I do not know about you but I for one on a regular basis get to see a lot of bad faith posters. This seems to happen daily.

Second the arguments get tough down below in the comments section don’t they? I usually just stop by to read the diaries and the front page, and I only comment when I see something ridiculous or need to say something profound. Other than that, I usually stay out of the arguments. BTW, when was the last time you were in an argument that remained civil? Civil arguments are what I would consider discussions.

Lastly, did someone burn you the other day in the comment section, or is it just uncomfortable for you to see people arguing where someone gets called an idiot?

Where did you get the idea that the principles which are assumed to be held, as a good faith condition of participation, by the posters at this site could actually be presented, discussed, argued, debated, challenged, clarified, explained, defended, refined or rejected, for the benefit of all, in merely propositional terms, using all rhetorical and forensic tools but with the sole EXCEPTION of ad hominem, slur, aspersion and invective?

How illiberal of you.

First of all, you have been reading the site far longer than I have, who has been reading it for a year and a half, and joined last January. So, I was not here for the primaries, but I certainly have picked up that there was incredible firestorms and flamewars between regulars as well as in the battle against trolls, and mobys. But that is in the past, so let me put my 2 cents in on the present.
I think you would agree with me, that my own participation tends to be on the mild and restrained side. OTOH, I recognize this is a heavy political forum, and remarks made are going to be heavy hitting and rough at times. That is the nature of the political beast.

Maybe the issue for you is that the words such as idiot, troll, or essentially, don’t be daft; are insulting, but I think this forum allows for that. Another important point, while this site is moderated, there is no reimbursement for any of the hard work they do. They have other lives, and maybe at times, they rely on us to police ourselves.

I for one, am grateful that profanity which saturates so many other sites and the general culture, is not allowed here, but I have never thought that the dynamic exchanges that go on, are unacceptable. And yes, there has been times, when things have deteriorated, and the mods have had to step in. The fault really is with us, who watched and did not send the message necessary to stop it.

Engaging in civil discourse, is not always as easy as one might think. But despite the low points that happen, this is still an incredible forum of discussion and dissent and participation, I have yet to find it’s match elsewhere on the net.

… I’m also uncomfortable when vitriol starts flying. If you can use the word “traditionally” in reference to the Internet, it has traditionally been the far left sites and radical posters engaging in nastiness, with conservative contributors keeping things civil. I like it that way, probably because the (our) moral superiority is objectively reflected.

with Icythus’ point regarding civility here on Redstate. I had always been concerned withthe lack of patience by a few posters here regarding new members at this site. New, young people are always needed to help fuel the cause and keep it going to the next generation. However, if they keep talking down to them as though they are trash, they will inevitably drive them away from Redstate, and from conservatism in general. That would be a real shame.

I do recognize that there are new posters everyday that are there to stir up mischief, but there are also new posters that don’t now the modus operanti of the site as well. Being labeled as a troll or a moby off the bat decreases their enthusiasm to the point that they stop coming to the site at all.

I would think that the goal of Redstate is to advance conservatism, or to teach it to people who might not have an accurate understanding.

Unless its profanity, fails to answer a question, has faulty data, changes topics or is simply a name-calling smear…I have NO beef.
What gets to the spineless is hard (contrary) facts bluntly released.

The goal of the responder is to handle that situation in a calm factual mature manner without any of the above stuff….some simply cannot do that…some are liberal-ish (fact haters, history haters…)

Truth should always be the goal…any deviation from that path needs to be either gently or severely hammered into the truth…wrong is wrong…
its like me posting month after month after liberals “blame Reagan for overspending”…I point out congress spends and the dem congress got 40% more revenue from tax cuts and spent it all…after Tip O’Neil verbally promised “to cut spending dollar for dollar tomatch the tax cuts”…he lied (again)…

McCain ran a sissy campaign…the Repubs ignored history…last time they had the WH 8 years…they lost it by running an old insider…so what did they do? They did it again! Dumb dumb dumb.

Then the voters ignored history again…Obama is a kook surrounded by kooks…he is J. Carter Obama…it is what they do…its a 3 step plan…1. spend wilding to buy votes (2009)…2. raise taxes to cover the wild spending (2010) and then the inflation after that…voters never learned from Carter so here we are…10% jobless is a recovery?

America has one more chance…Nov 2010…one more…and silly cartoons will not stop congress…a blunt FAX is all you have plus letters to papers and such.

Remember one thing only…the modern liberal has NO ethical or moral boundaries…so stop acting shocked. I never was shocked this year but some are still wondering what happened…strident secular socialism happened…and America will be scourged to near death.
Mark it.

I think people are getting more and more angry at what is going on and it’s starting to spill out everywhere.

Online, on the road, in the office.

When we have members of Congress being applauded for telling an ex Vice Pres of the US to STFU – what have we become?

