It's not appropriate philosophically speaking, but sometimes it can be fun. If an interlocutor takes a discussion in a heated direction, then it can be appropriate to reciprocate their tone, but it's generally bad form to escalate to insults.

Being abusive is hardly a winning strategy. One is rarely one more slur away from convincing them. "Fun" as it may be...

Not in my opinion.
I would say that once a disagreement reaches that level of emotion, each side is no longer absorbing information to analyze, and is instead defending their identity.

It depends on the context. Take an extreme: say you're arguing with one of the Nazis who marched at Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us", it would absolutely not be inappropriate to say to them "How could you possibly say that!" or "That's a wicked viewpoint!". At the other extreme, calling someone an idiot for preferring Coca cola to Pepsi would absolutely be over-the-top (I'm only giving extreme examples to illustrate that there's no foolproof black and white answer to your question btw. I know they're untypical). Then you've got everywhere in between where generally direct name-calling is unhelpful and may be considered abusive, but tones of disbelief are generally acceptable.

In terms of the rules here, you can report anyone who flames you (calls you an idiot, fool etc.) and that post will most likely be deleted unless, possibly, if it's in the Lounge category, which is more casual and where there's more tolerance for that type of the thing.

Short answer: As per the guidelines: Expressing yourself strongly is ok but flaming tips over into abuse. (And context will always be considered.)

Being abusive is hardly a winning strategy. — All sight

If it's just about how best to market your idea to your opponent in order to convince him/her you're right and they're wrong, i.e. to "win", it's more about effectiveness than appropriacy, which is a different issue, I'd say.

Sadly, being abusive verbally has shown to be a good strategy in online argumentation. The objective being not to convince the other or make them accept that they made a mistake, but rather to be the one perceived as able to "school" rather than be schooled.

Since such argumentation rely on pre-existing groupthink dynamics and humour rather than a logical analysis of the content of the arguments, a site like TPF should (and does :up: ) restrict its use as much as possible, and encourage everyone to adopt the later form.

But as a tool, abusive argumentation remains very effective, if the objective is to score points with an known auditory.

It depends on the context. Take an extreme: say you're arguing with one of the Nazis who marched at Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us", it would absolutely not be inappropriate to say to them "How could you possibly say that!" or "That's a wicked viewpoint!". — Baden

It is inappropriate if you wish to dissuade them. If we couldn't just physically make them stop, what does distancing yourself and disapproving do, other than as Akanthinos suggested, score points with already in agreement listeners, to huddle closer to them, by creating a greater distance from detractors. It furthers conflict, widens disagreement rather than resolves anything. It's using others as a tool to assert one's goodness, affiliations, and allegiances...

Well, the point with people as dangerous as Nazis (to stay with this example) is primarily to stop them doing the damage they do. There are different ways to achieve that including marginalizing them through the use of discourse and avoiding giving them a platform for their views (as we do here where Nazis are insta-banned). So, while I agree with your sentiment in general, the specifics complicate things. For example, to take another extreme, it's arguable that the best response to Hitler and his followers in the early 1930s (supposing you knew what would happen) would have been to shoot them all rather than to try to engage them in reasoned debate. On a utilitarian calculation at least. Now, I'm not in any way suggesting violence be used with the Nazis of today, just pointing out that the appropriate way to deal with those who expose extreme ideologies may sometimes be extreme, or at least more severe than with those in the mainstream. And may certainly extend beyond the bounds of polite debate which in a way legitimizes their positions (and again that's why we don't allow them here).

In any case, out of curiosity, what rational arguments do you think Nazis and their ilk would be responsive too? Because, honestly, I don't think people at that level are open to rational argumentation. If you can manage to believe the holocaust never happened, and Hitler was actually a good guy, you are very likely too far gone to be convinced of anything to the contrary (on an internet forum at least). Having said all that, do whatever works. Anyone who reduces the number of racists, Nazis etc in the world, short of using physical violence to do it, has my unconditional support and appreciation.

Love is the answer. We are far from entirely rational beings, but love breeds love, and hatred, hatred. With policies about killing too extreme of divergents, you'd better hope that you always remain in power. Being hateful and inflammatory, even to the worse of your enemies just shuts people down, makes them stop listening.

Like raising your child, you do need to disapprove of some things that they do, but you have to have such a relationship where they care about your approval in the first place. When faith and love are lost, is when force is required. Hatred is not stopped by hatred.

I sincerely believe that such extreme action makes things worse, creates a bigger problem, widens gulfs. I would rather reduce hatred and violence in the world, not increase it...

I would rather reduce hatred and violence in the world, not increase it... — All sight

So would I, but (sticking with the more extreme examples we spoke of) loving Hitler wouldn't have stopped him in WWII. It took an invasion of Europe. Loving him would likely have resulted in mass enslavement for those loving souls and actually increased hatred and violence against his victims. So, while I wish love was always the answer (and agree that it is the most desirable answer) the fact that it's obviously not, doesn't mean hatred or violence has to be either. Sometimes you just need to act decisively in context on the basis of an ethical decision that may require you to do that which is not immediately emotionally comfortable but leads to a better long-term outcome.

