You're right, we don't live in that high-trust society I grew up in anymore, and we've lost and are losing so much of everything we took for granted about people because of that. I sometimes wonder if this is partly what is driving the resurgence among Gen Z of interest in liturgical forms of Christianity. That generation are probably the first to come of age without the accepted principles of charity and presumption of the goodwill of others that were a part of the Christian West - the internet enabled a new kind of communication where there were very low-stakes to being a dick basically. Love your work, keep it up!
I strongly agree, Kristin, at least in principle. How we practice them is situational, and we can do better or worse. In any case, here's my version in case it may be useful.
Our society is hobbled by the conflation of politeness and respect.
Respect is not politeness. As you pointed out, politeness is only superficial agreeability. Respect is that we embrace the inconvenience of good on someone else's terms. It's a mindful, contextual activity that requires us to be interested in what other people need, how they go about achieving it and how that may interact. Respect is emergent and evolving. Politeness between strangers is merely the promise of future respect.
You're right that you're not just author, but also host -- and a host has community obligations, but upholding respect is key..
Many essays offer either memoir or advice. Respect in these cases is respect for facts, accuracy of interpretation, accuracy of prediction and fairness toward competing interests. There can be legitimate debates about such stuff.
But community respect is also respect for subject, audience and need. Not for individual opinions, but how well those opinions can serve the purpose. That's set by the author, and enforced by the host.
So as a former moderator I have found the following questions constructive:
1. What aims or intentions motivate the author?
2. What's the author's strategy for pursuing them?
3. What minimum evidence would persuade you that their facts and interpretation are accurate and effective?
4. How best can you support those aims?
Dark Triad folk (narcissists, machiavellians and psychopaths) have great difficulty answering these questions accurately, cleanly and respectfully. If answering is a condition of participation then they'll tend to fail it since they don't care about the aims.
Community is critical to the quality of Substack participation, yet its tools for moderation are limited -- there's block and mute, and that's about it. Rudeness, insensitivity or unconstructive interaction can be nudged, but I agree that demonstrated or even highly probable bad faith deserve no second chances.
On one hand, criticism is necessary to develop better ideas. On the other hand, people do have the right to put on a smackdown. On the third hand, 99.9% of commentary is a waste of letters and a type of crippling mental disorder vented into the internet. On the fourth hand, I'm a sealion who just walked into the trap. I guess my comment will now be deleted.
Never the smackdown, Sarhaddon (what a wonderful name!!).
I don't think the smackdown is necessary, unless it's a response to something immoral and inappropriate. Human decency. We're losing human decency in commentary!
> These adages are leftovers from the halcyon days of the high-trust society I grew up in (and you probably did too). However, I regret to inform you, you don’t live in one now. Which is why an adjustment is in order.
You get a high trust society by driving out or shaming those who abuse "nice" into compliance.
See also Taleb's "Skin in the Game" and the silver rule, or alternately, the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
hoo boy, this is so true! I have had that "sea lioning" thrown at me or seen or thrown at others so many times, especially when it comes to any point that disagrees with DEI. And I have seen it a lot here on Substack too, and not just substack. I can think of one certain individual especially who has been around for quite a while in the "conservative fiction" circles but who doesn't seem to be aware of his less then stellar reputation. When I first came into the writing circles I'm in now, I ran across him and thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. But it was not long at all before I saw him in action and had a clear, personally experienced proof of all the rumors I'd been hearing. Especially when I witnessed exactly why he was thrown out of a certain rising publisher's Discord in the first place since he seemed to think he should be able to violate all the rules and post what he wanted whenever he wanted. But after that, he went on a tear against anything that mentioned that particular press, and he used this "sea lioning" method to do it a lot. Didn't realize this just made him look the fool.
So yeah. I get it. I've witnessed it. I've had it used against me a few times, and yeah, my mom can disapprove if she wants to when I snark back at some of these clowns. At least I'm being honest, and that's a vritue too!
Kindergarten manners are very appropriate for real life, but they are wholly inadequate preparation for the internet, where people are far more coarse. They say things they'd never say to your face in meatspace. So, policing your domain, having a thick skin, being willing to ignore or block are all extremely important.
That said, I've had experiences where someone came out swinging and my calm and charitable responses turned it around, and they became years-long followers. Sometimes the "mosh pit" attitude gets the better of people, and they just need someone to say, "Hey, I'm not your enemy." These are exceptions, however, and I don’t think anyone making snide comments or character smears is entitled to that response.
