe that in at least one occurrence, applying a negative label is condescending. I'm not sure how you could rationalize out of this one.
"[condescension] isn't acceptable"
<negative attributes are potentially condescending>
"[people exist that are] toxic"

Tomahawk wrote:

Fite me hummerz.

tl;dr:
A) You're right, I misread. You're still quite abrupt with this unknown irc entity, but that's not what I took issue with
B) Automatic disagreement is no longer about the ideals, but the person holding them. Anything else and you would need to have some concept of what the idea was, therefore evaluating the opinion. (not automatically)
C) im no hypocrite

Tomahawk · 2017-01-21 03:33:02

hummerz5 wrote:

C) im no hypocrite

Aw ik ik, but maybe, for the sake of my argument, just a teeny tiny bit. ^^

hummerz5 wrote:

Your question "never apply a negative attribute in the danger of being condescending" is a loaded question, implying that you believe that[,] in at least one occurrence, applying a negative label is condescending.

0_o I didn't say it, you did:

hummerz5 wrote:

How can you say they ARE toxic without being condescending?

I may have exaggerated a little, but I'm pretty sure you can avoid condescension when applying any negative attribute. If it's true, insofar that a subjective adjective can be true, you're just telling them a truth.

I'd have more to say, only I'm no longer sure where we're going with this. This may have veered a little off topic, but having established that nobody actually disagrees with OP about insults/condescension being bad - unless they're toxic (*triggered humvee*) - it's not really a debate about the original post anymore, aaaaaand we're done here.

Unless you wanna go into too much flowery detail about the natural follow-up, which would be to state that therefore you shouldn't do it, and the possible speculation that simply accepting that something is bad doesn't necessarily put you under any obligation to do it less.

hummerz5 · 2017-01-21 03:44:15

Tomahawk wrote:

Aw ik ik, but maybe, for the sake of my argument, just a teeny tiny bit. ^^

only if I agree to your premise >:O

Tomahawk wrote:

0_o I didn't say it, you did:

Your question still had its implication. Perhaps you want to claim that you were simply attempting to understand my claim as a whole and would never dare to make a pointed question... (a pointed question which reveals a point the user wanted to make)

Tomahawk wrote:

avoid condescension when applying any negative attribute.

Can we examine that? Is it not condescending that society seeks out certain behaviors to label as deviant? That is, we as a whole pick people so we can look down on them. Why? (Yes, this is rather off-topic, but an interesting one)... "a subjective attribute can be true" -- can it, though? More as "insofar as I have an opinion about someone that I want to share" -- so we're justifying our disdain for someone by believing we're right that they're bad. That seems to add another layer of condescension, that of claiming to know what is good for an individual.

Tomahawk wrote:

This may have veered a little off topic, but having established that nobody actually disagrees with OP

We established that you didn't actually believe what you were saying. Indeed, you provided a counterexample for your very claim. You yourself have proven that there are acceptable cases for condescension, at least as far as you rationalized your own actions.

Tomahawk wrote:

simply accepting that something is bad doesn't necessarily put you under any obligation to do it less.

easy Socrates, we don't do actual philosophical debates here.

ultimately though I suppose we could just drop this... "nyeh" and etc

N1KF · 2017-01-21 06:27:49

Excuse me as I become philosophical for a moment. I do think it is necessary to discuss the general idea of superiority when we discuss condescension. Most actions, when it comes down to it, can be pin-pointed down to very abstract ideas. This means I won't be referring to the Internet at all because I prefer my messages be applicable universally. So if you want you can mentally imagine this referring to online communication and it's relevant to the topic.

hummerz5 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:
avoid condescension when applying any negative attribute.
Can we examine that? Is it not condescending that society seeks out certain behaviors to label as deviant? That is, we as a whole pick people so we can look down on them. Why? (Yes, this is rather off-topic, but an interesting one)... "a subjective attribute can be true" -- can it, though? More as "insofar as I have an opinion about someone that I want to share" -- so we're justifying our disdain for someone by believing we're right that they're bad. That seems to add another layer of condescension, that of claiming to know what is good for an individual.

When somebody gives a negative (or condescending) label to a person (while making it clear it's just an opinion and not fact), there are two main reasons one might be concerned:

The insulting label. I think that honesty is a Good Thing. Saying controversial opinions that you genuinely believe is a Good Thing. However, there are different levels of harshness one can express an opinion. I think it's best to only be as harsh as needed. As a side-note this matches up with my opinion on swearing, which is that it's rarely needed to get your point across so it shouldn't be used often. Also if you have to resort to insults or getting personal, either you're probably either doing something wrong or the person you're speaking to is incapable of understanding your opinion.

The condescending opinion. I don't believe having negative judgements on a person are bad, unless your judgements disproportionately favor yourself. For example, hypocrisy is a Bad Thing because the hypocrite claims to be morally superior than another person equally guilty. Having judgements in your favor means you're going to look down on others, which makes you, well, condescending. I believe this is a problem, because, why do you deserve special treatment? Were you born with a Special Snowflake Superiority Card? I don't think so. Even if you believe yourself to be more skilled/smart than most others, I think it's best not to risk acting as if you are because you may be wrong and lie to yourself the whole time.

You aren't the best. You can try to prove yourself to be, but you won't. That's one of the reasons I think it's better to try to help other people than to constantly improve yourself. You're going to die in a few decades. All work improving yourself that doesn't help others will be completely meaningless. You could however argue that spirituality is an exception, particularly those that involve a relationship with God. Religions that put all humans on an equal level below God(s) really challenge the "I'm above everyone else" attitude. On the other hand, some religious people completely miss the point and unfairly judge others despite that.