Like raising your child, you do need to disapprove of some things that they do, but you have to have such a relationship where they care about your approval in the first place. — All sight

When you have total power over someone, it's much easier to advocate unconditional love. And I would go along with this (unless my child acquired a case of psychopathy and a dangerous weapon, in which case some harsh discipline may be appropriate).

Loving him would not only fail, and get you harmed, but make him even eviler? I don't agree, I think that love is the answer. You can think that abuse and force is, if they deserve it enough... I don't.

You'd kill your child to save your own life? Do you have any children?

If you stood by "loving" Hitler without making any attempt to forcibly stop him while he proceeded to annihilate the Jewish race, you would be the evil one. If you think giving him love while he was doing this would have stopped him then you're also highly delusional. But you don't really think that, do you?

You'd kill your child to save your own life? — All sight

Where did I say I'd kill my own child. I said "harsh discipline". Why would you think that meant an execution?

Because we are speaking precisely about the most extremes, as you reiterated multiple times...

Do I think that I'm evil and delusional? No, I don't suppose so. Do you think that stating that I am does anything beneficial? Do you not find that to be the definition of brow-beating?

No, it's not brow-beating.If anyone (including you) advocated standing by and not doing anything except expressing love for Hitler while he proceeded to wipe out the Jewish race then that person would be doing something morally wrong or evil or use whatever term you like (Agree or disagree?). If anyone (including you) thinks that loving Hitler would have stopped him killing the Jews, they are delusional, very mistaken etc. (Agree or disagree?). In order to have a conversation about ethics, we have to make ethical judgments, do we not? Or is there no act you consider evil and no opinion you consider delusional?

I don't understand, in your mind are you there killing nazis and I'm loving Hitler from a distance? I'm speaking of engaging a person in conversation, the things we do here. How much physical force are you exerting, how many people are you making stop their wicked ways through force? I'm saying that if we were attempting to dissuade someone that having love for them, and treating them with kindness and respect does wonders. If you were to converse with him, and personally attempt to dissuade him, just calling him evil and delusional would be far less effective...

widens disagreement rather than resolves anything. — All sight

Widening disagreement with Nazis is an excellent goal to pursue. It is right, and good, and just, to hate them, and everything they stand for. What did wonders was bombing the third Reich into bloody, firey, submission and making sure that one couldn't put the word 'love' and 'Nazi' in the same sentence without spewing a little. A lesson that we now seem to be forgetting because some people are apparently are so coddled and privileged to think that a bit of discursive decorum is not worth the indignity of telling supporters of literal genocide to fuck off and die.

Abuse has a honourable and well-deserved place at the table of argument, in the right contexts.

I don't understand, in your mind are you there killing nazis and I'm loving Hitler from a distance? I'm speaking of engaging a person in conversation, the things we do here. — All sight

We got into a hypothetical which will help me to understand your views. Now, can you answer my questions please? As again it will help me to understand whether you are taking a principled approach or even a coherent one. I'll answer yours...

How much physical force are you exerting, how many people are you making stop their wicked ways through force? — All sight

I'm not presently exerting physical force.

I'm saying that if we were attempting to dissuade someone that having love for them, and treating them with kindness and respect does wonders. — All sight

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Isn't that obvious to you just from your observations of real life?

Aren't you all just selfishly concerned with distancing, and personal assertions of righteousness?

You are being disrespectful and unkind now. I asked you nicely to answer my questions, then answered yours and did not impugn your character yet you feel the need to attack me. Why are you being abusive? Don't you love me?

From my personal observations it works wonders, that's why I'm saying it. I was certainly a lot more hot blooded, and prone to agitation when I was younger, and life was much much harder.

Which questions?

These ones:

If anyone (including you) advocated standing by and not doing anything except expressing love for Hitler while he proceeded to wipe out the Jewish race then that person would be doing something morally wrong or evil or use whatever term you like (Agree or disagree?). If anyone (including you) thinks that loving Hitler would have stopped him killing the Jews, they are delusional, very mistaken etc. (Agree or disagree?). — Baden

You're just not being serious, and attempting to accuse me of hypocrisy.

I answered that question, I said that I never suggested standing by and loving hitler from a distance, but within the context of dissuasion through conversation.

Is there some inherent moral (or intellectual, etc.) deficit with Nazis that makes them more receptive to that sort of racial worldview? The "authoritarian personality" sort of thing? I would assume there was a time when those who identify as Nazis were not Nazis, and through some confluence of predisposition, life events, and other things they were turned in that direction.

If something like that is the case, then perhaps radically different experiences could shift them away from Nazism. I read recently about a KKK member whose bail was paid by a black man, under the condition that the former would visit a museum dedicated to slavery. That's the type of magnanimous, loving behavior that brings tears to my eyes.

Moreover, as an added bonus I imagine it's much more efficacious than bludgeoning the KKK guy with insults - although I understand that desire, too, along with other less tolerant strategies.

You're just not being serious, and attempting to accuse me of hypocrisy. — All sight

Again, you are being disrespectful and unkind. I am not attacking your character and am trying to show love as you suggested.

They are yes/no questions. Please do me the courtesy of responding with a yes/no answer to each. Thank you in advance.

That's the way it can work. Not on the internet though. It's too impersonal.

It isn't obvious that we are morally obliged to stop evil, else we're all pretty damn evil for not being vigilantes. No. I think that love is the cure, so no, I don't find that delusional.