I like healthy debates on topics and issues and strive to not get into name calling that escalates into calling people “moronic, imbecile, stupid”. When you goad someone into that level of response they have lost the argument anyway by replying to a issue with a personal attack.

That being said, I would say that the people on this site are all highly intelligent, politically savy, and well informed on what is happening today. That makes the emotional level increase to a high state of agitation. Lately there seems to be a lull in news that we can put our teeth into that we haven’t already chewed on. That leaves us to take this high state of agitation and direct it towards each other at times. That can be good and bad at the same time. It can be good because it hones our skills (at least those of us that are less skillful) to formulate a thought and present it in written words (much harder than spoken words for me).

The bad is taking it to heart and creating divisions and cliques within the members here. Keep the debate lively, healthy, and stick to the issues leaving the personal insults for the evening news.

Is that better than “idiot”?
Actually, yes. And never forget that Mark Twain elevated “statistician” to a rank above liar and d***ed liar.
So I’m not sure of the use of “incivility” then. Are you just confusing it with a lack of better vocabulary?
I can make a very good argument that it is the Marquis of Queensberry rules of civility, as practiced by one side of the aisle only, that has nearly doomed this country.
I am an old man and old cold warrior, having spent much of my professional career behind the Iron Curtain and third world…in the private, small business (read “covert”) sector. I’ve seen the ravages of what are just now facing down in America, and have posted several policy pieces at my own site The Least Men Standing.
My opinion is that we aren’t being un-civil enough in most of the really important places, and Redstate.com seems to occupy one of those places. I think this is because few Americans actually understand the nature of the threat, especially the younger generation of posters here on Redstate. A well-phrased letter to the editor of the Sunday Times seems to me to more of a vanity than a call to action.
My West Coast partner and deputy director, Bernard Chumm, gets absolutely apoplectic about the subject, having for years tried to enlist the brighter conservative minds to meet the potty-mouthed members of the Left head-on. After all, our side does have the facts, brilliance, even better writing skills…still, according to Bernie, we lack the fire. And a willingness to get our hands dirty.
The fight has always been in the trenches. As my own mentor, now dead once told me, we’ve abandoned the highway to the Left; the loud noise-makers, the bullies, and headed down side streets and back alleys, still prattlling on about our virtues.
He has a point, for as long we don’t even contest the highway, no political victory will last. The cleanup after this next win, if it comes, will be immense, so we may as well get a taste for rising bile in our mouths now.
Besides, who hasn’t prayed to see Mitch or Boehner stand in the well and call Harry or Nancy, well, a d**ned “statistician”?

Icythus raises a good point, and a good subject which should be delved into at great depth, and debated in the spirit of free and open exchange he laid out. I’ll gladly take the Negative.
Vassar Bushmills

I admire all of the mutual appreciation society stuff. Really, I do. I’m glad that there are some genuinely decent human beings on RS who bring this topic up from time to time. I heartily recommend that you continue to do so.

Having said, that, let’s not forget that this is a site for POLITICAL OPINIONS. RS deals with real issues that affect our lives every single day. I realize that Icythus isn’t advocating pulling our punches, but hey this is politics. Rock-and-roll, shoot-and-loot, full-tilt boogie stuff here. If the moderators feel the need to put a caution sign on the frontpage, so be it. I, for one, am going to be offensive from time to time. Others are going to be offensive to me. I do not have the right to not be offended. This is a free-speech zone (for all you campus administrators out there).

Now do I advocate name-calling? No. I certainly don’t advocate profanity either. At the same time, if I make a strongly worded point that someone takes offence to, well.. so be it. Feel free to jab right back at me. I’m a big-boy and an experienced debater. Nothing gets the juices flowing like someone disagreeing with me, especially if they tick me off in the process. That’s what makes politics so much fun!

A few of the old hands around here – and you know who you are, aren’t afraid to drop the hammer on folks from time to time and that’s A OK by me. Not like they need my permission anyway. I’m all for it. If you are easily offended, then perhaps the comments sections just aren’t for you. Nothing wrong with that, it takes all kinds to make the world go ’round. As for me, heck, I’m going to keep wading in there with the best of them. Think of it as the difference between listening to NPR and listening to Mark Levin or Howard Stern. Totally different vibe, although I do listen to all three. I’m also quite happy to jump on our lefty friends on their sites, although I always do so with the understanding that I am a guest and that I am not there to troll, just challenge their views.

And maybe that’s the lesson for everyone here. Act like you are a guest at someone else’s house: behave yourself, don’t pee in the punchbowl, but don’t be so civil that you become docile. Jump in, land a few punches. You might just like it!

Anyway, keep up the good work, icythus. I admire your civility even if I disagree with it.

Perhaps the next time you come across someone being disagreeable and obnoxious, read my post on “WHAT WE ARE DOING WRONG WHEN TRYING TO REACH INDEPENDANTS”.

Maybe it will create thinking on left side too.