Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT
 

(Edit: Using this post as a jumping off point)

Specter Von Baren:
Hhm. So this is the thread that got Saelune suspended. Hopefully this means they'll think about how they've been acting and shape up and be civil again.

"And they called [Obama] a muslim, a terrorist, they insulted his wife, his daughters ...
And now they want civility?

Okay sure you can have civility if you hop in a time machine, and change the past, so that you deserve civility because until then ... civility is not on the table."

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9vvfyw/when_the_us_had_a_president_who_wouldnt_let_a/e9fk5hj/?context=3

Not my reddit post, but a point I agree with.

Civility is a tool of oppression. Civility is what those in power demand of those not in power, for civility helps them stay in power. Civility keeps people from calling out others for their misdeads. Civility worse yet, being used to oppress by people who neglect their own civility.

What civility is there in white supremacy? None. What civility is there in rape? None. What civility is there in murdering a black man who gun nuts could have used as a champion for the 'Good guy with gun' mentality but instead was shot dead, while white mass shooters are treated with the civility of being taken alive? None for those who deserve it anyways.

Civility is why I get punished here while Donald Trump and Republicans and all other right-wingers abuse and oppress me and people like me, and people unlike me, and hell even you. That is the real irony is that Republicans are even oppressing their own, yet their own praise them for the honor to be shat upon by their glorious bigot fascist leader.

It is not civility we should be demanding, but decency, compassion, empathy, and justice. But when 'civility' comes knocking, they want you to put your head down, get in line, while the police out you in local newspapers. Indecent civility is no civility at all.

The Stonewall Riots were not civil, but they were effective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

When gay rights activists were civil, they were ignored. Because civility is a tool of oppression. A quiet problem is no problem at all.

When LGBT people decided enough with civility, cause all it gets us is handcuffs and abuse, then it became loud and proud and...effective. We're here, we're queer, get used to it. No please, no thank you. A bold, uncivil statement of existence that those 'civil and fair' hetero bigots despised for now making them be aware that we exist.

A war, ironically called the 'Civil War' was even less civil than that! A war for the very humanity of a huge chunk of the American population, well, as far as one side was concerned, for the other side, the CONFEDERATES, did not even view Africans as people, but as property, as cattle. What civility is there in that? None. Ironic now that the two sides that opposed each other, the Republicans and the Confederates, are now the same damn side. Though if you look at the sides of the states, you will notice a pattern.

What civility did Hitler show the world? None. Should people have been civil to him? I mean, he was the legal ruler of Germany, and you never dare speak ill of those in power, you must be civil! But Hitler was not civil. He like so many others, dehumanized, reduced. I guess you don't need to be civil to people when you don't view them as people, hm.

Anyways, here is hundreds of instances of Trump being uncivil.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer

Civility is a tool of oppression. Chains meant to keep the oppressed bogged down. 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

Welcome back. *waves*

Now, while I'd not go so far as to say "civility is a tool of oppression", calling for one side to be civil in their speech when the problem is that the other is not being civil in their actions is blatantly, inherently unfair, which is why people keep doing it.

It has become popular recently to use the concept of civility as a rhetorical bludgeon to deflect criticism, avoid answering a question, or to make an opponent look bad. On the internet, we call that trolling. In politics, it apparently gets you elected to the presidency.

I think civility is important, but it only works when both parties are committed to it. It only works when it's done in good faith. When one side is acting in bad faith, there is no point. There is no point clinging to good manners when one side is committed to breaking the Overton window. If you see bullshit, call it bullshit; if you see racism, call it racism. Save polite words for the people who deserve them.

Oh, and - welcome back.

I basically agree. The only risk about being uncivil is that it can affect yourself in unhelpful ways. It makes you less prone to listen to others even when they bring up points you might want to take seriously. However, at this point, we have much bigger problems in the other direction.

Saelune:
(Edit: Using this post as a jumping off point)

Specter Von Baren:
Hhm. So this is the thread that got Saelune suspended. Hopefully this means they'll think about how they've been acting and shape up and be civil again.

"And they called [Obama] a muslim, a terrorist, they insulted his wife, his daughters ...

Only idiots did that. Agressive idiots not even worth engaging.

To you really want to join them too?

I mean you might have noticed that people kind of stopped responding to your post. People with whom you had useful discussions before Trump was elected. You stopped with civility and people started treating your posts as troll posts and flame bait.

Sure, you are frustrated. But giving up civility gives you nothing in return, it only makes you shunned.