When address those who are condescending, we should also take care not to be condescending to them. After all, if we act condescending to the condescending, it will only create conflict. A battle between competitors to prove who is the best. It's basic human nature, and one thing that has always happened throughout all history, in all methods of interaction and communication. When we follow this human nature, there is chaos. When we come together to fight it, there is harmony.

That went a bit off-track from what I planned. I probably spent an hour or two writing this. It took me a while to come up with the right words but it gave myself a nice insight into my fuzziest and most abstract beliefs. It's kind of like observing the inside of a moving clock.

Tomahawk · 2017-01-21 19:50:21

hummerz5 wrote:

Perhaps you want to claim that you were simply attempting to understand my claim as a whole and would never dare to make a pointed question... (a pointed question which reveals a point the user wanted to make)

I assumed you'd pick up on the subtleties of language and not need a pointed, boring QED. Yes, if you claim that calling someone toxic is condescending then by extension so would calling them anything else negative.

hummerz5 wrote:

Is it not condescending that society seeks out certain behaviors to label as deviant?

Most of the time those behaviours do more harm than good and society is justified. Perhaps condescension towards those behaviours isn't always wrong, or moreover perhaps any negative behaviour can be used to do good. That's a contradiction by definition, but I mean the greater good.

hummerz5 wrote:

That is, we as a whole pick people so we can look down on them.

We may pick certain behaviours to look down on, but to extend automatic permanent disdain to people who display those behaviours would be wrong - unless they always only do harm with those behaviours, in which case it's the society thing again.

hummerz5 wrote:

We established that you didn't actually believe what you were saying. Indeed, you provided a counterexample for your very claim. You yourself have proven that there are acceptable cases for condescension, at least as far as you rationalized your own actions.

I believe that condescension/insults in general are bad because they harm the receiver. I can't contradict myself without providing a more specific scenario in which to rationalise it, which is fine because within the confines of this debate the OP's post never discusses whether it's always bad, but only the general case. So in fact going any deeper would be off-topic, and it'd not be debate as I said in my first reply.

N1KF · 2017-01-21 23:50:38

Tomahawk wrote:

hummerz5 wrote:
Is it not condescending that society seeks out certain behaviors to label as deviant?
Most of the time those behaviours do more harm than good and society is justified. Perhaps condescension towards those behaviours isn't always wrong, or moreover perhaps any negative behaviour can be used to do good. That's a contradiction by definition, but I mean the greater good.

As I said in my previous post, insults shouldn't be needed. I think you can almost always criticize somebody's behaviour without criticizing them as a person. Don't say that a person is judgmental, but say that they're making unfair judgments, for example. If that in itself is a "deviant label", I think it should be acceptable otherwise nobody would improve if there's nobody to speak out against bad actions.

I would like to point out that I make a difference between "positive/negative" behaviours and "good/bad" behaviours. I consider "positive/negative" behaviours to mean "hopeful/cynical". While I think hope is more beneficial than cynicism, I don't think they're directly correlated to morality. For the sake of simplicity, I'll just use "good/bad" in my post however because I assume that's what you're talking about.

I think the deciding factor whether a behaviour is good or bad is by the intention. Lying, for example, is bad because the liar intends to take advantage of another person's trust. It's also condescending because it implies that the liar deserves to know the truth more than the lie-ee.

It gets a little bit more complex, as those who look like they intend good may really intend bad. For example, [insert worldview you disagree with here] extremists may believe they're trying to do good, but do so by putting themselves on a pedestal higher than everybody else. Even if they do so subconsciously, they really intend to do bad, because they have so much pride in themselves that they ignore the ethics of their own actions. Other people should try to help them realize that.

There's also the issue of "victimless moral crimes" that people may look down upon. For example, getting drunk. That doesn't harm anybody, right? Well, not directly, but letting yourself get drunk indicates you aren't very concerned about how your actions affect others. You're willingly putting your mind into a more dangerous state so you can be entertained by it for a few hours or however long drunkenness lasts. There are other examples of this. These behaviours may not directly affect others, but they affect you, which may influence your interactions with other people. Therefore, I think those types of actions are dangerous and should be avoided.

I think people who intend to do good to others end up doing so and should be admired, while those who intend to do bad end up doing bad should be challenged in their beliefs. People who don't care will end up doing bad because it's funner and easier. It's kind of simple that way really.

So, to decide whether a behaviour is good or bad, you should look at your intention. Do you debate online to help you and your opponents become wiser, or to make yourself smarter? Do you speak harshly to others because you want them to improve, or to feel bad?

(Wow I write "I think" a lot.)

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2017-01-18 05:56:41

Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#2 2017-01-18 17:52:44

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#3 2017-01-18 18:11:27

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#4 2017-01-18 18:53:04, last edited by Insanity (2017-01-18 18:53:23)

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#5 2017-01-18 20:37:55

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#6 2017-01-18 21:27:47

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#7 2017-01-18 23:58:28, last edited by Tomahawk (2017-01-18 23:59:54)

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#8 2017-01-19 00:33:11, last edited by hummerz5 (2017-01-19 00:36:06)

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#9 2017-01-21 03:33:02

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#10 2017-01-21 03:44:15

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#11 2017-01-21 06:27:49

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#12 2017-01-21 19:50:21, last edited by Tomahawk (2017-01-21 19:51:46)

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

#13 2017-01-21 23:50:38

Re: Is insulting/condescensing online behavior acceptable?

Board footer