Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

stactivist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 204 posts

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#21

Post by douche »

Noseshine wrote: post #14
Animats wrote: post #8

Recommended reading: "Assholes, a Theory", by Aaron James. This is a serious analysis of asshole behavior and why society rewards it. The latter is the key point. There are benefits to being an asshole in some organizations.

Sooo... anecdote. My phone (and Internet) company only allowed switching to a different plan (for phone and Internet at home) when at least two years had passed since the initial contract. So there still was about a month before I could do anything, their web interface would not let me switch the plan and instead told me the above. So the day after the two years are over I go back to the web form to switch my plan -…

That's the first rule of customer service/tech support: Be enough of a dickhead to get escalated up out of the minimum wage/skill script readers in the outsourcing farm and get in contact with somebody with some knowledge and authority to actually do something.

Most of these organizations are setup as a cost center, and their whole purpose is to deflect.

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#22

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jbmorgado wrote: post #9

Actually I see the present problem as exactly the opposite. More and more we live in a culture where people think it's their right to feel offended and for anyone saying anything that makes them fell that way to just be shut up by someone (some faculty department for instance). It is becoming basically a Politically Correct culture of censorship and we keep seeing opinion texts (just like this one) that appeal to tha…

There are people who are genuinely toxic. If they get in your company, they'll destroy it. (The worst I've ever seen, I fortunately never had to work with. But if I did, I would make it clear to management that it was me or him within five minutes of his being hired.)

Then there are people who are genuinely too thin skinned. If you listen to their complaints, they'll lead you to destroy your company, because you'll persecute perfectly reasonable behavior and create a "witch hunt" atmosphere.

But some of the "thin skinned" stuff is realizing that people shouldn't have to put up with things that used to be considered "normal". Sometimes we grow up and realize that what we used to do was really pretty crummy. For those who haven't realized that yet, it looks like people becoming more thin skinned. (I'm not saying that this is your situation. But if you perceive others as becoming too thin skinned toward specific behavior, you maybe should at least consider whether that behavior is as benign as you think.)

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#23

Post by tn13 »

Animats wrote: post #8

Recommended reading: "Assholes, a Theory", by Aaron James. This is a serious analysis of asshole behavior and why society rewards it. The latter is the key point. There are benefits to being an asshole in some organizations.

I am from India. The a part of transgender community often known as Hijras come to public places and demand money. Often they touch you while demanding money else they will simply lift their clothes to expose their genitals. Often to avoid that touch you end up giving them money.

The technique was further refined by beggar community who will deliberately be filthy and to avoid their touch you will end up paying the money.

I think assholes benefit from the fear of rest of the people to be civil.

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#24

Post by Mz »

smacktoward wrote: post #15
MrZongle2 wrote: post #12

I would add one thing to the author's list of admirable behavior: always seek out the truth, no matter where it lies. IMO a component of the growing toxic atmosphere in public discourse is the "win at all costs" mindset, that fosters the belief that a little white lie here and there is justified by the end goal.

Not all truths are the same size, though. If someone is ugly, telling them so in conversation is both completely truthful and completely unhelpful. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's necessary to say it out loud, or constructive to building a civil, respectful space.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Calling someone ugly says at least as much about you as it does them, possibly more.

Furthermore, the whole point of the piece about civility is that it protects individuals so we can more effectively hash out ideas that matter. Unless you are hiring a model, whether someone is "ugly" or not is likely not terribly relevant to the work you are trying to do.

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#25

Post by tdkl »

tn13 wrote: post #23
Animats wrote: post #8

Recommended reading: "Assholes, a Theory", by Aaron James. This is a serious analysis of asshole behavior and why society rewards it. The latter is the key point. There are benefits to being an asshole in some organizations.

I am from India. The a part of transgender community often known as Hijras come to public places and demand money. Often they touch you while demanding money else they will simply lift their clothes to expose their genitals. Often to avoid that touch you end up giving them money. The technique was further refined by beggar community who will deliberately be filthy and to avoid their touch you will end up paying the m…

>I think assholes benefit from the fear of rest of the people to be civil.

Just see the Europe.

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#26

Post by __derek__ »

partisan wrote: post #11
mwsherman wrote: post #2

A little meta-civility goes a long way, too. If one is inclined to call people jerks, bozos and assholes, perhaps one is not understanding people very well. It’s much more effective to work learn about people, their predilections, biases and experiences. No one is a “checkbox” asshole. Much better to focus on specific behaviors, instead of writing off a person as a type. When I see a company describe its “no assholes…

> When I see a company describe its “no assholes” rule, I see a company inclined toward calling people assholes. I agree. I'd rather they have a "golden rule" policy which would effectively accomplish the same thing, but coming from a positive perspective. Starting from a negative point means expectations are low. I had the good fortune of working at a place for 6 years where I never heard someone use a curse word or…

I attended npm Camp on Saturday, and the tl;dr version of their policy may fit the bill:

> be actively kind

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#27

Post by stygiansonic »

rsp1984 wrote: post #16

Straight to the point. My colleague clearly and succinctly explained why an inappropriate behavior occurred and what motivated him to respond. If this happens visibly to the team it is likely that the person behind the behavior will take this as an attack, especially if he/she is a true asshole. Not good for long-term working climate. Also, it has a flavor of "white-knighting" oneself if it's done in front of the tea…

I would also like to add that in my experience, unfortunately, "asshole"-like behavior isn't going to change when the source is a person in authority or a person close to someone in authority.

