I think that if you wanted to steer that conversation towards civil, it could easily have been steered towards civil. I think the only reason we're here is because you decided you were going to shut down the conversation by bombast, only to discover that when it comes to bombast, there's always someone more bombastic than you. At least, that's what I intended you to learn. Let's be perfectly clear: you employed the exact same rhetorical devices I did, only you employed them poorly. You're not here because I was rude, you're here because I used your methods with more skill and passion than you did. You're not here because you think this should be some ivory tower of civility, we're here because you decided to splash the pond and are annoyed that someone else cannonballed you. You want to have a civil conversation? Steer things back towards civil conversation. It's not that difficult. If you wanted to have a civil discussion with me, you totally could have had one and you know it. You don't want a civil conversation, though. You want a referee to step in and say I crossed the line. The line is where you paint it. You want me on the other side of that line, make an effort to put me there yourself. As it is, you start throwing around inflammatory statements and I will trump you 10 times out of 10. I've had passionate, intellectual, civil discussions with plenty of people on here - but I'm also really good at shouting down shouters. Your attempt at a "civil discussion" was to counter an Elizabeth Warren quote with a diatribe from the Von Mises Institute. That's like walking into a discussion about Sabra and Shatila with an Ariel Sharon opinion piece. Short of quoting directly from Atlas Shrugged, there isn't much less "civil" you could have done. And I made you answer for it. And will continue to do so, without apology, without remorse, without hiding aggression behind soft, dulcet language. And I would expect anyone who stands behind what they say to do the same to me... not go "whoa, someone brought it back to me, I better go hide under the covers and cry for help."
Firstly, to say I'm tattling would imply a centralized authority. This is not so. This is an online community, and as such, I'm relating my poor treatment at the hands of one particular user (you) in order to see how we as a community can address these things. As we get more users, in particular, reddit refugees such as yourself, these kinds of incidents will grow more commonplace. It is therefore imperative, for the health of the community, that a code of etiquette be advanced (or at least discussion along such lines begins). Moreover, there is a striking difference between bombast and rhetorical flair directed at a subject of contention and ideas, and crossing over the line by hurling insults at an individual. Spirited debate is not the same as cyber-bullying. You crossed over into the latter. Let's be perfectly clear: you employed the exact same rhetorical devices I did, only you employed them poorly. You're not here because I was rude, you're here because I used your methods with more skill and passion than you did. You're not here because you think this should be some ivory tower of civility, we're here because you decided to splash the pond and are annoyed that someone else cannonballed you. You may think you employed some semblance of rhetorical skill, but the fact is you were simply being mean. Let me make this perfectly clear: it is incredibly easy to be mean online. It takes no skill to say that I'm "parroting... simplistic bullshit" and being told to "STFU & GTFO." And I really liked your information on the "Churchill quote" (I know it's not, now). That was good information. But you were so abrasive and self-righteous that it turned me off to anything else you had to say. You want to have a civil conversation? Steer things back towards civil conversation. It's not that difficult. If you wanted to have a civil discussion with me, you totally could have had one and you know it. And I attempted to. You then proceeded to tell me, in so many words, to take a hike. You don't want a civil conversation, though. You want a referee to step in and say I crossed the line. I've already stated that I'm appealing to the community, and not a centralized, unilateral authority. I want the community to come together and collectively decide what kind of tone we want to encourage and employ on the site. I am of the opinion that, if we must be acerbic, let us be acerbic towards ideas, and not at people. Conversely, you would like to be abrasive to anyone you unilaterally deem unworthy, on the face of the matter. I do believe that most members of hubski will share my opinion, as it's well-reasoned, reasonable, and conducive towards the community itself.
"I also realize this is the internet, and just about anything goes, but given that this is a young community I thought this would be a good opportunity for us to discuss what kind of community we want to become, in terms of how we treat each other online. So: the field is open. I'd appreciate your feedback. It will help me and others decide if we wish to continue using the site." That's "deal with this issue or I'm taking my ball and going home." ...user for one day. Your "poor treatment" was me excoriating an inflammatory article you linked, and pointing out that the quote you intended to dismantle an argument had exactly the opposite effect. MAKE NO MISTAKE: Anyone who is a fan of Elizabeth Warren is going to be offended by Libertarian screeds. Perhaps you did not know this. If not, that's your fault. Perhaps you did not know that saying "When, exactly, did doing good for society come to equal paying off a gigantic, intrusive, abusive global empire?" is going to be offensive when we're talking about public works. If not, that's your fault. And should you say these offensive things and then get an offensive response, it is up to you to steer things back towards civility. I said nothing about you. I said nothing about your beliefs, about your statements, about anything you, personally, contributed to the discussion. I attacked the article you linked mercilessly because it is undeserving of mercy. I dismantled your assertion that it was a Churchill quote but I did so dispassionately. Did I use caps? Certainly. That and italics are the only form of emphasis we have here. Meanwhile, the sum total of your response has been "you're a meanie and I'm not going to talk to you." So, what "line" did I cross by "hurling" what "insults?" If your heart of hearts is really that deeply in the Mises.org article, defend it. Regardless of whether or not you think what I did took "rhetorical skill" at least I'm trying to have a discussion. You? You'd rather put wrist to forehead and declare a case of the vapors. Again, I've insulted no one - but I've been called an "asshat" three times now. Are you really trying to suggest this is somehow my fault? You made no attempts whatsoever to have a civil conversation. You demanded an apology. I don't know you, you don't know me. Our first interaction was you throwing up a patently offensive libertarian hit-piece, which I then dismantled - and which you chose to take personally. Apologize? From the minute I attacked your link you've been demanding better treatment of you. More than that, you've been doing so by attacking me. You want a civil conversation? Step back, defend your ideas, and recognize that if you put something forth for discussion, it will be debated.