As a teacher, this resonates strongly with me. I remember being present when my principal was having stern words with a girl who had done something suspension-worthy. Every time the principal tried to speak, the child interrupted her, and when the principal corrected her for interrupting, the child's mother, sitting next to her, said "but she's just asking a question," as if this was the most reasonable thing in the world, and the principal was the real source of the problem.
It all calls to mind one of the great Bill Watterson's best lines: "There would be more civility in the world if people didn't take it as an invitation to walk on you."
"This is not a venue for her to ask questions. This is a time for her to be silent and listen to me. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that at the outset." And that mother probably would have flipped, calling this rational statement "rude." My sister once was horrified at my suggestion that she tell a vulgar colleague "don't speak to me that way." She couldn't imagine saying such a thing because it's "rude." The bullies really did an ace job at brainwashing people into taking their abuse
I think our culture's biggest mistake is believing that shaming bad behavior was in itself "rude" or "negative". No, shaming bad behavior is the polite way to correct it. lol Thunderdome is the rude way, and doormat is the weakest way, a good simple shaming was the healthy middle ground that some how became passé
First off, a much needed article for denizens of the internet. From here, I shall hitch my cars up to your train of thought.
Because we now live in a low-trust society, the rules of the high-trust society we grew up with are null and void. When you have as many dishonest brokers out there pretending to be innocent, helpful and good mannered, yet it is only a sheepskin pulled over your body, you can't let your guard down. In many ways, you need to use Stephan Molyneux twist on the golden rule (I paraphrase):
"At first, treat everyone you meet as how you'd like to be treated. Based upon their response and how they act, assume that this is how THEY want to be treated and act accordingly."
There's a lot of truth to that. It provides some grace, but a smidge too much innocence in today's low-trust environs. That first encounter can end you up in a dog-pile as others demand you remain acting the fool while the wolves they're with try to devour you for their personal enjoyment and power game.
Once it is clear that someone is being deliberately obstinate or foolish, call them out for it and get ready to mute/block them and anyone else that's joined in their little game of Cluster B entertainment. Anyone who criticizes your demand for others to respect your boundaries should also be considered a future threat.
Manners maketh man is true, and separate us from the animals. On the other hand, a gentleman or lady has no obligation to respect barbarians using a facsimile of civility with the intent to sully and soil everything good about polite behavior or allow them into a reasoned, high-trust relationship. It is the gateway to your own destruction for their benefit, but at least you can pull up the drawbridge that allows access to you and pour boiling lead on anyone trying to breach the gates of your peace.
The recently released movie Weapons shows several excellent examples of people being polite to the point it leads to their own destruction.
I don't bother with most online discourse; there's no way I can effectively communicate large and complex ideas via Notes or comments on articles. Even if I put forth the effort, I'll just get a 'nuh-uh' as though that refutation ended the argument.
Few people who respond to me actually parse my words and seek my meaning. It isn't worth the effort; much of online life has become so aggravating it isn't worth the effort. Search engines find only 5 or 6 hits, that's all you'll get. Everything demands I give all my personal information. I have batteries of passwords and IDs and security questions to get through just to use an application. YouTube keeps demanding my cell number and won't let me log in. Even if I get logged in, the algos restrict access to much I'm genuinely interested in seeing. The constant interference with algos nailing vids for gunshot noises or showing a corpse or saying things the anti-American YouTube masters don't like. And there's never any way to contact a live human bean... I paid my mortgage, now I can't get a person on the phone to ask when I'll get the paperwork for my house. I call, it just tells me my mortgage is paid, then hangs up on me.
The modern world is sick, very sick. It no longer functions to meet any expectation I have of how it should. To be frank, it never functioned as I expected it to function. But there was enough left, I managed. Now I'm a stranger in a strange land.
I'm a twenty year veteran of the film industry and I want you to be aware of the messaging & social programming deeply ingrained in productions such as Weapons.
Hollywood is no longer in the business of art or entertainment, no. It WAS when I began my career as a wild eyed, fluffy tailed kid. Now, it's all agenda driven and politicized. All of it.
Please don't refer to it & understand that it's meant to push goodthink on America. I know it's difficult to believe, but it's true. Welcome to 1984.
