Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/31/07 charles.r.matthews wrote:
An argument I have produced before, is that bad
language and aggressiveness as
a routine form of interaction appeals mostly to the young and male. It happens
that males 20 to 25 might be the most significant group here. I think it is
also the case that such forms of verbal interaction and self-assertion are
likely to put off many other demographic groups. So civility policy is one way
of trying to broaden the base of contributors, or to retain people who profile
is not a good match to those who think freedom of speech is mostly about the
right to be f****** rude all the time.
Interesting. You know, as I read all of the responses thus far, the one word
that my eye and brain keep tripping over is "civility" - perhaps I am
associating it with the word "proper" - and that's a button word for me.
only thing I have ever associated with the word civil is disobedience ;-).
At its root, ''civilis'', civil relates to the citizen and his role
society. It's application appears to range from the practicalities of
the codified state to an idealized form of people knowing almost
intuitively how to get along. We face that range regularly. Thus
"civility" becomes a quality in the relationship between the individual
and the common weal.. In Johnson I see "Freedom from barbarity, the
state of being civilized ... Politeness, complaisance, elegance of
behaviour ... Rule of decency, practice of politelness". The duty of
civil disobedience fits well with this. I suspect that Jefferson would
have approved of that.
You do well to be wary of "proper". The emphasis there is more on the
individual, hence property and proprietary.