Let me that person:
We should not conflate civility when talking to our peers with civility in political action. When you want to affect political change, when you need the people in power to pay attention, civility can go some way, but someone is going to have to be the blunt asshole that spells it out (the Malcolm X to MLK, the Greenpeace to the WWF, the RadFems to the LibFems etc.). It is in the crossroads where civility and diplomacy meets brashness and bluntness that change is affected (in so far as other people agree with you, anyway). I'm a believer in civil disobedience as a tool for change.

That however, should not be conflated with civility when in an informal setting, where change can not reasonably be affected. When talking to people that just have a different opinion, you should always be civil. Doesn't matter how right you think you are, or how wrong you think they are, because the moment you stop being civil in a casual discussion is the moment you make yourself and your position look bad. In the informal or casual discussion civility is what makes it possible to exchange ideas. You might think you're right, but calling the other person names, ridiculing their position or refusing to engage their arguments cheapens the entire discussion. It isn't some brave political stance or act of civil disobedience, it is just you being an asshole because you think you have the morally superior stance and it is unbecoming as fuck for anyone.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
(Edit: Using this post as a jumping off point)

Specter Von Baren:
Hhm. So this is the thread that got Saelune suspended. Hopefully this means they'll think about how they've been acting and shape up and be civil again.

"And they called [Obama] a muslim, a terrorist, they insulted his wife, his daughters ...

Only idiots did that. Agressive idiots not even worth engaging.

To you really want to join them too?

I mean you might have noticed that people kind of stopped responding to your post. People with whom you had useful discussions before Trump was elected. You stopped with civility and people started treating your posts as troll posts and flame bait.

Sure, you are frustrated. But giving up civility gives you nothing in return, it only makes you shunned.

Maybe don't make this claim after 3 people just basically agreed with me.

Citation needed.

Let's just see how this thread goes and people really agree with your new, agressive stance.

Satinavian:
Let's just see how this thread goes and people really agree with your new, agressive stance.

Not a new stance, just fed up with not having us directly address the problem. My problem with civility started atleast when Hillary was chastised for her 'deplorable' comment, despite Trump saying way worse things all the time.

The big issue here, as it is with all issues with the right-wing, is the BLATANT hypocrisy.

Also apparently opposing Nazis, slavery and police brutality is an aggressive stance.

Saelune:
Also apparently opposing Nazis, slavery and police brutality is an aggressive stance.

Didn't you do those things already before last election ? Just in a civil manner ?

Satinavian:

Saelune:
Also apparently opposing Nazis, slavery and police brutality is an aggressive stance.

Didn't you do those things already before last election ? Just in a civil manner ?

That was when I thought we all agreed that Nazis were bad. Apparently, we don't.

Hi Saelune, welcome back. Nice to have you around again.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with bastardofmelbourne. Civility is not inherently bad. Minding your manners, showing courtesy and being respectful of others is a good idea, at least on paper. But it needs to come from both sides. An uncivil asshole cannot reasonably expect civility in return, expecially not when they're trying to subvert it into a tool to silence.

Pseudonym:
I basically agree. The only risk about being uncivil is that it can affect yourself in unhelpful ways. It makes you less prone to listen to others even when they bring up points you might want to take seriously. However, at this point, we have much bigger problems in the other direction.

Actually the big problem in being uncivil is the people that aren't invested one way or another might see you as extreme and join the side against you just to be reactionary. We see that with the dipshit youtube skeptic community who is more than happy to platform a nazi if they dress nice and talk nice while making endless videos to insult to some mythical bluehaired feminist who they like to blame for all the worlds problems.

Idea. If you're going to discard civility, have more cards in your hand than just screaming the same four or five stock insults over and over again. Otherwise you're just making yourself feel better.

If civility isn't enforced universally by a sovereign party it just becomes a handicap for whoever's stupid enough to submit to it. If you're acting civil towards someone who doesn't respect you, he's gonna recognize it as a weakness on your side that he can exploit. And rightfully so, for that matter.

Welcome back, Saelune! We missed you.

At this point, the only use for "civility" is to convince centrists you aren't the bad guy. For them, extremist ideas presented in a calm and collected manner are more convincing than more moderate but uncomfortable sounding ones.

Satinavian:

Only idiots did that. Agressive idiots not even worth engaging.