I used to be in Intelligence. There’s a book out: Hollywood VS America, on this very topic. It’s become a bit dated, but it does well to illustrate the very things you are saying.
I know right well the messages in the movies. But Weapons was better than most movies in the last 20 years.
"But the internet is teeming with bot farms, third-worlders using greek statue throwaway accounts, and weird felons pretending to be Christian homesteading trad-wives."
lolwut? "teeming" with weird felons pretending to be Christian homesteading trad wives?? Who was that?! LMAO.
" But the internet is teeming with bot farms, third-worlders using greek statue throwaway accounts, and weird felons pretending to be Christian homesteading trad-wives."
I LOLD. That was the internet quote of the day as far as I'm concerned.
You are so very right though, and as a GenXer, I may be slightly ahead of the curve for not being of a mind to suffer fools and trolls lightly, but even I have fallen into the politeness trap. Thanks for the reminder that it is not necessary!
And PR firms and marketing teams have applauded sea lioning as a means to boost engagement. I actually find that this pretentious behavior comes from intellectually dishonest people that get off on eating people out of house and home. Overextending their stay like you mentioned abuses people’s natural affinity for empathy. Ugh drives me up the wall how daft the comments sections can be but what’s even more wild are social policies that limit what you can say and if you want to tell someone to fuck off you cant now because the corporate automaton barbies have made it impossible to speak from a place of authenticity. You say something enough times or experiencing it enough times, you end up believing it. People lose sight of what’s real and keep sea lioning you into believing their point of view is the only view.
I may be stretching, but it’s worth pointing out that even Jesus was “rude” to the self righteous Pharisees and Sadducees.
For the Christian reader, we’ve made an idol of compassion and niceness. God made all our emotions, even our “negative” ones, for a reason.
There is a time and place for tones that seem rude, it’s arguably scriptural.
Jesus had Holy Wrath.
I don't believe Kristin has done anything worthy of God's anger, sir! XD
No, it's just today's culture: it doesn't respect the other; and that's very concerning.
James 1:20
You're right, we don't live in that high-trust society I grew up in anymore, and we've lost and are losing so much of everything we took for granted about people because of that. I sometimes wonder if this is partly what is driving the resurgence among Gen Z of interest in liturgical forms of Christianity. That generation are probably the first to come of age without the accepted principles of charity and presumption of the goodwill of others that were a part of the Christian West - the internet enabled a new kind of communication where there were very low-stakes to being a dick basically. Love your work, keep it up!
I strongly agree, Kristin, at least in principle. How we practice them is situational, and we can do better or worse. In any case, here's my version in case it may be useful.
Our society is hobbled by the conflation of politeness and respect.
Respect is not politeness. As you pointed out, politeness is only superficial agreeability. Respect is that we embrace the inconvenience of good on someone else's terms. It's a mindful, contextual activity that requires us to be interested in what other people need, how they go about achieving it and how that may interact. Respect is emergent and evolving. Politeness between strangers is merely the promise of future respect.
You're right that you're not just author, but also host -- and a host has community obligations, but upholding respect is key..
Many essays offer either memoir or advice. Respect in these cases is respect for facts, accuracy of interpretation, accuracy of prediction and fairness toward competing interests. There can be legitimate debates about such stuff.
But community respect is also respect for subject, audience and need. Not for individual opinions, but how well those opinions can serve the purpose. That's set by the author, and enforced by the host.
So as a former moderator I have found the following questions constructive:
1. What aims or intentions motivate the author?
2. What's the author's strategy for pursuing them?
3. What minimum evidence would persuade you that their facts and interpretation are accurate and effective?
4. How best can you support those aims?
Dark Triad folk (narcissists, machiavellians and psychopaths) have great difficulty answering these questions accurately, cleanly and respectfully. If answering is a condition of participation then they'll tend to fail it since they don't care about the aims.
Community is critical to the quality of Substack participation, yet its tools for moderation are limited -- there's block and mute, and that's about it. Rudeness, insensitivity or unconstructive interaction can be nudged, but I agree that demonstrated or even highly probable bad faith deserve no second chances.
Hope that may be of interest.
This is outstanding and I think I’ll save it for future reference
On one hand, criticism is necessary to develop better ideas. On the other hand, people do have the right to put on a smackdown. On the third hand, 99.9% of commentary is a waste of letters and a type of crippling mental disorder vented into the internet. On the fourth hand, I'm a sealion who just walked into the trap. I guess my comment will now be deleted.
