andrew.cady(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 05:53:22PM -0800, Luna wrote:
On 1/31/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at
telus.net> wrote:
One point which for me makes "Be civil"
preferable to "Don't be
a dick" is that it advocates something that people should be in
preference to what they should not be. It has a more positive
outlook.
Besides that, I can't remember a *single* occassion where linking
[[m:DICK]] has ever done anything to calm a situation down. Of
*course* the other person is going to be offended, and anyone
linking this in a heated dispute is a fool to expect otherwise --
at the very least, get somebody neutral to do the linking. When the
directly involved (and most biased) parties start giving each other
dick/civility scoldings, it rarely ever calms anything down.
If we want the level of discourse to be more civil, we must first
ourselves behave in a civil manner. Nine times out of ten, that
precludes linking [[m:DICK]] in my opinion.
Besides their relative rudeness as rebukes, there is a substantial
difference between the *meaning* of the two phrases. "Don't be a dick"
is a far more broad concept, and makes greater reference to motives
and meaning; "civility" is more about style and form.
Quite the contrary. If you're telling someone to not be a dick that
presumes that he was being one in the first place.
For example, a
dismissive, one-line response to a carefully considered five paragraph
argument is a "dick move" even if perfectly civil.
Not always. Sometimes it just keeps the heat from being cranked up.
An exasperated
ejaculation of emotion may be incivil but is not a dick move
Dicks don't ejaculate???? =-O
--a dick
does not act out of desperation or express vulnerability.
Sounds like they drive a hard bargain. ;-)
Ec