Including the current President. Unfortunately that's an idiot that high officials, nation leaders and other high profile figure with international influence must engage with. If giving up that civility gave him such results, why not to do the same and once on power use it for the well-being of everyone? (instead of for making enemies miserable like the way Trump is doing it)

The problem is there doesn't seem to be a spectrum, just 0 and 10000% RAGE!
As if someone can't disagree with you on X, but agree with you on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc...and still be considered 'a good one'

Here in MO I did not agree with Claire McCaskill's view on pot reform, but she's a democrat who opposes Trump. Does that make me a NAZI AAAAAA! That's the problem with your absolutist approach to politics, that if someone doesn't agree with 1000000000% of everything you do, there's literally LITERALLY a NAZI TERRORIST CONFEDERATE RAPIST KILLER OF PUPPIES!

You and I may disagree on if a .01% sales tax increase here in Missouri should go to fund the new Zoo breeding center, or to repair roads down interstate 70. Which one is the NAZI position?

Silentpony:
Does that make me a NAZI

I'm really tired of that meme. Easiest way to not be a Nazi: don't support white supremasists (and preferable don't be one, not even ironically). No matter how sweet the deal sounds like, white supremacy should be a deal breaker for anyone but white supremacists.

People like Betsy DeVos don't deserve to have nice, uninterrupted dinners in fancy restaurants.

Silentpony:
You and I may disagree on if a .01% sales tax increase here in Missouri should go to fund the new Zoo breeding center, or to repair roads down interstate 70. Which one is the NAZI position?

Neither? And it's beyond disingenuous to suggest so? Maybe the Nazi positions are the ones that attack a person's right to exist? Maybe policy changes that have gratuitous and measurable body counts are different from a typical decision about when to repair a road?

Seanchaidh:
People like Betsy DeVos don't deserve to have nice, uninterrupted dinners in fancy restaurants.

Silentpony:
You and I may disagree on if a .01% sales tax increase here in Missouri should go to fund the new Zoo breeding center, or to repair roads down interstate 70. Which one is the NAZI position?

Neither? And it's beyond disingenuous to suggest so? Maybe the Nazi positions are the ones that attack a person's right to exist? Maybe policy changes that have gratuitous and measurable body counts are different from a typical decision about when to repair a road?

My point is that Saelune has made it clear multiple times that disagreeing with her or having a different position is a vote for Trump, therefore Nazi.
So logically whatever position she takes, the opposite HAS to be the Nazi point of view. No subtlety, no in-between, no room for disagreement, just black vs white. One or Nazi.

Silentpony:

Seanchaidh:
People like Betsy DeVos don't deserve to have nice, uninterrupted dinners in fancy restaurants.

Silentpony:
You and I may disagree on if a .01% sales tax increase here in Missouri should go to fund the new Zoo breeding center, or to repair roads down interstate 70. Which one is the NAZI position?

Neither? And it's beyond disingenuous to suggest so? Maybe the Nazi positions are the ones that attack a person's right to exist? Maybe policy changes that have gratuitous and measurable body counts are different from a typical decision about when to repair a road?

My point is that Saelune has made it clear multiple times that disagreeing with her or having a different position is a vote for Trump, therefore Nazi.
So logically whatever position she takes, the opposite HAS to be the Nazi point of view. No subtlety, no in-between, no room for disagreement, just black vs white. One or Nazi.

You're believing the twisted BS of right-wingers here, Pony.

I disagree with all Nazis. So if someone is a Nazi, then I inherently disagree with them. You're getting the cause and effect in the wrong order.

I don't think Dr.Thrax, Seanchaidh, you, or erttheking are Nazis, and we all definitely disagree on some big things.

Here's the thing: we can discard civility but keep intelectual honesty and a sense of focus and perspective.

Calling everyone right of center Nazi, no matter how hard you disagree with them, is no different than the right nutsos calling everything left of Reagan commie. Both are bad-faith arguments.

You are correct in that civility is often misused as a shield from criticism, but your particular brand of criticism is stock insults and "no u's" that would honestly make no dent even if that shield wasn't there.
Let me give you an example: confederate statues. When the opposition that doesn't want to take down the statues says it wants to remember the "southern way of life" and the revolution was about "state's rights", civility would be to take the arguments at face value and argue with them about those points, a proper lack of civility would be to claim that the "southern way of life" was completely and economically founded on slavery and the state's rights were mostly about sustaining slavery, pointing out the Confederate government was a lot more centralized than the Union and as such suppressed individual state's rights, or asking hard questions that pierce the argument like "provide me examples of what state's rights were being infringed outside slavery, and explain why is the state's rights to own slaves more important than the right of humans to be free, and more important why does the US even have a federal government if it has no power to enforce basic human rights laws that most of the rest of the world came around to?".