On point, cogent, and not a Whiff of disingenuous pomposity. I’ll allow it 😆
Never the smackdown, Sarhaddon (what a wonderful name!!).
I don't think the smackdown is necessary, unless it's a response to something immoral and inappropriate. Human decency. We're losing human decency in commentary!
> These adages are leftovers from the halcyon days of the high-trust society I grew up in (and you probably did too). However, I regret to inform you, you don’t live in one now. Which is why an adjustment is in order.
You get a high trust society by driving out or shaming those who abuse "nice" into compliance.
See also Taleb's "Skin in the Game" and the silver rule, or alternately, the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
hoo boy, this is so true! I have had that "sea lioning" thrown at me or seen or thrown at others so many times, especially when it comes to any point that disagrees with DEI. And I have seen it a lot here on Substack too, and not just substack. I can think of one certain individual especially who has been around for quite a while in the "conservative fiction" circles but who doesn't seem to be aware of his less then stellar reputation. When I first came into the writing circles I'm in now, I ran across him and thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. But it was not long at all before I saw him in action and had a clear, personally experienced proof of all the rumors I'd been hearing. Especially when I witnessed exactly why he was thrown out of a certain rising publisher's Discord in the first place since he seemed to think he should be able to violate all the rules and post what he wanted whenever he wanted. But after that, he went on a tear against anything that mentioned that particular press, and he used this "sea lioning" method to do it a lot. Didn't realize this just made him look the fool.
So yeah. I get it. I've witnessed it. I've had it used against me a few times, and yeah, my mom can disapprove if she wants to when I snark back at some of these clowns. At least I'm being honest, and that's a vritue too!
Kindergarten manners are very appropriate for real life, but they are wholly inadequate preparation for the internet, where people are far more coarse. They say things they'd never say to your face in meatspace. So, policing your domain, having a thick skin, being willing to ignore or block are all extremely important.
That said, I've had experiences where someone came out swinging and my calm and charitable responses turned it around, and they became years-long followers. Sometimes the "mosh pit" attitude gets the better of people, and they just need someone to say, "Hey, I'm not your enemy." These are exceptions, however, and I don’t think anyone making snide comments or character smears is entitled to that response.
As a teacher, this resonates strongly with me. I remember being present when my principal was having stern words with a girl who had done something suspension-worthy. Every time the principal tried to speak, the child interrupted her, and when the principal corrected her for interrupting, the child's mother, sitting next to her, said "but she's just asking a question," as if this was the most reasonable thing in the world, and the principal was the real source of the problem.
It all calls to mind one of the great Bill Watterson's best lines: "There would be more civility in the world if people didn't take it as an invitation to walk on you."
"This is not a venue for her to ask questions. This is a time for her to be silent and listen to me. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that at the outset." And that mother probably would have flipped, calling this rational statement "rude." My sister once was horrified at my suggestion that she tell a vulgar colleague "don't speak to me that way." She couldn't imagine saying such a thing because it's "rude." The bullies really did an ace job at brainwashing people into taking their abuse
I think our culture's biggest mistake is believing that shaming bad behavior was in itself "rude" or "negative". No, shaming bad behavior is the polite way to correct it. lol Thunderdome is the rude way, and doormat is the weakest way, a good simple shaming was the healthy middle ground that some how became passé
First off, a much needed article for denizens of the internet. From here, I shall hitch my cars up to your train of thought.
Because we now live in a low-trust society, the rules of the high-trust society we grew up with are null and void. When you have as many dishonest brokers out there pretending to be innocent, helpful and good mannered, yet it is only a sheepskin pulled over your body, you can't let your guard down. In many ways, you need to use Stephan Molyneux twist on the golden rule (I paraphrase):
"At first, treat everyone you meet as how you'd like to be treated. Based upon their response and how they act, assume that this is how THEY want to be treated and act accordingly."
There's a lot of truth to that. It provides some grace, but a smidge too much innocence in today's low-trust environs. That first encounter can end you up in a dog-pile as others demand you remain acting the fool while the wolves they're with try to devour you for their personal enjoyment and power game.