I've been at two separate jobs where I encountered people like this. (Thankfully, I did not have to directly work with them - that would have been tough). Coincidentally, both had the title of "Senior Architect" or something like that, and both were extremely bellicose and condescending in their tone to a variety of people, both in person, on the phone and in emails.

In both cases, I knew of multiple people who had complained about the individual's behavior to management yet in both circumstances, nothing was done and the behavior continued. In one case, more than one person quit and specifically called out the offensive person in their "farewell" email. (This is not something I would recommend)

I eventually left both positions, for other reasons. In one case, during my exit interview, I was specifically asked by HR if I'd ever experienced any "difficult" behavior from the individual in question. I declined to give any details, as by that point it was clear to me that management not only ignored this behavior but condoned it as well. (You may not agree with my course of action) As far as I know, both of these people are still working at the same places, and I'm assuming nothing has changed.

This is unfortunately how many of these situations end up. My advice is to choose your battles wisely.

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#28

Post by epistasis »

jbmorgado wrote: post #9

Actually I see the present problem as exactly the opposite. More and more we live in a culture where people think it's their right to feel offended and for anyone saying anything that makes them fell that way to just be shut up by someone (some faculty department for instance). It is becoming basically a Politically Correct culture of censorship and we keep seeing opinion texts (just like this one) that appeal to tha…

>I don't see it as more and more people becoming jerks, I see it as more and more people becoming thin skinned.

When everybody else seems thin-skinned, is it everybody else that has the problem?

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#29

Post by digi_owl »

Mz wrote: post #19
andrewbinstock wrote: post #3

When I was the editor of Dr. Dobb's, we were very concerned about how to create a lively discussion forum that was free from jerks and unpleasant people. Ultimately, we settled on two components: treat everyone respectfully even those who seemed to be trolling, and delete all insulting posts. This largely worked. Similar elements seem to work here on HN too. That the efficacy of this approach is repeatable suggests t…

That the efficacy of this approach is repeatable suggests that the problem exists primarily b/c sites are willing to put up with bad behavior. Many people, even people running discussion forums with years of experience, simply do not know how to fix it and often believe it cannot be fixed. It is also common for them to "put out the fire with gasoline." On an email list, I used to say "fighting against the fighting is…

Aka have the patience of a saint?

Re: The vanishing civility: The game of jerks, bozos and assholes

#30

Post by duaneb »

andrewbinstock wrote: post #3

When I was the editor of Dr. Dobb's, we were very concerned about how to create a lively discussion forum that was free from jerks and unpleasant people. Ultimately, we settled on two components: treat everyone respectfully even those who seemed to be trolling, and delete all insulting posts. This largely worked. Similar elements seem to work here on HN too. That the efficacy of this approach is repeatable suggests t…

> That the efficacy of this approach is repeatable suggests that the problem exists primarily b/c sites are willing to put up with bad behavior.

I think there's a little more at play, here. Look at the two subreddits /r/askhistorians and /r/askreddit, which vary about as much as possible in moderation patterns and resulting quality: /r/askhistorians is possibly the best moderated forum on the internet, allowing only high quality top-level comments from a historiographical perspective. OTOH /r/AskReddit is a cesspool of bigotry, puns, and reddit memes so tired they might as well be generated stochastically.

However, looking at what differentiates them, it's entirely culture. It's not that the moderators on /r/AskReddit are bad or aren't interested in moderation, they are simply trying to cultivate a much less formal discussion. Similarly, I think you'll see higher rates of success wrt moderation on focused, interest-driven discussion than on "free-for-all" forums where one can e.g. successfully start a blessed conversation with the intent to troll the forum itself.

For an example, people arguing for neo-nazi type politics on HN (or Dr. Dobbs) might not be tolerated for obvious reasons. But they're also not likely to comment in either place. On an article discussing controversy affecting the general public, you're going to have an extremely difficult time finding a line between civil and uncivil discussion—the normal for the context is probably not civil by most peoples' standards, but restricting the conversation would look a whole lot like trying to shape it.

Tl;dr every community has its own needs and expectations; I don't think there is a moderation panacea without creating isolated communities that self-select towards the conversation they want to have.

Thoughts?

Post reply on HN