Lack of argumentative civility is penetrating the argument itself and arguing the core premise behind it. It's assuming the argument itself is a smokescreen and refusing to let "proper argumentation" be used as a weapon for falseflag ideals to spread, and more importantly not being afraid to make a person look like a jackass or ignorant. Lack of argumentative civility is assuming the person is arguing on bad faith and acting accordingly, dismantling arguments instead of engaging with them. "No, we are not having an argument about states' rights no matter how bad you want to, we're having an argument about why states' righs are used to defend slavery and other affronts to basic human dignity".

The useless, self-indulging and ultimately self-harming version of lack of argumentative civility is to do all this but in an overtly simplified manner and spraying every sentence with accusations and insults that take away the focus from the argument to the attack. It's an immediate signalling that you hate the person and can't argue without insulting them. That perhaps your arguments aren't being presented from a logical standpoint, but from an emotional standpoint. And at that point, you lost.

You lost because while your opponent has never claimed they were presenting factual statements, and mostly sustain their arguments on emotions, anecdotal evidence and ideias (no matter how many stats you present to a right winger, the news that an immigrant commited a heinous crime, no matter the fact the average commits less than natural born citizens, will always be grounds for the deportation argument and tighter border control), you claim to sustain your arguments in facts. Self-evident truths. If you present an image of an overtly emotional petulant child who always drags their pet issue into ANY conversation regardless of context and can't talk with people they disagree (and even some they agree with) without going on a tirade of insults, then you get dragged down to their level, and they beat you with experience.

And that's the beauty of the Republican strategy, or most alt-right strategies in general. They bait you into coming down to the mudpit with them and therefore put you technically in the same level as them. Their strategies become validated. Their insults and shitflinging the norm. The death of the euphemism arrives, and with it President Trump, the syndrome of the infectious disease brewing for decades, has a clear shot at the Presidency and takes it.

Lack of civility is not what you do, Saelune. Lack of civility is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did, lack of civility is what Bernie Sanders did, lack of civility was what Jonh Oliver does every week when he publicly embarrasses whomever the person/institution/organization he's talking about (my opinions on the Drumpf fiasco aside). You're just rude and insulting to those who disagree with you. From what I've seen in this forum, you let people like bastardofmelbourne, erttheking, ObsidianJones and many others argue for you while you auto-delegate the task of insulting whomever is arguing on a topic you disagree. What people like ert do is lack of civility. You're just a bully that happens to be on (what I think is) the right side of history.

Civility is nice when you can have it but not some form of greater ideal like freedom so I can see it sometimes needing to be sacrificed. I just don't think that your goal of achieving such a superior ideal is always best accomplished through the sacrifice of civility. I think being uncivil mainly just feels really good, so people who do it sometimes tend not to have such a higher consideration in mind but rather just act in a way that pleases themselves by extolling their notion of virtue and behavior in a "good" manner.

Basically, I won't shed a tear for some wealthy person's dinner being disturbed cause they can just reserve the whole restaurant and bar anyone from entry and eat in peace without breaking a sweat, but I also don't see the screaming apes surrounding people or their houses as anything superior to that. They're definitely not in any way virtuous or fighting for justice or any other lofty goal. They're just finding self-satisfaction in the task of being uncivil against someone who they think it is socially acceptable to be uncivil towards, with no regard as to whether or not their behavior will benefit society in any way whatsoever.

I believe that acts of uncivil behavior give license to the other side's incivility and cloak them with the mantle of self-defense. So now when the next guy is met with the screeching horde, the risk of them escalating the situation into outright violence will be that much higher, which will only cause a chain reaction of escalation until we have literal civil war out in the streets with gangs of people beating each-other if not outright shooting at each-other.

Not a very smart way of achieving anything really, outside of short term personal satisfaction and long term mayhem, anyhow.

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:
Does that make me a NAZI

I'm really tired of that meme. Easiest way to not be a Nazi: don't support white supremasists (and preferable don't be one, not even ironically). No matter how sweet the deal sounds like, white supremacy should be a deal breaker for anyone but white supremacists.

If only that was the only definition. Yet people on this very forum have declared Milo, Ben Shapiro, Mark Meechan or anyone supporting ICE as goose-stepping Nazis.