Once it is clear that someone is being deliberately obstinate or foolish, call them out for it and get ready to mute/block them and anyone else that's joined in their little game of Cluster B entertainment. Anyone who criticizes your demand for others to respect your boundaries should also be considered a future threat.
Manners maketh man is true, and separate us from the animals. On the other hand, a gentleman or lady has no obligation to respect barbarians using a facsimile of civility with the intent to sully and soil everything good about polite behavior or allow them into a reasoned, high-trust relationship. It is the gateway to your own destruction for their benefit, but at least you can pull up the drawbridge that allows access to you and pour boiling lead on anyone trying to breach the gates of your peace.
The recently released movie Weapons shows several excellent examples of people being polite to the point it leads to their own destruction.
I don't bother with most online discourse; there's no way I can effectively communicate large and complex ideas via Notes or comments on articles. Even if I put forth the effort, I'll just get a 'nuh-uh' as though that refutation ended the argument.
Few people who respond to me actually parse my words and seek my meaning. It isn't worth the effort; much of online life has become so aggravating it isn't worth the effort. Search engines find only 5 or 6 hits, that's all you'll get. Everything demands I give all my personal information. I have batteries of passwords and IDs and security questions to get through just to use an application. YouTube keeps demanding my cell number and won't let me log in. Even if I get logged in, the algos restrict access to much I'm genuinely interested in seeing. The constant interference with algos nailing vids for gunshot noises or showing a corpse or saying things the anti-American YouTube masters don't like. And there's never any way to contact a live human bean... I paid my mortgage, now I can't get a person on the phone to ask when I'll get the paperwork for my house. I call, it just tells me my mortgage is paid, then hangs up on me.
The modern world is sick, very sick. It no longer functions to meet any expectation I have of how it should. To be frank, it never functioned as I expected it to function. But there was enough left, I managed. Now I'm a stranger in a strange land.
I'm a twenty year veteran of the film industry and I want you to be aware of the messaging & social programming deeply ingrained in productions such as Weapons.
Hollywood is no longer in the business of art or entertainment, no. It WAS when I began my career as a wild eyed, fluffy tailed kid. Now, it's all agenda driven and politicized. All of it.
Please don't refer to it & understand that it's meant to push goodthink on America. I know it's difficult to believe, but it's true. Welcome to 1984.
I used to be in Intelligence. There’s a book out: Hollywood VS America, on this very topic. It’s become a bit dated, but it does well to illustrate the very things you are saying.
I know right well the messages in the movies. But Weapons was better than most movies in the last 20 years.
Very true, sir. It's a good film.
Thank you for what you do and for protecting us. I'll look for the title.
Used to be. No longer working intell.
Thank you for your gratitude; intell is rather like Hollywood, quite corrupted. And incompetent.
Thank you for working to make others cognizant of the messaging in all Hollywood output.
Horseshit. They were sexualizing Shirley Temple before your grandma was born
"But the internet is teeming with bot farms, third-worlders using greek statue throwaway accounts, and weird felons pretending to be Christian homesteading trad-wives."
lolwut? "teeming" with weird felons pretending to be Christian homesteading trad wives?? Who was that?! LMAO.
Lol I see you have missed the tale of Patriarchy Hannah :) https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/tradwife-account-patriarchy-hannah-apologizes-lies-says-was-not-presen-rcna192664
" But the internet is teeming with bot farms, third-worlders using greek statue throwaway accounts, and weird felons pretending to be Christian homesteading trad-wives."
I LOLD. That was the internet quote of the day as far as I'm concerned.
You are so very right though, and as a GenXer, I may be slightly ahead of the curve for not being of a mind to suffer fools and trolls lightly, but even I have fallen into the politeness trap. Thanks for the reminder that it is not necessary!
And PR firms and marketing teams have applauded sea lioning as a means to boost engagement. I actually find that this pretentious behavior comes from intellectually dishonest people that get off on eating people out of house and home. Overextending their stay like you mentioned abuses people’s natural affinity for empathy. Ugh drives me up the wall how daft the comments sections can be but what’s even more wild are social policies that limit what you can say and if you want to tell someone to fuck off you cant now because the corporate automaton barbies have made it impossible to speak from a place of authenticity. You say something enough times or experiencing it enough times, you end up believing it. People lose sight of what’s real and keep sea lioning you into believing their point of view is the only view.
You don't have to put up with that, but a simple block is more effective.
People don’t have a right to your respect or common courtesy