Manners have been one of the primary preoccupations of humanity, possibly since the beginning of civilization itself. People have been complaining that the young don’t have any for at least that long, and some cultures have been so rigorous on the point that having bad manners can end up carrying the death penalty.
When people have nothing else, it seems they hold on to this: prisons have some of the most byzantine rules of respect and custom around, as new inmates find out through blood and violence. People in very poor societies often have some of the most elaborate and fervently observed customs, especially relating to rules of hospitality.
Civilization runs on a series of abstract conceits. You can spend a lifetime delving into the natural laws of the universe, and never once will you run across any energy or matter that adds up to justice, or mercy, or law, or morality itself. Without these conceits, there is no civilization; it relies on a system of agreed beliefs, and also upon penalties for rejecting them. When someone institutes their own rule contrary to the most basic- usually something along the lines of “If I can take it from you, it’s mine”- we punish them. The recognition of this is what the original idea of the social contract rests upon; sacrificing the freedom to do absolutely anything you wish in order to gain some measure of peace and protection from those who are exceptionally good at taking. Otherwise, most of life would be spent as it is for low-ranked primates or animals in a sorry position on the food chain, on obsessively finding and attempting to secure food and mates, if only for a brief time. Specialization of any kind would be impossible.
Unlike justice, mercy, or post-modernism, however, manners are not entirely a human invention. All social animals with brains more complex than a sardine’s have some version of them. Mammals especially have body language rotating around eye contact and raised or lowered body posture; they are social tools for resolving questions of status or conflicts of interest without bloodshed. Fighting wastes tremendous amounts of energy and puts individuals at risk for long, debilitating healing periods, infections, or worse. These basic gestures solve most problems before they become truly problematic, in a physical sense. The more complex the animals, the greater the number of possible types of interactions, thus the greater the risk of conflict, and the more important these little rituals become. They are a universal enough concept that useful domestication of animals beyond a role as a penned food source becomes possible: training a dog or a horse for serious work relies first upon the animal recognizing an individual outside its own species as having some kind of authority over it, and second upon the animal and the human working out systems of acceptable behavior based on both species’ rules.
While we are not animals, we have replaced a great deal of these systems with shared abstract concepts*. If this were not true, instead of angrily bitching about snotty teenagers with their jeans hanging down to their knees, there would be a mass epidemic of teenagers with swollen ears and noses to go with the ill-fitting clothes. More than that, we have introduced huge social systems that not only are largely free-for-all zones, but put people out of all physical range of the person they’re talking to. It was noted that people are ruder over the phone when that was introduced, and we now have a system that removes the voice as well as the face. (The face being where all of the most primal “stop fucking with me” social signals show most clearly, and are hardest to ignore.) Thus was born the flowering diversity of internet irritants, all thanks to the disinhibition effect.
Which brings us to the question of why, if all the physical and most of the traditional cues relating to manners have been removed, should we even care about manners on the internet, provided we aren’t talking to someone we already have a relationship with? Why can’t we take the next step as creatures of reason and respond purely to factual content, with no mind paid to complicated cues and subtle shadings?
Well, for starters, the day we become creatures of pure reason is probably the same day we achieve functional communism and universal pacifism. As long as we think of ourselves as relating to another being, all the primate baggage kicks in- even if we know we aren’t really, as when we lose it and yell at a customer-service voicemail maze.
But we’re not monkeys or chimps, we’re people with math and computers and everything, so why should there be any more reason to be polite to a faceless person of neutral relationship online (or in correspondence, or any other setting in which the risk of physical confrontation is low to nonexistent) than there is to be nice to the voicemail system?
Because as with the nonverbal cues of a normal conversation, civility- if only in the subtleties of text- still gives us a lot of information that saves us from an otherwise long and frustrating filtering process. There are a great many motivations for communication, and the sheer commonness of trolls tells us that there’s a great deal of basic satisfaction in talking (or typing, if you want to be literal) simply to manipulate someone else into being hurt, angry, or even just confused. It’s certainly no new phenomenon; every toddler discovers this basic power to annoy as the earliest and simplest way to have power over others, and every toddler is trained out of it. Either the child is civilized, or simply taught that annoying someone for the sheer joy of it is a fast route to pain or loss of something valued. More subtly, any form of emotional manipulation- be it trolling, appeals to sentiment (as in the sob stories the Snopes archive calls glurge), or great self-righteousness- is the fastest and easiest way to hide a weak argument. If the reader is feeling more than they’re thinking, they may miss it entirely.
Being a jerk (or a crusader, or a preacher, or a whore) is vastly more commonly employed as a tactic to hide poor reasoning than it is employed because the person talking has such excellent knowledge and reasoning that they can afford to indulge the impulse. And as such, it creates extremely useful filters for the reader.
Civility eliminates the time and effort involved in determining if an argument is worth pursuing. It even applies to less obvious areas; a person in a totally writing-based environment who takes no time or trouble to make sure his prose is easily readable** is sending the quieter message that he doesn’t give a damn about the time and effort necessary to sort through the mess.
That’s why.
*Unless you’re in prison. Or school.
**And to that end, we’ve hopefully resolved the brain-text problem. There will be a new format in the future once we figure out what we want and how to do it, but this should make life easier for y’all.