JamesStone:

Lack of civility is not what you do, Saelune. Lack of civility is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did, lack of civility is what Bernie Sanders did, lack of civility was what Jonh Oliver does every week when he publicly embarrasses whomever the person/institution/organization he's talking about (my opinions on the Drumpf fiasco aside). You're just rude and insulting to those who disagree with you. From what I've seen in this forum, you let people like bastardofmelbourne, erttheking, ObsidianJones and many others argue for you while you auto-delegate the task of insulting whomever is arguing on a topic you disagree. What people like ert do is lack of civility. You're just a bully that happens to be on (what I think is) the right side of history.

Nah, they just translate my anger into more digestible chunks for those with weaker stomachs, and I am grateful for that.

I have no reason to be nice to people who think I don't deserve the right to exist. That is what people like you do not understand. That is what people like them do understand.

You and others want to overgeneralize White Supremacy, homophobia, sexism, etc as 'just a disagreement'. The shit I am so aggressive against is the kind of stuff that caused the Civil War and WW2.

ex951753:

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:
Does that make me a NAZI

I'm really tired of that meme. Easiest way to not be a Nazi: don't support white supremasists (and preferable don't be one, not even ironically). No matter how sweet the deal sounds like, white supremacy should be a deal breaker for anyone but white supremacists.

If only that was the only definition. Yet people on this very forum have declared Milo, Ben Shapiro, Mark Meechan or anyone supporting ICE as goose-stepping Nazis.

Because they are.
image

Saelune:

Silentpony:

Seanchaidh:
People like Betsy DeVos don't deserve to have nice, uninterrupted dinners in fancy restaurants.

Neither? And it's beyond disingenuous to suggest so? Maybe the Nazi positions are the ones that attack a person's right to exist? Maybe policy changes that have gratuitous and measurable body counts are different from a typical decision about when to repair a road?

My point is that Saelune has made it clear multiple times that disagreeing with her or having a different position is a vote for Trump, therefore Nazi.
So logically whatever position she takes, the opposite HAS to be the Nazi point of view. No subtlety, no in-between, no room for disagreement, just black vs white. One or Nazi.

You're believing the twisted BS of right-wingers here, Pony.

I disagree with all Nazis. So if someone is a Nazi, then I inherently disagree with them. You're getting the cause and effect in the wrong order.

I don't think Dr.Thrax, Seanchaidh, you, or erttheking are Nazis, and we all definitely disagree on some big things.

Well good 'cause I'm not a Nazi, and I hate Trump and his entire administration.

JamesStone:

Calling everyone right of center Nazi, no matter how hard you disagree with them

Call me an SJW if you want, but that's not what usually happens. We can't have intelectual honesty if we don't discard that myth first.

Gethsemani:
Let me that person:
We should not conflate civility when talking to our peers with civility in political action. When you want to affect political change, when you need the people in power to pay attention, civility can go some way, but someone is going to have to be the blunt asshole that spells it out (the Malcolm X to MLK, the Greenpeace to the WWF, the RadFems to the LibFems etc.). It is in the crossroads where civility and diplomacy meets brashness and bluntness that change is affected (in so far as other people agree with you, anyway). I'm a believer in civil disobedience as a tool for change.

That however, should not be conflated with civility when in an informal setting, where change can not reasonably be affected. When talking to people that just have a different opinion, you should always be civil. Doesn't matter how right you think you are, or how wrong you think they are, because the moment you stop being civil in a casual discussion is the moment you make yourself and your position look bad. In the informal or casual discussion civility is what makes it possible to exchange ideas. You might think you're right, but calling the other person names, ridiculing their position or refusing to engage their arguments cheapens the entire discussion. It isn't some brave political stance or act of civil disobedience, it is just you being an asshole because you think you have the morally superior stance and it is unbecoming as fuck for anyone.

^This. There's something to gain from explaining anger versus simply wielding it like a weapon.

I'm reminded of the story of Daryl Davis, a black blues musician who, starting in the '80s, made it a life's effort to understand the hatred of the Ku Klux Klan. In doing so, he has managed to befriend hundreds of Klan members who subsequently left the Klan gifting their robes to Davis as a sign of their commitment to their new lives free of blind hatred. The question on Davis mind that has been put to this people was simply "why do you hate me when you don't even know me?" It opened up discussion, understanding and clarity between polar opposite sides of a very volatile issue, and it started with civility and listening, not red-faced, frothy-mouthed shouting and disrespect.

Saelune, you've every right to be upset (you're not alone there,) but any change, be it tomorrow, next year or fifty years from now, can only be affected through civility. As incensed as you are by the current political/ideological climate, could you ever find yourself persuaded to understanding of opposing views if vitriol and personal attacks were the only way they were expressed? Is it reasonable to expect any different those who champion the banner of those views? There are reasonable people on both sides of the issues most important to you; appealing to that reason will bridge many more gaps than hurling anger at their defenses.

JamesStone:
Calling everyone right of center Nazi, no matter how hard you disagree with them, is no different than the right nutsos calling everything left of Reagan commie. Both are bad-faith arguments.

Depends on where you think the "center" is, really. If you think Tucker Carlson is anywhere near "moderate", then "right of center" = Nazi. And frankly, the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States is not typically regarded as, well, a moral black hole, but when you combine it with global capitalism it kind of... is.

Xprimentyl:

Saelune, you?ve every right to be upset (you?re not alone there,) but any change, be it tomorrow, next year or fifty years from now, can only be affected through civility. As incensed as you are by the current political/ideological climate, could you ever find yourself persuaded to understanding of opposing views if vitriol and personal attacks were the only way they were expressed? Is it reasonable to expect any different those who champion the banner of those views? There are reasonable people on both sides of the issues most important to you; appealing to that reason will bridge many more gaps than hurling anger at their defenses.

Hitler wasn't stopped by civility. The Confederates weren't stopped by civility. King George wasn't stopped by civility. Most equal rights movements were started by either being uncivil, or enduring straight up physical abuse by cops and bigots.

Civility doesn't win anything but submission to tyrants.

And there are no good people on the side of White Supremacists. Not a single one.

Side A: Kill all black people!

Side B: Kill no black people!

Side C: Now now, lets be civil here, lets kill SOME black people!

Side B: Uh...no. That is racist.

Side A: See how uncivil and unwilling to compromise they are!

No person can support Donald Trump and be agreeable. None. Any 'reasonable right-winger' opposes Trump. Merely stating a fact will get Trump to hate on you, as Paul Ryan has learned, and I fucking hate Paul Ryan, but all he did was make a factual statement and Trump has thrown him under the bus.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1057674390446448642

Saelune:

JamesStone:

Lack of civility is not what you do, Saelune. Lack of civility is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did, lack of civility is what Bernie Sanders did, lack of civility was what Jonh Oliver does every week when he publicly embarrasses whomever the person/institution/organization he's talking about (my opinions on the Drumpf fiasco aside). You're just rude and insulting to those who disagree with you. From what I've seen in this forum, you let people like bastardofmelbourne, erttheking, ObsidianJones and many others argue for you while you auto-delegate the task of insulting whomever is arguing on a topic you disagree. What people like ert do is lack of civility. You're just a bully that happens to be on (what I think is) the right side of history.

Nah, they just translate my anger into more digestible chunks for those with weaker stomachs, and I am grateful for that.

I have no reason to be nice to people who think I don't deserve the right to exist. That is what people like you do not understand. That is what people like them do understand.

You and others want to overgeneralize White Supremacy, homophobia, sexism, etc as 'just a disagreement'. The shit I am so aggressive against is the kind of stuff that caused the Civil War and WW2.

Funny, since I'm also in the kill list of actual Nazis and Neonazis by virtue of my birth. As always, nice assumptions you got there Saelune.

I'm not generalizing homophobia, White Supremacy and sexism. I just understand there are ways to deal with the issue that cause the issue to be dealt with, and ways that cause the issue to spread. And on that note Saelune, you're one of the best allies the right wingers could have.

Seanchaidh:

JamesStone:
Calling everyone right of center Nazi, no matter how hard you disagree with them, is no different than the right nutsos calling everything left of Reagan commie. Both are bad-faith arguments.

Depends on where you think the "center" is, really. If you think Tucker Carlson is anywhere near "moderate", then "right of center" = Nazi. And frankly, the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States is not typically regarded as, well, a moral black hole, but when you combine it with global capitalism it kind of... is.

I've said time and time again the American Left is the Center on other countries, and their Right goes from hard right to alt right. I don't think the Fox Brigade and the like are anywhere near the center, nor are they owned civility. However we must understand that they have sway over a vast portion of the population, and their topics must be engaged and destroyed with proper argumentation (and lack of civility), not just tossing insults over them. Otherwise you're just letting the wound fester.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here